# The Brothers Karamazov, Fortune Smiles on Mitya

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c4. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c4.json.


Случилось это вовсе нечаянно даже для самого Алеши.  
It happened quite unexpectedly, even for Alyosha himself.
> Inversion and the perfective of a single event: «Случилось» (perfective past of «случиться», to happen) reports the event as one completed whole — the chapter's opening pivot. Putting the verb first, before the subject «это», is rhetorical inversion: the happening is the news, «это» trails as the topic, a typical narrative opener.
> «сам» as intensifier: 'even for Alyosha himself': «самого» is the intensive pronoun «сам» (himself), agreeing in case with «Алеши» after the preposition «для» (+ genitive). It singles Alyosha out — the surprise reached even him, the one who knew his brother best.

Он вызван был без присяги, и я помню, что к нему все стороны отнеслись с самых первых слов допроса чрезвычайно мягко и симпатично.  
He was called without being sworn in, and I remember that, from the very first words of his questioning, all parties treated him with extraordinary gentleness and sympathy.
> Short passive participle: 'he was called': «вызван» is the short-form past passive participle of «вызвать» (to summon), joined to «был» to make a periphrastic passive — 'he was summoned'. The short form is predicative only and states a result; note the bookish inversion «вызван был» rather than «был вызван».
> «отнестись к» + dative: to treat / regard someone: The reflexive perfective «отнестись» governs «к нему» (to him, dative) and means 'to treat, take an attitude toward'. The adverbs «мягко и симпатично» (gently and sympathetically) describe that attitude; «все стороны» (all parties) is the courtroom's two sides.

Видно было, что ему предшествовала добрая слава.  
One could see that a good reputation had preceded him.
> Verb governing the dative: 'preceded him': «предшествовать» (to precede) takes its object in the dative, so «ему» (to/before him) is dative, not accusative. The real subject is «добрая слава» (a good reputation), held back to the end for emphasis — it is the new information.
> Impersonal «видно было»: 'one could see that': «Видно было» is a subjectless construction — the invariable predicative «видно» (visible, evident) plus neuter «было» — opening a «что»-clause. There is no 'one' or 'it' in the Russian; the impression simply stands on its own.

Алеша показывал скромно и сдержанно, но в показаниях его явно прорывалась горячая симпатия к несчастному брату.  
Alyosha gave his evidence modestly and with restraint, yet through his testimony there plainly broke a fervent sympathy for his unhappy brother.
> Imperfective «показывал» for the unfolding testimony: «показывал» is imperfective past — Alyosha 'was giving evidence' as an ongoing process, the manner («скромно и сдержанно», modestly and with restraint) painted across its whole duration. Note «показывать» here is the legal sense, 'to testify, depose'.
> Reflexive «прорываться»: the feeling 'broke through' on its own: The -ся verb «прорываться» (to break through, burst out) is a middle/intransitive: the sympathy breaks through of itself, with no agent. The reflexive turns an act into something that happens to the speaker despite his restraint — exactly the effect Dostoevsky wants.
> «несчастный» — unhappy, ill-starred: «несчастный» (un-happy, un-lucky) recurs as the narrator's standing epithet for Mitya: not merely sad but doomed, an object of pity. It marks the warm, partisan tone the whole courtroom takes toward him.

Отвечая по одному вопросу, он очертил характер брата как человека, может быть и неистового, и увлеченного страстями, но тоже и благородного, гордого и великодушного, готового даже на жертву, если б от него потребовали.  
In answer to one question, he sketched his brother's character as that of a man who might indeed be violent and carried away by his passions, but who was also noble, proud, and magnanimous, ready even for sacrifice should it be demanded of him.
> Gerund «отвечая»: 'while answering': «Отвечая» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «отвечать» — a verb-adverb meaning 'answering / while answering', sharing Alyosha's subject with the main verb «очертил». It compactly sets the scene of the action that frames the sketch he draws.
> «как» + accusative: characterizing 'as a man': «очертил… как человека» — 'sketched his character as that of a man'. The chain of modifiers «неистового, и увлеченного страстями, но тоже и благородного, гордого и великодушного» all stands in the genitive/accusative agreeing with animate «человека», a long balanced portrait built by agreement.
> Conditional «бы» with an impersonal 'they': «если б… потребовали» is the irrealis: «если бы» plus the past-form verb (here contracted «б») gives a hypothetical — 'if it should be demanded'. The subjectless plural «потребовали» ('they demanded') is Russian's way of saying 'if one demanded / if it were demanded of him'.

Сознавался, впрочем, что брат был в последние дни, из-за страсти к Грушеньке, из-за соперничества с отцом, в положении невыносимом.  
He admitted, however, that in those last days his brother had been in an unbearable position, because of his passion for Grushenka and his rivalry with their father.
> Dropped subject and imperfective «сознавался»: The sentence opens with no pronoun — «он» (Alyosha) is understood from context and the verb's gendered «-ся» ending. «сознавался» (imperfective, 'he kept admitting / went on to admit') reports the concession as part of his unfolding testimony; «впрочем» is the soft hinge 'however, that said'.
> «из-за» + genitive: 'because of': The compound preposition «из-за» governs the genitive and means 'because of, owing to' (often with a tinge of blame). Both «страсти к Грушеньке» (passion for Grushenka) and «соперничества с отцом» (rivalry with the father) are causes piled up to explain Mitya's «невыносимое положение».

Но он с негодованием отверг даже предположение о том, что брат мог убить с целью грабежа, хотя и сознался, что эти три тысячи обратились в уме Мити в какую-то почти манию, что он считал их за недоданное ему, обманом отца, наследство и что, будучи вовсе некорыстолюбивым, даже не мог заговорить об этих трех тысячах без исступления и бешенства.  
But he rejected with indignation even the supposition that his brother could have killed for the sake of robbery, though he did acknowledge that those three thousand had turned in Mitya's mind into something close to a mania, that he regarded them as an inheritance withheld from him, cheated out of him by his father, and that, being entirely free of greed, he could not so much as speak of those three thousand without frenzy and rage.
> «с целью» + genitive: 'for the purpose of': «с целью грабежа» — 'with the aim of robbery', a fixed phrase where «целью» is instrumental and «грабежа» genitive ('the aim of robbery'). It is the legal heart of the charge Alyosha indignantly rejects: murder committed for the sake of theft.
> «обратиться в» + accusative: 'turn into': «обратиться в» (to turn into, become) takes «в» + accusative for the result: the three thousand 'turned into a kind of mania'. The indefinite «какую-то» («-то» marks a specific but un-pinned-down thing) gives the vagueness of 'something like a mania'.
> Gerund of «быть» + instrumental predicate: «будучи» is the (rare) present gerund of «быть», 'being'; its predicate adjective «некорыстолюбивым» (free of greed) stands in the instrumental, as predicates of «быть» regularly do. The whole gerund phrase concedes a circumstance: 'being entirely without greed, he nevertheless…'.
> «недоданный» — under-given, short-changed: The participle «недоданный» (from «недодать», to give short, hand over less than due) frames the inheritance as one 'not given in full' — withheld by «обманом отца» (by the father's deceit). The «недо-» prefix ('not enough') captures Mitya's grievance precisely: he was paid, but cheated of the rest.
> «исступление» / «бешенство» — frenzy and rage: Two strong, bookish nouns for loss of self-control: «исступление» is ecstatic frenzy, being 'beside oneself'; «бешенство» (from «бешеный», rabid) is fury, literally the madness of a rabid animal. Together they show how the topic of the money unhinges Mitya.

Про соперничество же двух «особ», как выразился прокурор, то есть Грушеньки и Кати, отвечал уклончиво и даже на один или два вопроса совсем не пожелал отвечать.  
As for the rivalry between the two "persons," as the prosecutor put it — that is, between Grushenka and Katya — he answered evasively, and to one or two questions he declined to answer at all.
> «про» + accusative and the particle «же»: «Про» + accusative means 'about, concerning' (a shade more colloquial than «о» + prepositional). The particle «же», leaning on the fronted topic, marks a shift — 'now as for the rivalry…' — setting this matter off against the previous testimony.
> «особа» — a 'person', here in delicate quotation marks: «особа» is a slightly formal, distancing word for a person (often a woman of some standing). The prosecutor's «как выразился прокурор» and the quotation marks signal the genteel euphemism he chose to avoid naming Grushenka and Katya outright in court.
> «не пожелал» — perfective refusal: «пожелал» (perfective of «желать») negated gives a decisive, completed refusal: 'he flatly declined to answer'. «совсем не» reinforces it ('not at all'), and the perfective marks the act of declining as a single, firm decision rather than a process.

— Говорил ли вам по крайней мере брат ваш, что намерен убить своего отца? — спросил прокурор.  
"Did your brother, at least, ever tell you that he intended to kill his father?" the prosecutor asked.
> Yes/no question with the particle «ли»: «Говорил ли…» is the literary yes/no question: the focused verb is fronted and followed by the enclitic «ли» ('did… ?'). More formal than mere intonation, it suits the prosecutor's careful courtroom register.
> Short adjective «намерен» + infinitive: 'intending to': «намерен» is a short-form predicate adjective meaning 'intends, is minded to', completed by the perfective infinitive «убить» (to kill). Short forms like this are bookish and predicative only — 'that he intended to kill his father'.

— Вы можете не отвечать, если найдете это нужным, — прибавил он.  
"You may decline to answer, if you find it necessary," he added.
> Negated infinitive: permission not to do: «можете не отвечать» — 'you may refrain from answering'. Russian negates the infinitive «не отвечать» under «мочь» to grant the freedom not to act, as against «не можете отвечать» ('you cannot answer'). The «не» attaches to the infinitive, not to the modal.
> «найти» + accusative + instrumental: 'find it necessary': «найдете это нужным» — 'should you find this necessary'. «найти» here means 'to deem'; «это» is the accusative object and «нужным» the predicate adjective in the instrumental, the case Russian uses for what something is deemed to be.

— Прямо не говорил, — ответил Алеша.  
"He did not say so directly," Alyosha answered.
> Fronted adverb and dropped subject: The reply drops «он» entirely and fronts «прямо» (directly) for contrast: 'He did not say so directly.' Placing «прямо» first sets up the prosecutor's coming «косвенно?» ('by implication?') — the answer's whole point is the word 'directly'.

— Как же?  
"How, then?
> «же» sharpening a question: «Как же?» is 'How, then? / How so?' — the modal particle «же» presses the question, demanding the missing detail. These tiny insistent particles give Dostoevsky's clipped courtroom exchanges their living texture.

Косвенно?  
By implication?"
> «косвенно» — indirectly, by implication: «косвенно» (from «косвенный», oblique, indirect) is the legal/logical opposite of «прямо» (directly): the prosecutor asks whether the threat came by indirection. The same root gives «косвенные улики», 'circumstantial evidence'.

— Он говорил мне раз о своей личной ненависти к отцу и что боится, что… в крайнюю минуту… в минуту омерзения… может быть, и мог бы убить его.  
"He once spoke to me of his personal hatred for our father, and said that he was afraid that… at an extreme moment… at a moment of revulsion… he might perhaps even be capable of killing him."
> Conditional «мог бы»: 'might be capable of killing': «мог бы убить» is the irrealis — past-form «мог» plus «бы» — softened further by «может быть» (perhaps): 'he might perhaps even be capable of killing him'. The «бы» frames the killing as a feared possibility, not a stated intent.
> Reflexive «бояться» + «что»-clause: «боится» is from «бояться», one of the verbs that exist only in the -ся form. Here it opens a «что»-clause of feared content ('he was afraid that…'). The broken ellipses «в крайнюю минуту… в минуту омерзения…» mimic Alyosha's halting recall.

— И вы, услышав, поверили тому?  
"And, hearing this, did you believe it?"
> Perfective gerund «услышав»: 'having heard': «услышав» is the perfective past gerund of «услышать» — 'having heard, on hearing' — marking an action completed just before the main verb «поверили» (you believed). Set off by commas inside the clause, it compresses 'when you had heard this' into a single word.

— Боюсь сказать, что поверил.  
"I am afraid to say that I did believe it.
> Dropped «я» and «бояться» + infinitive: Both «Боюсь» and «поверил» drop the pronoun «я», recoverable from the endings. «Боюсь сказать» ('I am afraid to say') takes a bare infinitive; the perfective «поверил» states the completed fact he is ashamed to admit — that he did believe it.

Но я всегда был убежден, что некоторое высшее чувство всегда спасет его в роковую минуту, как и спасло в самом деле, потому что ''не он'' убил отца моего, — твердо закончил Алеша громким голосом и на всю залу.  
But I was always convinced that some higher feeling would always save him at the fatal moment, as in fact it did save him — because it was ''not he'' who killed my father," Alyosha concluded firmly, in a loud voice that carried across the whole hall.
> Perfective future then perfective past of «спасти»: «спасет» is the simple (perfective) future — 'would save him' (here as reported thought); «спасло» is the same verb's neuter past, agreeing with the neuter subject «чувство» (feeling): 'as in fact it did save him'. The pair turns conviction into fulfilled fact.
> Emphasis by word order and italics: Russian has no fixed subject position, so placing «не он» (not he) before the verb «убил» (killed) throws all the weight onto «он» — it was not HE who killed. Dostoevsky italicises «не он» to make the stress visible on the page, which is why we set it off as ''not he'' here.

Прокурор вздрогнул, как боевой конь, заслышавший трубный сигнал.  
The prosecutor started, like a warhorse that has caught the call of the trumpet.
> Past active participle: 'who has caught': «заслышавший» is the past active participle of «заслышать» (to catch the sound of), agreeing with «конь» (horse): 'a warhorse that has caught the trumpet-call'. The participle packs a whole «который»-clause into one bookish modifier — a hallmark of literary narration.
> The warhorse simile: «вздрогнул» (gave a start, perfective) plus the simile of «боевой конь» (warhorse) hearing the «трубный сигнал» (trumpet call) casts the prosecutor as a charger scenting battle — Alyosha's bold «не он!» is the bugle that rouses him. The image echoes Job 39:25, 'he saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha'.

— Будьте уверены, что я совершенно верю самой полной искренности убеждения вашего, не обусловливая и не ассимилируя его нисколько с любовью к вашему несчастному брату.  
"Be assured that I fully believe in the entire sincerity of your conviction, without in the least making it conditional upon, or assimilating it to, your love for your unhappy brother.
> Polite imperative «будьте» + short adjective: «Будьте уверены» — 'rest assured' — is the polite/plural imperative of «быть» plus the short predicate adjective «уверены» (certain). The short form fits its predicative role, and «-те» marks the formal address suited to the prosecutor's measured courtesy.
> Paired imperfective gerunds: 'without making conditional… or assimilating': Two negated present gerunds, «обусловливая» and «ассимилируя», run in parallel — 'not making it conditional upon and not assimilating it'. The bookish Latinate verbs and the gerund chain mark the prosecutor's overwrought legal eloquence.

Своеобразный взгляд ваш на весь трагический эпизод, разыгравшийся в вашем семействе, уже известен нам по предварительному следствию.  
Your singular view of the whole tragic episode that played out within your family is already known to us from the preliminary investigation.
> Past active participle of a -ся verb: «разыгравшийся» is the past active participle of the reflexive «разыграться» (to play out, unfold), agreeing with «эпизод»: 'the episode that played out'. The -ся survives inside the participle, and the whole phrase replaces a «который»-clause.

Не скрою от вас, что он в высшей степени особлив и противоречит всем прочим показаниям, полученным прокуратурою.  
I will not conceal from you that it is in the highest degree peculiar and contradicts all the other testimony obtained by the prosecution.
> Short adjective «особлив»: 'is peculiar': «особлив» is the short predicative form of the archaic/bookish «особливый» (singular, peculiar) — paired with «противоречит» as predicates of the testimony. «в высшей степени» ('in the highest degree') is a fixed superlative intensifier.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «полученным» is the past passive participle of «получить» (to obtain), agreeing with dative «показаниям»: 'testimony obtained'. Its agent «прокуратурою» (by the prosecution) stands in the instrumental — and «-ою» is the older, literary instrumental ending for «-ой».

А потому и нахожу нужным спросить вас уже с настойчивостью: какие именно данные руководили мысль вашу и направили ее на окончательное убеждение в невинности брата вашего и, напротив, в виновности другого лица, на которого вы уже указали прямо на предварительном следствии?  
And so I find it necessary to ask you, now with some insistence: what precisely were the grounds that guided your thinking and directed it toward a final conviction of your brother's innocence and, on the contrary, of the guilt of another person, whom you already named outright at the preliminary investigation?"
> Contrastive «а» + «потому» + dropped «я»: «А потому» — 'and so, therefore' — opens with the soft contrastive «а», hinging to the consequence. «нахожу нужным спросить» drops «я» and means 'I find it necessary to ask', with «нужным» in the instrumental as the thing deemed.
> Relative «который» taking its own case: In «лица, на которого вы… указали», «который» agrees with its antecedent «лица» (person) in gender/number but takes the case its own clause demands — here «на» + accusative for «указать на» (to point at). A textbook example of how «который» splits agreement from case.
> «руководить» + accusative (archaic government): In modern Russian «руководить» governs the instrumental, but the prosecutor's bookish style takes a direct accusative «мысль вашу» ('guided your thought'). Paired with «направили её» (directed it), the two verbs render the elevated, slightly old-fashioned legalese of the period.

— На предварительном следствии я отвечал лишь на вопросы, — тихо и спокойно проговорил Алеша, — а не шел сам с обвинением на Смердякова.  
"At the preliminary investigation I only answered the questions put to me," Alyosha said quietly and calmly, "I did not come forward of my own accord with an accusation against Smerdyakov."
> Contrastive «а» and imperfective «шел»: «а не шел сам с обвинением» sets the two halves against each other with «а» (whereas): 'I only answered — I did not come forward myself with an accusation'. «шел» is the imperfective unidirectional motion verb «идти», used figuratively, 'did not go forth / volunteer'.
> Perfective «проговорил» framing dialogue: «проговорил» (perfective of «проговорить», 'to utter, say') is the narrator's verb for completing a single speech, set between the quoted halves. The fronted adverbs «тихо и спокойно» (quietly and calmly) characterize the delivery, foiling the prosecutor's insistence.

— И всё же на него указали?  
"And yet you pointed to him?"
> Concessive «всё же» and the impersonal-feel «указали»: «И всё же» — 'and yet, all the same' — is a concessive connector pressing the contradiction. «указали» here is 2nd person plural address ('you pointed'), with «на него» (at him) governed by «указать на».

— Я указал со слов брата Дмитрия.  
"I pointed to him on the strength of my brother Dmitri's words.
> «со слов» + genitive: 'on the strength of someone's words': «со слов» (from «с» + genitive «слов») is a fixed phrase meaning 'going by what someone said, on the report of'. «брата Дмитрия» is the genitive of source — Alyosha pointed at Smerdyakov only because Dmitri said so, not from knowledge of his own.

Мне еще до допроса рассказали о том, что произошло при аресте его и как он сам показал тогда на Смердякова.  
Before the questioning I had already been told what had happened at his arrest, and how he himself had then pointed to Smerdyakov.
> Subjectless plural + dative experiencer: «рассказали» is the impersonal 3rd-plural ('they told', i.e. 'I was told') with no named subject, and «мне» is the dative of the person who received the news. «до допроса» («до» + genitive) sets it 'before the questioning'.
> Intensive «сам» + legal «показать»: «он сам показал» — 'he himself testified/pointed', the intensive «сам» stressing that Mitya did it of his own mouth. «показал на Смердякова» again uses «показать на» in its courtroom sense, 'to point the finger at, name as guilty'.

Я верю вполне, что брат невиновен.  
I believe completely that my brother is innocent.
> Short adjective «невиновен»: a state asserted: «невиновен» is the short predicative form of «невиновный» (innocent, not guilty), the natural choice after the zero copula: 'my brother is innocent'. Short forms carry exactly this kind of absolute, state-asserting predication.

А если убил не он, то…  
And if he did not do the killing, then…"
> Indicative «если» + emphatic «не он»: This is a real (indicative) conditional with «если» — no «бы» — 'if it was not he who killed'. As in s17, «не он» fronts the negation onto the subject, and the trailing «то…» ('then…') leaves the inference for the prosecutor to complete.

— То Смердяков?  
"Then Smerdyakov?
> Correlative «то»: completing the 'if… then': The prosecutor finishes Alyosha's sentence with the apodosis marker «то» ('then'): 'Then Smerdyakov?'. «то» is the correlative that answers «если» — here lifted out and turned into a pointed one-word question.

Почему же именно Смердяков?  
Why Smerdyakov in particular?
> «же» and «именно» pressing the question: «Почему же именно…» stacks two intensifiers: «же» sharpens the 'why?' and «именно» means 'precisely, of all people' — 'Why Smerdyakov in particular?'. «именно» becomes a leitmotif of this scene, recurring throughout Alyosha's insistent recollection.

И почему именно вы так окончательно убедились в невиновности вашего брата?  
And why, exactly, did you become so absolutely convinced of your brother's innocence?"
> Reflexive «убедиться в» + prepositional: «убедились» (perfective of «убедиться», to become convinced) governs «в» + prepositional «невиновности» — 'convinced of the innocence'. The -ся makes it the inner change of state ('came to be persuaded'), not 'persuaded someone'.

— Я не мог не поверить брату.  
"I could not but believe my brother.
> Double negative meaning 'could not but': The pattern 'не мог не + infinitive' is a double negative that means the opposite of a negation: literally 'I could not not believe' = 'I could not help believing / I had to believe.' This construction is common and idiomatic in Russian; the two negatives reinforce rather than cancel into a plain affirmative.
> «поверить» + dative: 'believe someone': «поверить» (to believe, trust) takes its person in the dative — «брату» ('my brother'), not an accusative. Distinguish 'believe a person' (dative) from 'believe in' (в + accusative): Alyosha trusts his brother's word.

Я знаю, что он мне не солжет.  
I know that he would not lie to me.
> Perfective future under negation: 'would not lie': «солжет» is the simple (perfective) future of «солгать» (to tell a lie), negated: 'he will not / would not lie to me'. «мне» is the dative of the person lied to. The perfective frames a single act of lying that Alyosha is sure will not occur.

Я по лицу его видел, что он мне не лжет.  
I saw by his face that he was not lying to me."
> «по» + dative and imperfective «лжет»: «по лицу» («по» + dative) means 'by/from his face' — the evidence Alyosha read. Inside the «что»-clause «не лжет» is the imperfective present of «лгать» ('is not lying'), the ongoing truthfulness he saw, against the perfective «солжет» of the previous line.

— Только по лицу?  
"By his face alone?
> Elliptical question and «по» + dative: A bare echo question — verb omitted — repeating «по лицу» ('by his face') with «только» (only): the prosecutor's incredulous 'By his face alone?'. The instrumental-feel English 'by' is carried by «по» + dative here.

В этом все ваши доказательства?  
Is that the whole of your proof?"
> Zero copula: 'is that the whole of your proof?': No verb 'to be' appears: «В этом все ваши доказательства?» literally 'In this — all your proofs?'. The present tense of «быть» is unexpressed, and «в этом» (in this, prepositional) means 'does it all come down to this?'.

— Более не имею доказательств.  
"I have no other proof."
> Genitive of negation: 'I have no other proof': «не имею доказательств» puts the object of negated «иметь» into the genitive plural «доказательств» — the genitive of negation. «Более не» ('no longer / no more') fronts for emphasis, and «я» is dropped: 'I have no further proof.'

— И о виновности Смердякова тоже не основываетесь ни на малейшем ином доказательстве, кроме лишь слов вашего брата и выражения лица его?  
"And as for Smerdyakov's guilt, you likewise rest on no shred of other evidence, except only your brother's words and the expression of his face?"
> Negative concord with «ни»: «ни на малейшем… доказательстве» — 'on not the slightest other evidence' — uses «ни» to intensify the verb's «не основываетесь» (you do not rest), one negation expressed twice as Russian requires. «кроме лишь» ('except only') marks the sole exception that follows.

— Да, не имею иного доказательства.  
"Yes, I have no other proof."
> Genitive of negation, singular: Again the negated «иметь» takes the genitive: «иного доказательства» (genitive singular) — 'I have no other proof'. «иного» is the genitive of «иной» (other, different), agreeing with the noun it negates.

На этом прокурор прекратил расспросы.  
With that the prosecutor broke off his questions.
> Perfective «прекратил»: a clean stop: «прекратил» (perfective of «прекратить», to break off, cease) marks a single decisive end to the questioning. «На этом» ('with that, at this point') is a fixed transitional phrase closing the exchange.

Ответы Алеши произвели было на публику самое разочаровывающее впечатление.  
Alyosha's answers made the most disappointing impression on the public.
> The particle «было»: an action just begun, then reversed: «произвели было» uses the special particle «было» after a perfective past to signal an action that started to take effect but is about to be undone — 'had at first made…'. It quietly foreshadows the reversal Fetyukovich is about to spring.
> «разочаровывающий» — disappointing: «разочаровывающее» is the present active participle of «разочаровывать» (to disappoint), used adjectivally with «впечатление» (impression). The «раз-» here is privative — to un-charm, strip of illusion — so the crowd's hopes are deflated.

О Смердякове у нас уже поговаривали еще до суда, кто-то что-то слышал, кто-то на что-то указывал, говорили про Алешу, что он накопил какие-то чрезвычайные доказательства в пользу брата и в виновности лакея, и вот — ничего, никаких доказательств, кроме каких-то нравственных убеждений, столь естественных в его качестве родного брата подсудимого.  
There had already been talk among us about Smerdyakov before the trial; someone had heard something, someone had hinted at something, and it was said of Alyosha that he had amassed some extraordinary proofs in his brother's favor and of the lackey's guilt — and now, behold: nothing, no proofs at all, except some moral convictions, so natural in him as the prisoner's own brother.
> Subjectless «поговаривали» and the narrator's «у нас»: «поговаривали» is the iterative/attenuative imperfective of «говорить» — 'people kept talking, there was talk now and then'. With no subject and the chronicler's «у нас» ('among us, in our town'), it conjures diffuse local rumor, the gossip from which the narrator speaks.
> Indefinite «-то»: someone, something: The clitic «-то» on «кто» and «что» marks specific-but-unidentified referents — 'someone had heard something, someone had hinted at something'. The deliberate vagueness is the very texture of rumor; nothing can be pinned to anyone.
> Stacked negatives and genitive of negation: «ничего, никаких доказательств» piles «ничего» (nothing) onto «никаких… доказательств» (no proofs at all) — negative concord again, the «никаких/доказательств» in the genitive of negation. «и вот» ('and behold, and now') stages the anticlimax with theatrical timing.
> «лакей» — the lackey: «лакей» is a male servant, a footman or flunkey — the narrator's term for Smerdyakov, who served in Fyodor's house. The word carries class contempt, and Dostoevsky uses it pointedly: the crowd had hoped to see guilt pinned on the lowly «лакей».

Но начал спрашивать и Фетюкович.  
But now Fetyukovich, too, began to put his questions.
> Inversion with «и» 'too' and ingressive «начал»: «начал спрашивать» — 'began to ask' — pairs the perfective «начал» with the imperfective infinitive «спрашивать», as phase verbs require. The «и» before «Фетюкович» means 'also, in his turn', and the verb-first order throws weight on the new questioner.

На вопрос о том: когда именно подсудимый говорил ему, Алеше, о своей ненависти к отцу и о том, что он мог бы убить его, и что слышал ли он это от него, например, при последнем свидании пред катастрофой, Алеша, отвечая, вдруг как бы вздрогнул, как бы нечто только теперь припомнив и сообразив:  
To the question of when, precisely, the prisoner had spoken to him — to Alyosha — of his hatred for their father and of his being capable of killing him, and whether he had heard this from him, for instance, at their last meeting before the catastrophe, Alyosha, as he answered, suddenly gave a kind of start, as though something had only this moment come back to him and fallen into place:
> Embedded «ли»: 'whether': Inside the reported question «ли» means 'whether' — 'whether he had heard this from him… at their last meeting'. «при» + prepositional «последнем свидании» locates it in time, 'at / on the occasion of'.
> Paired perfective gerunds with «как бы»: «припомнив и сообразив» are two perfective past gerunds — 'having recalled and grasped' — completed just as he answers. «как бы» ('as though, as it were') hedges the whole image: he started 'as if' something had only now come back and clicked into place.

— Я припоминаю теперь одно обстоятельство, о котором я было совсем и сам позабыл, но тогда оно было мне так неясно, а теперь…  
"I recall now one circumstance that I had completely forgotten even myself; but at the time it was so unclear to me, and now…"
> «который» in the prepositional + reversive «было»: «о котором» — 'about which' — is the relative «который» in «о» + prepositional, its case set by «позабыть о». The particle «было» again marks an action begun and undone: he 'had quite forgotten' it, but it is now resurfacing.
> Short adjective + dative experiencer: 'it was so unclear to me': «мне… неясно» is the dative-experiencer pattern: «мне» (to me) plus the short/neuter predicate «неясно» (unclear), agreeing with neuter «оно». Russian frames the perception impersonally — the circumstance was unclear *to him*.

И Алеша с увлечением, видимо сам только что теперь внезапно попав на идею, припомнил, как в последнем свидании с Митей, вечером, у дерева, по дороге к монастырю, Митя, ударяя себя в грудь, «в верхнюю часть груди», несколько раз повторил ему, что у него есть средство восстановить свою честь, что средство это здесь, вот тут, на его груди…  
And Alyosha, with eagerness — evidently himself only now having suddenly hit upon the idea — recalled how, at their last meeting with Mitya, in the evening, by the tree, on the road to the monastery, Mitya, striking himself on the chest, "on the upper part of the chest," had repeated to him several times that he had a means of restoring his honor, that this means was here, right here, on his chest…
> Perfective gerund «попав»: 'having hit upon': «попав на идею» is the perfective past gerund of «попасть» — idiomatically 'having hit upon the idea'. Banked with the adverbs «только что теперь внезапно» ('only just now suddenly'), it stresses that the insight strikes Alyosha in the very act of speaking.
> Gerund «ударяя» + reflexive «себя»: «ударяя» is the imperfective present gerund of «ударять» (to strike), simultaneous with the main verb; «себя» is the reflexive object pronoun 'oneself' (distinct from the verbal «-ся»). 'Striking himself on the chest' — «в грудь» takes «в» + accusative for the target of a blow.

«Я подумал тогда, что он, ударяя себя в грудь, говорил о своем сердце, — продолжал Алеша, — о том, что в сердце своем мог бы отыскать силы, чтобы выйти из одного какого-то ужасного позора, который предстоял ему и о котором он даже мне не смел признаться.  
"I thought at the time that, striking himself on the chest, he was speaking of his heart," Alyosha went on, "of how in his heart he might find the strength to escape from some terrible disgrace that lay before him and that he dared not confess even to me.
> «свой» and conditional «мог бы»: «в сердце своем» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» — 'in his own heart', pointing back to the clause's subject (Mitya). «мог бы отыскать» is the conditional, 'might find', the «бы» framing the strength as something he could potentially summon.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы выйти» — 'so as to escape' — is the purpose construction «чтобы» plus infinitive (same-subject). «выйти из… позора» ('to get out of the disgrace') uses «из» + genitive for emergence from. «который предстоял ему» relativizes it with «который» + dative-governing «предстоять».
> «сметь» + infinitive: 'dared not confess': «не смел признаться» — 'he dared not confess' — negates the imperfective «сметь» (to dare) before the perfective infinitive «признаться» (to own up, confess). «даже мне» ('even to me') heightens the secrecy: he hid it even from Alyosha.

Признаюсь, я именно подумал тогда, что он говорит об отце и что он содрогается, как от позора, при мысли пойти к отцу и совершить с ним какое-нибудь насилие, а между тем он именно тогда как бы на что-то указывал на своей груди, так что, помню, у меня мелькнула именно тогда же какая-то мысль, что сердце совсем не в той стороне груди, а ниже, а он ударяет себя гораздо выше, вот тут, сейчас ниже шеи, и всё указывает в это место.  
I confess I thought at the time that he was speaking of our father, and that he shuddered, as at a disgrace, at the thought of going to our father and committing some violence against him; and yet it was precisely then that he seemed to be pointing at something on his chest, so that, I remember, a thought flickered through me at that very moment — that the heart is not on that side of the chest at all, but lower down, while he was striking himself much higher, right here, just below the neck, and kept pointing at that one spot.
> «у меня» + perfective «мелькнула»: a thought flickered through me: «мелькнула» (perfective of «мелькнуть», to flash by) is a momentary, semelfactive verb — the thought 'flickered' once. The dative-like «у меня» («у» + genitive) frames it as happening to him, and «какая-то мысль» ('some thought') is left deliberately vague.
> «как от» — 'as if from': «содрогается, как от позора» — 'shudders as at / as if from disgrace'. «от» + genitive «позора» gives the cause of a recoil (shuddering from shame), and «как» casts it as a simile for his reaction to the thought of confronting their father.
> Contrastive «а» and comparative «ниже»: «не в той стороне… а ниже» pivots on «а» — 'not on that side… but lower'. «ниже» is the comparative of «низкий/низко» (lower), and «выше» its mirror ('higher'). The little anatomical argument — heart lower, blows higher — is the clue Alyosha is reconstructing.

Моя мысль мне показалась тогда глупою, а он именно, может быть, тогда указывал на эту ладонку, в которой зашиты были эти полторы тысячи!..»  
My thought struck me then as foolish, but perhaps it was precisely then that he was pointing at that little amulet, into which those fifteen hundred had been sewn!.."
> «показаться» + dative + instrumental predicate: «показалась… глупою» — 'struck me as foolish' — pairs the reflexive «показаться» (to seem) with a dative experiencer «мне» and an instrumental predicate «глупою». «-ою» is the older literary instrumental for «-ой»; the construction is 'X seemed Y to me'.
> Short passive participle + «который»: «зашиты были» — short past passive participle of «зашить» (to sew up) plus «были», 'were sewn in' — describes the money hidden in the «ладонка». «в которой» relativizes the pouch (prepositional, governed by «в»). «полторы тысячи» is 'one and a half thousand'.
> ладонка / ладанка — an amulet worn on the chest: A «ладанка» (here spelled «ладонка») was originally a small cloth pouch hung round the neck holding incense («ладан»), a relic, or a written prayer, worn against the chest. By extension it means any little bag worn next to the body — here Mitya has sewn 1,500 roubles into one. We render it 'little amulet' (elsewhere 'little bag') to keep the sense of something worn against the skin.

— Именно! — крикнул вдруг Митя с места.  
"Exactly!" Mitya suddenly cried from his place.
> Perfective «крикнул»: a single shout, with inversion: «крикнул» (perfective of «кричать», semelfactive 'gave a cry') captures one sudden outburst; «вдруг» (suddenly) underlines it. Verb-first order foregrounds the action, and «с места» ('from his seat / the dock') marks Mitya breaking decorum from where he sits.

— Это так, Алеша, так, я тогда об нее стучал кулаком!  
"That's it, Alyosha, that's it — I did beat my fist against it then!"
> Imperfective «стучал» + instrumental of means: «стучал» (imperfective of «стучать», to knock/beat) renders the repeated thumping — 'I kept beating'. The means «кулаком» (with my fist) stands in the instrumental, the case of the instrument; «об нее» («об» + accusative «неё») is 'against it' (the pouch).

Фетюкович бросился к нему впопыхах, умоляя успокоиться, и в тот же миг так и вцепился в Алешу.  
Fetyukovich rushed to him in alarm, imploring him to calm down, and at that same instant fastened upon Alyosha.
> Gerund «умоляя» + reflexive infinitive: «умоляя» is the imperfective gerund of «умолять» (to implore), simultaneous with «бросился» — 'rushed… imploring'. Its complement «успокоиться» is the reflexive perfective infinitive (to calm down, intransitive), the change-of-state -ся at work.
> «вцепиться в» — to fasten onto, seize: «вцепиться в» (+ accusative) is to dig into, cling onto, grip tight — literally as with claws or fingers. Figuratively the lawyer 'fastened upon' Alyosha, pouncing on the promising new lead. «впопыхах» (in a flurry, hastily) colors the rush.

Алеша, сам увлеченный своим воспоминанием, горячо высказал свое предположение, что позор этот, вероятнее всего, состоял именно в том, что, имея на себе эти тысячу пятьсот рублей, которые бы мог возвратить Катерине Ивановне, как половину своего ей долга, он все-таки решил не отдать ей этой половины и употребить на другое, то есть на увоз Грушеньки, если б она согласилась…  
Alyosha, himself carried away by his recollection, ardently set out his supposition that this disgrace, most likely, consisted precisely in this: that, having these one thousand five hundred roubles on his person, which he could have returned to Katerina Ivanovna as half of the debt he owed her, he had nonetheless resolved not to give her back that half but to spend it on something else — that is, on carrying off Grushenka, if she should consent…
> Short/past passive participle «увлеченный» + «свой»: «увлеченный» is the past passive participle of «увлечь» (to carry away, captivate), here 'carried away by his recollection'; its cause «воспоминанием» is instrumental, with reflexive «своим» ('his own'). «сам» intensifies — Alyosha himself swept up.
> Gerund «имея» + numeral governing case: «имея» is the present gerund of «иметь» ('having'). The sum «тысячу пятьсот рублей» shows numeral government: «рублей» is genitive plural after the hundreds, while «тысячу» itself declines as the verb's object. «на себе» ('on his person') uses reflexive «себя».
> Conditional «бы» inside a «который»-clause: «которые бы мог возвратить» folds the conditional into the relative clause — 'which he could have returned'. «бы» leans on «которые», and «возвратить… Катерине Ивановне» takes the dative for the person repaid. «как половину… долга» = 'as half of his debt'.

— Это так, это именно так, — восклицал во внезапном возбуждении Алеша, — брат именно восклицал мне тогда, что половину, половину позора (он несколько раз выговорил: ''половину!'') он мог бы сейчас снять с себя, но что до того несчастен слабостью своего характера, что этого не сделает… знает заранее, что этого не может и не в силах сделать!  
"It's so, that's exactly how it was," Alyosha exclaimed in sudden agitation, "my brother exclaimed to me then that half — half of the disgrace (he said it several times: ''half!'') — he could lift from himself at once, but that he was so wretched in the weakness of his character that he would not do it… knowing beforehand that he could not and had not the strength to do it!"
> Imperfective «восклицал» for the remembered cry: «восклицал» (imperfective of «восклицать», to exclaim) is used twice, the iterative imperfective rendering Mitya's repeated, agitated exclaiming. The narrator notes «он несколько раз выговорил» ('he said it several times') — and the reduplicated «половину, половину!» enacts it.
> «снять с себя» + genitive partitive: «снять с себя» — 'to take off / lift from oneself' — uses «с» + genitive «себя» (the reflexive) for removal from one's own person. «половину… позора» is the partitive genitive 'half of the disgrace', the fraction he could shed.
> Short adjective «несчастен» in a «до того… что» result clause: «до того несчастен… что этого не сделает» is the correlative 'so wretched… that he would not do it'. «несчастен» is the short predicative form; its cause «слабостью своего характера» ('by the weakness of his character') stands in the instrumental.
> Negation doubled: «не может» and «не в силах»: Two negated predicates of inability pile up — «не может» (cannot) and «не в силах» (is not strong enough, hasn't the power). «не в силах» is a fixed idiom (literally 'not in [his] strengths') for being unable to bring oneself to something.

— И вы твердо, ясно помните, что он ударял себя именно в это место груди? — жадно допрашивал Фетюкович.  
"And you remember firmly, clearly, that he struck himself precisely on that spot of the chest?" Fetyukovich questioned avidly.
> Imperfective «ударял» + reflexive «себя»: «ударял» (imperfective of «ударять») renders the repeated striking; «себя» is the reflexive object 'himself', and «в это место груди» ('on that spot of the chest') takes «в» + accusative for the point of impact. The lawyer presses for the exact location.
> «жадно» — avidly, greedily: «жадно» (from «жадный», greedy) gives the defense lawyer's eager, almost ravenous questioning — he scents a decisive point. «допрашивать» is the formal verb 'to interrogate, examine', heightening the courtroom intensity.

— Ясно и твердо, потому что именно мне подумалось тогда: зачем это он ударяет так высоко, когда сердце ниже, и мне тогда же показалась моя мысль глупою… я это помню, что показалась глупою… это мелькнуло.  
"Clearly and firmly, because it was precisely then that the thought occurred to me: why is he striking himself so high, when the heart is lower down? — and at that very moment my own thought struck me as foolish… I remember that it struck me as foolish… it flashed through my mind.
> Impersonal reflexive «подумалось» + dative: «мне подумалось» is the impersonal -ся construction: «подумалось» (it occurred-to-mind) with dative «мне» as the experiencer — 'the thought occurred to me', as if involuntarily. Russian loves this frame for thoughts that arrive of themselves.
> «показаться» + instrumental predicate, repeated: Echoing s49, «показалась… глупою» — 'struck me as foolish' — uses reflexive «показаться» with the instrumental predicate «глупою» (older «-ою» ending). Alyosha repeats it for emphasis, italicized in the original by reiteration: the thought he had dismissed.

Вот потому-то я сейчас теперь и вспомнил.  
And that is precisely why I have just now remembered it.
> «потому-то» and the «и» of consequence: «потому-то» — 'that is precisely why' — carries the emphatic clitic «-то» stressing the known reason. The «и» before «вспомнил» means 'it is for that reason that I have now remembered', a fixed «потому… и» correlation marking cause and effect.

И как я мог позабыть это до самых этих пор!  
And how could I have forgotten it until this very moment!
> «мог позабыть»: exclamatory past possibility: «как я мог позабыть» — 'how could I have forgotten' — is the past «мог» plus perfective infinitive «позабыть», here exclamatory and self-reproaching rather than a real question. «до самых этих пор» ('until this very moment') intensifies with «самых».

Именно он на эту ладонку указывал как на то, что у него есть средства, но что он не отдаст эти полторы тысячи!  
It was precisely at that little amulet that he was pointing, as proof that he had the means, but that he would not give up those fifteen hundred!
> Fronted «он» and imperfective «указывал»: Word order foregrounds «Именно он» ('it was precisely he') and the object «на эту ладонку», held before the verb «указывал» for emphasis — the whole point being *what* he pointed at. «указывал» is imperfective, the repeated pointing Alyosha now reinterprets.
> Perfective future «не отдаст»: a refusal in the future: «не отдаст» is the simple (perfective) future of «отдать» (to give back), negated — 'he will not give up'. The perfective frames the (non-)act of repayment as a single completed event he refuses; «полторы тысячи» is 'fifteen hundred'.

А при аресте, в Мокром, он именно кричал, — я это знаю, мне передавали, — что считает самым позорным делом всей своей жизни, что, имея средства отдать половину (именно половину!) долга Катерине Ивановне и стать пред ней не вором, он все-таки не решился отдать и лучше захотел остаться в ее глазах вором, чем расстаться с деньгами!  
And at his arrest, in Mokroye, he cried out — this I know, it was reported to me — that he considered it the most shameful act of his whole life that, having the means to pay back half (precisely half!) of his debt to Katerina Ivanovna and to stand before her not as a thief, he had nonetheless not brought himself to repay it, and had chosen rather to remain a thief in her eyes than to part with the money!
> Gerund «имея» governing two infinitives + instrumental predicate: «имея средства отдать… и стать» chains the gerund «имея» ('having the means') over two infinitives. «стать… не вором» uses «стать» (to become) with an instrumental predicate «вором» (a thief) — the case predicates of «стать» take — negated: 'to stand before her *not* a thief'.
> Comparative «лучше… чем» and «расстаться с» + instrumental: «лучше… чем» frames a preference — 'chose rather to remain a thief than to part with the money'. «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хорошо/хороший». «расстаться с деньгами» takes «с» + instrumental for parting *with* something.

А как он мучился, как он мучился этим долгом! — закончил, восклицая, Алеша.  
And how he tormented himself, how he tormented himself over that debt!" Alyosha concluded, in an exclamation.
> Exclamatory «как» and emphatic repetition: «Как он мучился» uses «как» not as 'how?' but as an exclamatory intensifier — 'how he tormented himself!'. The doubled clause is rhetorical repetition, a hallmark of Alyosha's overflowing, breathless speech.
> Reflexive «-ся» and imperfective process: «Мучился» is the reflexive «мучиться» (to torment oneself, suffer), where «-ся» turns transitive «мучить» into an inward state. The imperfective past frames the suffering as a prolonged process, not a single event.
> Instrumental of cause with «мучиться»: «Мучиться» governs the instrumental: «этим долгом» (over that debt) names what torments him. The instrumental here marks the thing one suffers by or over.
> Gerund «восклицая» framing the speech-tag: «Восклицая» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) from «восклицать» — 'exclaiming'. It attaches a simultaneous manner ('he concluded, exclaiming') to the main verb «закончил», sharing its subject.

Разумеется, ввязался и прокурор.  
The prosecutor, of course, broke in as well.
> «ввязаться» — to butt in: «Ввязаться» (perfective, reflexive) means to get oneself mixed up in, to butt into something — here the prosecutor 'broke in' to the questioning. The «-ся» and the prefix «в-» together give a sense of plunging into an affair.
> Inversion with the additive «и»: The verb «ввязался» precedes its subject «прокурор», and «и» here is not 'and' but the additive particle 'also/even' ('the prosecutor too broke in'). Fronting the verb gives the sentence its abrupt, event-first momentum.

Он попросил Алешу еще раз описать, как это всё было, и несколько раз настаивал, спрашивая: точно ли подсудимый, бия себя в грудь, как бы на что-то указывал?  
He asked Alyosha to describe once more how it had all been, and several times insisted, asking: was the prisoner really, as he beat himself on the chest, seeming to point at something?
> The interrogative particle «ли»: «Точно ли» fronts the focused word «точно» (really, exactly) and follows it with the enclitic «ли», forming an embedded yes/no question: 'whether the prisoner really…'. This is the bookish alternative to mere question intonation.
> Archaic gerund «бия» + reflexive «себя»: «Бия» is an archaic present gerund of «бить» (striking), markedly literary against the modern «бья/ударяя». «Себя в грудь» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» as the object: 'beating himself on the chest'.
> Hedging «как бы» and indefinite «что-то»: «Как бы» softens the assertion to 'as if / seeming to', while «что-то» (with the «-то» particle) marks a specific but unidentified thing he pointed at. Together they cast the gesture as ambiguous and suggestive.

Может быть, просто бил себя кулаком по груди?  
Might he not simply have been striking himself on the chest with his fist?
> Instrumental of means «кулаком»: «Кулаком» is the instrumental of «кулак» (fist), naming the instrument of striking — 'with his fist'. «По груди» (dative after «по») gives the surface struck. The whole is a leading question from the prosecutor proposing an innocent explanation.

— Да и не кулаком! — восклицал Алеша, — а именно указывал пальцами, и указывал сюда, очень высоко…  
"But it wasn't with his fist at all!" Alyosha exclaimed, "he was pointing precisely with his fingers, and pointing here, very high up…
> Contrastive «не… а» and the hinge «да и»: The structure «не кулаком… а именно указывал» sets up Russian's sharp 'not X but Y' correction. «Да и» opens the retort emphatically ('but…'), and «именно» ('precisely') pins down the corrected version. Alyosha is energetically overriding the prosecutor's suggestion.
> Imperfective process and adverb «сюда»: The repeated imperfective «указывал» (was pointing) renders the gesture as an ongoing, vivid action recalled. «Сюда» ('to here') is the directional 'hither' adverb, as Alyosha re-enacts the pointing in the courtroom.

Но как я мог это так совсем забыть до самой этой минуты!  
But how could I have so completely forgotten this until this very minute!"
> Modal «мог» + perfective infinitive «забыть»: «Мог… забыть» pairs the past of «мочь» (could) with the perfective infinitive «забыть» (to forget completely). The perfective stresses the total, accomplished lapse — 'how could I have so completely forgotten'.
> Intensifier «самый» = 'this very': «До самой этой минуты» uses «самый» not as 'most' but as the intensifier 'the very' — 'right up to this very minute'. «До» governs the genitive, and «самой… минуты» all agree in that case.

Председатель обратился к Мите с вопросом, что может он сказать насчет данного показания.  
The presiding judge turned to Mitya with the question of what he could say regarding this testimony.
> «председатель» — the presiding judge: In this trial «председатель» means the presiding judge of the court (literally 'the one who sits before/at the head'). It recurs as a fixed courtroom title throughout the chapter.
> «обратиться к» + dative: «Обратиться к» (to turn to, address) governs the dative: «к Мите». The reflexive perfective «обратился» marks the single completed act of turning toward Mitya with a question.
> Embedded «что» and inverted «может он»: «Что может он сказать» is an indirect question introduced by «что», with verb-subject inversion «может он» typical of literary, slightly formal narration. «Насчёт» ('regarding', + genitive «данного показания») frames the topic.

Митя подтвердил, что именно всё так и было, что он именно указывал на свои полторы тысячи, бывшие у него на груди, сейчас пониже шеи, и что, конечно, это был позор, «позор, от которого не отрекаюсь, позорнейший акт во всей моей жизни! — вскричал Митя.  
Mitya confirmed that it had all been exactly so, that he had indeed been pointing at his fifteen hundred, which he carried on his chest, just below the neck, and that, of course, it had been a disgrace — "a disgrace I do not disown, the most shameful act of my whole life!" Mitya cried out.
> Past active participle «бывшие»: «Бывшие» is the past active participle of «быть» — 'which were (located)'. It declines like an adjective and compresses a relative clause ('the fifteen hundred that were on his chest') into a single modifier, a bookish narrative device.
> «полторы» — one and a half: «Полторы» means 'one and a half' (feminine form, agreeing with «тысячи»); «полторы тысячи» = 1,500. This is the disputed sum Mitya sewed into an amulet — central to the whole murder case.
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «Позорнейший» (most shameful) is the bookish synthetic superlative in «-ейший», built straight on «позор» (disgrace). The form is emphatic and literary, fitting Mitya's theatrical self-condemnation — 'the most shameful act of my whole life'.
> Relative «который» in a governed case: «От которого» shows «который» agreeing with «позор» (masculine) but taking the genitive that «отрекаться от» (to disown, renounce) demands. The reflexive «отрекаюсь» is a verb that exists only with «-ся».

— Я мог отдать и не отдал.  
"I could have repaid it and did not.
> Aspect contrast: «отдать» vs «не отдал»: Both verbs are perfective «отдать» (to give back, repay): «мог отдать» (could have repaid) sets up the possibility, «не отдал» (did not repay) the completed failure to act. The terse parallelism dramatizes Mitya's guilt — capacity versus refusal.

Захотел лучше остаться в ее глазах вором, но не отдал, а самый главный позор был в том, что и вперед знал, что не отдам!  
I chose rather to remain a thief in her eyes than to pay it back — and the very greatest disgrace was this: that I knew in advance I would not repay it!
> Predicate instrumental «вором»: After «остаться» (to remain), the predicate noun goes in the instrumental: «вором» (a thief). «В её глазах» ('in her eyes') idiomatically means 'in her estimation'. So: 'to remain a thief in her eyes'.
> Perfective future «не отдам»: «Не отдам» is the perfective-future first person of «отдать» — 'I would not repay'. Russian keeps the original tense in reported thought (lit. 'knew that I will not repay'), where English shifts to 'would'. The future-in-the-past marks foreknowledge of his own betrayal.
> Correlative «в том, что»: «Был в том, что…» is the correlative frame 'consisted in this: that…', where «том» (prepositional of «то») anticipates the «что»-clause that follows. It is a standard way to point forward to the substance of a statement.

Прав Алеша!  
Alyosha is right!
> Short adjective «прав» as predicate: «Прав» is the short (predicative) form of «правый», meaning 'is right/correct'. Short adjectives can only predicate, never modify, and carry a crisp, absolute force; fronting it ('Right is Alyosha!') heightens the exclamation.

Спасибо, Алеша!»  
Thank you, Alyosha!"

Тем кончился допрос Алеши.  
With that Alyosha's examination came to an end.
> Instrumental «тем» + reflexive «кончился»: «Тем» is the instrumental of «то» ('with that'), and «кончился» the reflexive-intransitive 'came to an end'. The «-ся» makes the examination end of itself, with no agent — 'with that, Alyosha's examination ended'.
> «допрос» — examination, interrogation: «Допрос» is the formal questioning of a witness or suspect — here, courtroom examination. The narrator uses it as the structural unit of the chapter ('the examination of X began… ended').

Важно и характерно было именно то обстоятельство, что отыскался хоть один лишь факт, хоть одно лишь, положим самое мелкое, доказательство, почти только намек на доказательство, но которое всё же хоть капельку свидетельствовало, что действительно существовала эта ладонка, что были в ней полторы тысячи и что подсудимый не лгал на предварительном следствии, когда в Мокром объявил, что эти полторы тысячи «были мои».  
What was important and characteristic was precisely this circumstance: that at least one fact had been found — at least one piece, let us grant a very small one, of evidence, almost only the hint of evidence — yet one that still bore witness, if only by a drop, that this little amulet had really existed, that there had been fifteen hundred in it, and that the prisoner had not been lying at the preliminary investigation when, in Mokroye, he declared that those fifteen hundred "were mine."
> Short adjectives as neuter predicate: «Важно и характерно было» uses short neuter adjectives as the predicate ('was important and characteristic'), agreeing with the deferred subject «то обстоятельство». Fronting them throws emphasis onto the assessment before the fact is named.
> Reflexive «отыскался» (passive-like): «Отыскался» (perfective reflexive of «отыскать») means 'was found / turned up', the «-ся» giving a middle/passive sense without naming who found it. «Хоть один лишь» piles up concessive particles: 'at least one single'.
> Relative «которое» + diminutive adverb: «Которое» is the neuter relative agreeing with «доказательство» (evidence). «Хоть капельку» ('if only by a droplet') uses the diminutive «капелька» adverbially for 'a tiny bit' — a softening, intimate touch in the otherwise legalistic sentence.
> «ладанка» — a worn amulet: A «ладанка» (here «ладонка») is a small cloth pouch or amulet worn on a cord around the neck, traditionally holding incense («ладан»), a relic, or a prayer. Mitya used one to carry the sewn-up money against his chest — both a folk-religious object and the trial's key piece of evidence.

Алеша был рад, весь раскрасневшись, он проследовал на указанное ему место.  
Alyosha was glad; flushed all over, he made his way to the place assigned to him.
> Gerund «раскрасневшись» of attendant state: «Раскрасневшись» is a perfective past gerund of «раскраснеться» (to flush red) — 'having flushed all over'. «Весь» ('all', agreeing) intensifies it. The gerund sets the bodily state against the main verb «проследовал».
> Past passive participle «указанное»: «Указанное (ему) место» is the short-of-a-clause use of the past passive participle «указанный» ('indicated, assigned'), with the dative «ему» naming the one for whom it was assigned: 'the place assigned to him'. The agent of such participles is implicit (the court).

Он долго еще повторял про себя: «Как это я забыл! Как мог я это забыть! И как это так вдруг только теперь припомнилось!»  
For a long time afterward he kept repeating to himself: "How could I have forgotten it! How could I have forgotten such a thing! And how did it all so suddenly come back to me only now!"
> Reflexive pronoun in «про себя»: «Про себя» literally 'about/to himself' is the fixed idiom for thinking or speaking inwardly — 'to himself'. «Себя» is the reflexive pronoun pointing back to Alyosha; «про» governs the accusative.
> Impersonal reflexive «припомнилось»: «Припомнилось» is an impersonal reflexive: the memory 'came back of itself', with no agent ('how did it suddenly come back to me'). The «-ся» frames recollection as something that happens to the mind rather than something one does — a very Dostoevskian inner event.

Начался допрос Катерины Ивановны.  
The examination of Katerina Ivanovna began.
> Reflexive «начался» + genitive of the object examined: «Начался» (reflexive of «начать») means 'began' intransitively. «Допрос Катерины Ивановны» uses the genitive 'of Katerina Ivanovna' — here the person being examined, an objective genitive, not a possessive one.

Только что она появилась, в зале пронеслось нечто необыкновенное.  
The moment she appeared, something extraordinary swept through the hall.
> «только что» = 'the moment / just as': «Только что» here functions temporally as 'the very moment that / just as' rather than the more common 'just now', setting up an immediate sequence with the main clause.
> Indefinite «нечто» + reflexive «пронеслось»: «Нечто необыкновенное» ('something extraordinary') is the bookish indefinite pronoun «нечто», invariable here as neuter subject. «Пронеслось» (reflexive perfective) means 'swept/rushed through', a vivid impersonal-feeling motion through the hall.

Дамы схватились за лорнеты и бинокли, мужчины зашевелились, иные вставали с мест, чтобы лучше видеть.  
The ladies snatched up their lorgnettes and opera glasses, the men stirred, and some rose from their seats to see her better.
> Reflexive verbs of sudden collective motion: «Схватились (за)» (snatched at) and «зашевелились» (began to stir) are both reflexive; the prefix «за-» on the latter marks the inception of the movement ('started stirring'). The chain paints the whole hall reacting at once.
> «иные» as 'some': «Иные» here means 'some (people)', a slightly elevated equivalent of «некоторые», common in 19th-century prose. The imperfective «вставали» renders the rising as a scattered, ongoing action across the crowd.

Все утверждали потом, что Митя вдруг побледнел «как платок», только что она вошла.  
Everyone afterward maintained that Mitya turned suddenly pale "as a handkerchief" the moment she came in.
> Perfective «побледнел» of sudden change: «Побледнел» (perfective of «бледнеть» with «по-») marks the instantaneous onset of pallor — 'turned pale'. «Вдруг» ('suddenly') reinforces the punctual, completed shift the perfective conveys.
> «бледный как платок» — pale as a kerchief: The folk simile «как платок» ('like a kerchief/handkerchief') means deathly white. The narrator quotes it in scare-quotes to flag it as the townsfolk's own coloured phrasing rather than his.

Вся в черном, скромно и почти робко приблизилась она к указанному ей месту.  
All in black, modestly and almost timidly, she approached the place assigned to her.
> Fronted manner adverbs + inversion: The sentence opens with the descriptive phrase «вся в чёрном» and the manner adverbs «скромно и почти робко», delaying the verb and subject «приблизилась она». This topic-first ordering builds the portrait before the action, a typical narrative rhythm.
> «приблизиться к» + dative; passive participle: «Приблизиться к» governs the dative «к… месту». «Указанному ей» is again the past passive participle 'assigned to her', echoing the formula used for Alyosha — the court directs each witness to a set place.

Нельзя было угадать по лицу ее, что она была взволнована, но решимость сверкала в ее темном, сумрачном взгляде.  
One could not have guessed from her face that she was agitated, but resolve flashed in her dark, somber gaze.
> Impersonal «нельзя было» + infinitive: «Нельзя было угадать» is an impersonal construction with no subject: 'it was impossible to guess'. «Нельзя» plus the perfective infinitive «угадать» states an unattainable single act. The experiencer is left unnamed and general.
> Prepositional of location «во взгляде»: «В её тёмном, сумрачном взгляде» is the prepositional after «в» marking location ('in her gaze'); the adjectives «тёмном, сумрачном» agree in that case. Word order places the new, striking subject «решимость» (resolve) first for emphasis.

Надо заметить, потом весьма многие утверждали, что она была удивительно хороша собой в ту минуту.  
It must be noted that very many afterward maintained she was astonishingly beautiful at that moment.
> Short adjective «хороша» + «собой»: «Хороша собой» ('good-looking') is the idiom for physical beauty, using the short feminine adjective «хороша» as predicate plus the instrumental reflexive «собой» ('in herself'). The short form fits the predicative, momentary assessment 'she was beautiful at that moment'.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо заметить» is a subjectless modal phrase, 'one must note / it should be noted', with «надо» governing the infinitive. It is the narrator's conventional aside-marker.

Заговорила она тихо, но ясно, на всю залу.  
She began to speak softly, but clearly enough to carry across the whole hall.
> Inceptive «за-» in «заговорила»: «Заговорила» (perfective of «говорить» with «за-») means 'began to speak / started talking' — the prefix «за-» marks the inception of the action. Fronting the verb before «она» gives the narrative its forward push.

Выражалась чрезвычайно спокойно или по крайней мере усиливаясь быть спокойною.  
She expressed herself with extraordinary composure, or at least with an effort to be composed.
> Gerund «усиливаясь» + instrumental predicate: «Усиливаясь» is an imperfective present gerund of «усиливаться» (to strain/exert oneself) — 'straining to be calm'. «Спокойною» is the long-form instrumental predicate after «быть» (the «-ою» ending is the older/literary instrumental feminine), framing the assumed state.
> Reflexive «выражаться» and dropped subject: «Выражалась» (reflexive 'expressed herself') has no stated subject — «она» is dropped, recoverable from the feminine «-лась» ending. The middle «-ся» turns 'express' inward upon the speaker.

Председатель начал вопросы свои осторожно, чрезвычайно почтительно, как бы боясь коснуться «иных струн» и уважая великое несчастие.  
The presiding judge began his questions cautiously, with extreme deference, as though afraid to touch upon "certain chords" and respectful of a great misfortune.
> Gerund «боясь» + genitive object: «Боясь» is the present gerund of «бояться», a verb existing only in «-ся» form. «Как бы боясь» ('as if afraid') hedges the judge's motive. «Коснуться» (to touch) governs the genitive «иных струн» — 'to touch certain chords'.
> «коснуться иных струн» — to touch certain chords: «Иные струны» literally 'other/certain strings', metaphorically the painful, intimate 'chords' of feeling. The narrator scare-quotes the cliché. «Иных» here is the bookish «иной» in the sense 'certain, particular'.
> Gerund chain «боясь… уважая»: A second present gerund «уважая» (respecting) parallels «боясь», both adverbially qualifying the judge's manner of questioning. Stacking gerunds like this is a signature of Dostoevsky's dense narrative syntax.

Но Катерина Ивановна сама, с самых первых слов, твердо объявила на один из предложенных вопросов, что она была помолвленною невестой подсудимого «до тех пор, пока он сам меня не оставил…» — тихо прибавила она.  
But Katerina Ivanovna herself, from her very first words, firmly declared, in answer to one of the questions put to her, that she had been the prisoner's betrothed bride "until the time when he himself abandoned me…" she added quietly.
> Instrumental predicate after past «была»: After past «была», the predicate goes in the instrumental: «помолвленною невестой» (the betrothed bride), with the participle «помолвленною» (passive past, 'betrothed') agreeing in that case. The instrumental frames a former, time-bound role.
> «пока… не» = 'until': «Пока… не оставил» is the standard 'until' construction, where «пока» plus a negated perfective verb means 'up until the moment he abandoned me' — the «не» is grammatical, not a true negation. «Сам» ('himself') stresses that the leaving was his doing.

Когда ее спросили о трех тысячах, вверенных Мите для отсылки на почту ее родственникам, она твердо проговорила: «Я дала ему не прямо на почту; я тогда предчувствовала, что ему очень нужны деньги… в ту минуту. Я дала ему эти три тысячи под условием, чтоб он отослал их, если хочет, в течение месяца. Напрасно он так потом себя мучил из-за этого долга…»  
When she was asked about the three thousand entrusted to Mitya to be sent by post to her relatives, she said firmly: "I did not give it to him directly for the post; at the time I had a presentiment that he was in great need of money… at that very moment. I gave him those three thousand on the condition that he should send it off, if he wished, within the course of a month. He tormented himself over that debt afterward quite needlessly…"
> Past passive participle «вверенных» + dative: «Вверенных» is the past passive participle of «вверить» (to entrust), agreeing with «тысячах» and taking the dative «Мите» for the person entrusted — 'the three thousand entrusted to Mitya'. A compact participial relative clause.
> Purpose «чтоб» + past-form irrealis: «Чтоб(ы) он отослал» uses «чтобы» with a past-tense verb to express a stipulated condition/purpose: 'on condition that he send it off'. The past form here is the irrealis fused inside «чтобы», not a real past.
> «себя мучил» — reflexive object: Here Dostoevsky uses the full reflexive pronoun «себя» with «мучил» ('tormented himself') rather than the verb «мучился» seen earlier — emphasizing Mitya as deliberate agent of his own suffering. «Напрасно» ('in vain, needlessly') frames it as wasted anguish.

Я не передаю всех вопросов и в точности всех ее ответов, я только передаю существенный смысл ее показаний.  
I do not reproduce every question, nor every one of her answers exactly; I convey only the essential substance of her testimony.
> Genitive of negation after «не передаю»: Under negation the objects shift to genitive: «не передаю всех вопросов… ответов» ('I do not convey all the questions/answers'). The genitive of negation is especially natural here with «всех», stressing the totality not reproduced.
> «существенный смысл» — the essential gist: «Существенный смысл показаний» means the 'essential substance/import of her testimony'. «Существенный» (essential, material) and «показание» (legal testimony) keep the passage's juridical register while the narrator confesses to paraphrasing.

— Я твердо была уверена, что он всегда успеет переслать эти три тысячи, только что получит от отца, — продолжала она, отвечая на вопросы.  
"I was firmly certain that he would always be in time to send those three thousand on, the moment he received it from his father," she went on, answering the questions.
> Two perfective futures of immediacy: «Успеет переслать» (will manage to send) and «получит» (will receive) are both perfective futures. «Только что… получит» means 'the moment he receives' — the perfective future after «только что» expresses an action conceived as instantly completed.
> Gerund «отвечая» on the speech-tag: «Отвечая» is an imperfective present gerund 'answering', attached to «продолжала» to show simultaneous action — she goes on speaking while answering. A typical narrative speech-tag adornment.

— Я всегда была уверена в его бескорыстии и в его честности… высокой честности… в денежных делах.  
"I was always certain of his disinterestedness and of his honesty… his lofty honesty… in money matters.
> «уверена в» + prepositional: «Уверена в» (certain of) governs the prepositional: «в… бескорыстии… честности». «Уверена» is the short feminine adjective predicate. The repeated «в его» insistently anchors the certainty to him.
> «бескорыстие» — selflessness: «Бескорыстие» (from «без» + «корысть», self-interest/greed) means disinterestedness, freedom from mercenary motive. It is a key moral virtue she ascribes to Mitya, all the more pointed at a trial about money.

Он твердо был уверен, что получит от отца три тысячи рублей, и несколько раз мне говорил про это.  
He was firmly convinced that he would receive three thousand roubles from his father, and he told me so several times.
> Genitive plural after «тысяч/рублей»: «Три тысячи рублей»: «тысячи» is the genitive singular required after «три», while the counted «рублей» stands in the genitive plural governed by «тысяч». «От отца» ('from his father', genitive after «от») names the source.
> Short adjective «уверен» (masc.): «Уверен» is the short masculine of «уверенный», 'was convinced'. The whole chapter rings with «уверена/уверен/уверенность» as Katerina insists on Mitya's honesty — the short form gives each a flat, declarative finality.

Я знала, что у него с отцом распря, и всегда была и до сих пор тоже уверена, что он был обижен отцом.  
I knew that he was at odds with his father, and I always was, and to this day still am, certain that he had been wronged by his father.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «Был обижен отцом» is a periphrastic passive: «был» plus the short past passive participle «обижен» ('wronged'), with the agent in the instrumental «отцом» ('by his father'). This is the canonical Russian passive of a result.
> «распря» — strife, feud: «Распря» is a somewhat elevated, bookish word for discord, feud, or quarrel — graver than an ordinary «ссора». 'He was at odds («у него… распря») with his father' frames the Mitya–Fyodor conflict as a standing enmity.

Я не помню никаких угроз отцу с его стороны.  
I do not remember any threats against his father on his part.
> Negative concord + genitive of negation: «Не помню никаких угроз» stacks the «ни»-word «никаких» with the verbal «не» (negative concord — two negatives, one meaning), and the negated object «угроз» stands in the genitive of negation — 'I don't remember any threats'.

При мне по крайней мере он ничего не говорил, никаких угроз.  
In my presence, at least, he said nothing of the kind — no threats.
> Triple negative concord: «Ничего не говорил, никаких угроз» again shows negative concord: «ничего» and «никаких» both co-occur with «не». «Никаких угроз» is in the genitive of negation, restating the previous sentence with heightened insistence — 'nothing… no threats'.
> «при» + prepositional = 'in the presence of': «При мне» literally 'at/with me' is the idiom for 'in my presence'; «при» governs the prepositional. «По крайней мере» ('at least') carefully limits her testimony to what she personally witnessed.

Если б он пришел тогда ко мне, я тотчас успокоила бы его тревогу из-за должных мне им этих несчастных трех тысяч, но он не приходил ко мне более… а я сама… я была поставлена в такое положение… что не могла его звать к себе…  
Had he come to me then, I would have set his mind at rest at once about those wretched three thousand he owed me, but he came to me no more… and I myself… I was placed in such a position… that I could not summon him to me…"
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: «Если б он пришёл… я… успокоила бы» is the full irrealis: past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы/б» in both clauses — 'had he come… I would have set at rest'. «Б» is the reduced «бы», leaning here on «если».
> Participle «должных» + dense case stacking: This noun phrase is a tangle of agreement: «должных… трёх тысяч» (genitive after «из-за»), with «мне» (dative, to whom owed) and «им» (instrumental, by whom owed) packed in — 'those wretched three thousand owed to me by him'. Such compression is characteristically literary.
> Reflexive «к себе» = 'to my place': «Звать к себе» means to summon someone to one's own home/presence; «себе» is the dative reflexive pointing back to the subject 'I'. «Не могла… звать» pairs the modal with the imperfective infinitive for a habitual impossibility.

Да я и никакого права не имела быть к нему требовательною за этот долг, — прибавила она вдруг, и что-то решительное зазвенело в ее голосе, — я сама однажды получила от него денежное одолжение еще большее, чем в три тысячи, и приняла его, несмотря на то, что и предвидеть еще тогда не могла, что хоть когда-нибудь в состоянии буду заплатить ему долг мой.  
"And besides, I had no right whatever to be exacting with him over that debt," she suddenly added, and something resolute rang out in her voice, "for I myself had once received from him a loan of money even greater than three thousand, and I accepted it, despite being unable even to foresee at the time that I should ever be in a position to repay him my debt."
> Genitive of negation + instrumental predicate: «Никакого права не имела» negates with «ни»-word «никакого» plus «не», the object «права» in the genitive of negation. «Быть… требовательною» takes the instrumental predicate «требовательною» (exacting) — the old «-ою» feminine ending, period-flavoured.
> Indefinite «что-то» + inceptive «за-»: «Что-то решительное» ('something resolute') is the indefinite pronoun «что-то» with an agreeing neuter adjective. «Зазвенело» (perfective, «за-») marks the onset of the ringing — 'something resolute rang out'.
> Copular future «буду» + «в состоянии» + infinitive: «В состоянии буду заплатить» means 'I would be in a position to repay': «буду» is the future of the copula «быть», linking the predicate «в состоянии» (in a position / able), and «заплатить» is a dependent perfective infinitive complementing «в состоянии». It is not a compound future (which would be «быть» + an imperfective infinitive). Note the future-in-the-past in reported thought, where English shifts to 'should'.

В тоне голоса ее как бы почувствовался какой-то вызов.  
In the tone of her voice there seemed to be a kind of challenge.
> Impersonal reflexive «почувствовался» + «как бы»: «Почувствовался» is reflexive — the challenge 'made itself felt / seemed to be felt', with «как бы» ('as if') hedging the perception. «Какой-то вызов» ('some kind of challenge') uses the indefinite «какой-то». The whole frames an impression with no perceiving subject named.

Именно в эту минуту вопросы перешли к Фетюковичу.  
It was at precisely this moment that the questioning passed to Fetyukovich.
> «перейти к» + dative: «Перешли к Фетюковичу» — the prefixed motion verb «перейти» (to pass over) governs «к» + dative, 'passed to Fetyukovich'. «Именно в эту минуту» ('at precisely this moment') front-loads the temporal emphasis.

— Это было еще не здесь, а в начале вашего знакомства? — осторожно подходя, подхватил Фетюкович, вмиг запредчувствовав нечто благоприятное.  
"This was not yet here, but at the beginning of your acquaintance?" Fetyukovich took it up, approaching cautiously, instantly sensing something favorable.
> Gerund «подходя» of manner: «Подходя» is an imperfective present gerund of «подходить» (to approach), giving the simultaneous manner of «подхватил» (took up) — 'taking it up, approaching cautiously'. Prefixed «под-» adds the nuance of nearing carefully.
> Perfective gerund «запредчувствовав»: «Запредчувствовав» is a perfective past gerund — 'having instantly sensed beforehand' — built on «предчувствовать» (to have a presentiment) with the inceptive «за-». The perfective gerund marks an action completed just before the main verb. «Нечто благоприятное» = 'something favorable'.

(Замечу в скобках, что он, несмотря на то, что был вызван из Петербурга отчасти и самою Катериною Ивановной, — все-таки не знал ничего об эпизоде о пяти тысячах, данных ей Митей еще в том городе, и о «земном поклоне».  
(I will note in parentheses that he, despite having been summoned from Petersburg partly by Katerina Ivanovna herself, still knew nothing about the episode of the five thousand given to her by Mitya back in that other town, nor about the "bow to the ground."
> Concessive «несмотря на то, что» + passive: «Несмотря на то, что» ('despite the fact that') opens a concessive clause. «Был вызван» is a periphrastic passive ('had been summoned'), and «самою Катериною Ивановной» gives the instrumental agent (older «-ою/-ою» endings) — 'by Katerina Ivanovna herself'.
> Negative concord + prepositional of topic: «Не знал ничего» shows negative concord («ничего»+«не»). «Об эпизоде… о пяти тысячах… о поклоне» is the prepositional of topic after «о/об» ('about'), strung in a series listing what he did not know.

Она этого не сказала ему и скрыла!  
She had not told him of this and had concealed it!
> Genitive of negation «этого»: «Этого не сказала» puts the negated object «это» into the genitive «этого» — the genitive of negation with a non-specific demonstrative object. «Скрыла» (perfective 'concealed') completes the pair of contrasting acts: didn't say it, hid it.

И это было удивительно.  
And that was astonishing.

Можно с уверенностию предположить, что она сама, до самой последней минуты, не знала: расскажет она этот эпизод на суде или нет и ждала какого-то вдохновения)  
One may suppose with confidence that she herself, until the very last moment, did not know whether she would tell this episode in court or not, and was waiting for some sort of inspiration.)
> Impersonal «можно» + archaic «-ию»: «Можно… предположить» is the impersonal modal 'one may suppose'. «С уверенностию» is the old literary instrumental ending «-ию» (modern «-ью») for «уверенность» — a period flavour the narrator favours.
> Indirect alternative question: After «не знала» the embedded question «расскажет… или нет» ('whether she would tell… or not') is posed without «ли», using the «или нет» tag instead. «Расскажет» is the perfective future kept in the original tense within reported thought.

Нет, никогда я не могу забыть этих минут!  
No, never can I forget those minutes!
> Negative concord + genitive of negation: «Никогда… не могу забыть» pairs the «ни»-adverb «никогда» with «не» (concord), and «этих минут» appears in the genitive — the genitive of negation after the negated «не могу забыть». The narrator breaks into the present tense for vividness.

Она начала рассказывать, она ''всё'' рассказала, весь этот эпизод, поведанный Митей Алеше, и «земной поклон», и причины, и про отца своего, и появление свое у Мити, и ни словом, ни единым намеком не упомянула о том, что Митя, чрез сестру ее, сам предложил «прислать к нему Катерину Ивановну за деньгами».  
She began to tell it; she told ''everything,'' the whole of that episode confided by Mitya to Alyosha, and the "bow to the ground," and the reasons, and about her own father, and her appearance at Mitya's lodging — and not by a single word, not by the faintest hint, did she mention that Mitya, through her sister, had himself proposed that "Katerina Ivanovna be sent to him for the money."
> Passive participle «поведанный» + instrumental & dative: «Поведанный Митей Алеше» is a past passive participle of the bookish «поведать» (to relate, confide): 'the episode confided by Mitya to Alyosha'. The agent is instrumental «Митей», the recipient dative «Алеше».
> Reinforced negation «ни… ни… не»: «Ни словом, ни единым намёком… не упомянула» piles «ни… ни» onto «не» for emphatic negation — 'not by a single word, not by the faintest hint did she mention'. The instrumentals «словом, намёком» mark the means by which she did NOT mention it.
> Archaic «чрез» for «через»: «Чрез» is the older, non-pleophonic form of «через» ('through, via'), governing the accusative «сестру». It belongs to the elevated literary register and is a small marker of the narrator's bookish 19th-century voice.

Это она великодушно утаила и не устыдилась выставить наружу, что это она, она сама, прибежала тогда к молодому офицеру, своим собственным порывом, надеясь на что-то… чтобы выпросить у него денег.  
This she magnanimously left unsaid, and was not ashamed to make plain that it was she, she herself, who had then run to the young officer, of her own impulse, hoping for something… in order to beg money of him.
> Cleft «это… она сама» + emphatic repetition: «Это она, она сама, прибежала» is a cleft for emphasis — 'it was she, she herself, who ran'. «Сама» intensifies, and the doubled «она» drives home that the initiative was entirely hers. «Прибежала» (prefixed perfective of motion) marks arrival at a run.
> Reflexive «устыдиться» + purpose «чтобы»: «Устыдилась» (reflexive 'was ashamed') governs the infinitive «выставить». «Чтобы выпросить у него денег» is a purpose clause ('in order to beg money of him'); «выпросить… денег» takes a partitive/negation-flavoured genitive «денег».

Это было нечто потрясающее.  
It was something shattering.
> «нечто» + present participle as adjective: «Потрясающее» is the present active participle of «потрясать» (to shake, shock) used adjectivally — 'something shattering/staggering'. With invariable «нечто» it forms the predicate 'it was something shattering'.

Я холодел и дрожал слушая, зала замерла, ловя каждое слово.  
I went cold and trembled as I listened; the hall held its breath, catching every word.
> Imperfective process + gerund «слушая»: «Холодел и дрожал» are imperfective pasts (was going cold, was trembling), conveying ongoing physical states. «Слушая» is the present gerund 'as I listened', giving the simultaneous circumstance shared with the narrator-subject.
> Gerund «ловя» of attendant action: «Ловя каждое слово» ('catching every word') is a present gerund attached to «замерла» (froze) — the hall, having frozen, hangs on each word. Personifying «зала» (the hall) with a human gerund heightens the collective suspense.

Тут было что-то беспримерное, так что даже и от такой самовластной и презрительно-гордой девушки, как она, почти невозможно было ожидать такого высокооткровенного показания, такой жертвы, такого самозаклания.  
There was something here without precedent — so much so that even from a girl as imperious and contemptuously proud as she was, it had been all but impossible to expect such candid testimony, such a sacrifice, such self-immolation.
> Impersonal «невозможно было» + genitive after «ожидать»: «Невозможно было ожидать» is impersonal ('it was impossible to expect'). «Ожидать» governs the genitive: «такого показания, такой жертвы, такого самозаклания». «От… девушки» ('from a girl', genitive after «от») names the source one would not expect it from.
> «самозаклание» — self-immolation, self-sacrifice: «Самозаклание» is a solemn, Church-Slavonic-flavoured compound: «само-» (self) + «заклание» (a ritual slaying/sacrifice, as of a sacrificial victim). It frames Katerina's confession in sacrificial, almost liturgical terms — 'self-immolation'. The bookish noun in «-ие» belongs to the high register.
> «самовластная» — imperious, self-willed: «Самовластная» ('self-ruling, imperious') and the compound «презрительно-гордая» ('contemptuously proud') sketch Katerina's haughty character. «Самовластие» is the very word used for autocratic power, lending her pride a near-tyrannical colour.

И для чего, для кого?  
And for what, for whom?
> «для» + genitive interrogatives: «Для чего, для кого» — the preposition «для» ('for the sake of') governs the genitive of the interrogatives «что» and «кто» («чего, кого»). The clipped rhetorical pair voices the narrator's incredulous wonder at her sacrifice.

Чтобы спасти своего изменника и обидчика, чтобы послужить хоть чем-нибудь, хоть малым, к спасению его, произведя в его пользу хорошее впечатление!  
To save the man who had betrayed and wronged her, to do something, however slight, toward his rescue, by producing a good impression in his favor!
> Purpose «чтобы» + perfective infinitive: Twin «чтобы»-clauses with perfective infinitives «спасти» (to save) and «послужить» (to be of service) answer the previous 'for what?'. With an infinitive (same subject) «чтобы» needs no past-form verb — just the goal.
> Non-specific «чем-нибудь» (instrumental): «Чем-нибудь» is the instrumental of «что-нибудь», the non-specific 'anything at all' (with «-нибудь», unlike specific «-то»). «Хоть чем-нибудь, хоть малым» — 'with something, anything, however slight' — names the means of helping.
> Perfective gerund «произведя»: «Произведя… впечатление» is a perfective past gerund of «произвести» — 'by producing an impression'. The gerund names the means by which she would serve his rescue, completed in the act of testifying.

И в самом деле: образ офицера, отдающего свои последние пять тысяч рублей — всё, что у него оставалось в жизни, — и почтительно преклонившегося пред невинною девушкой, выставился весьма симпатично и привлекательно, но… у меня больно сжалось сердце!  
And indeed: the image of the officer giving away his last five thousand roubles — all that he had left in the world — and reverently bowing low before an innocent girl came out as something very sympathetic and attractive, but… my heart contracted painfully!
> Present participle «отдающего» + reflexive «свои»: «Отдающего» is a present active participle ('giving away'), agreeing with «офицера» in the genitive, compressing 'the officer who gives away'. «Свои последние пять тысяч» uses the reflexive possessive «свои» — 'his own last five thousand'.
> Past participle «преклонившегося» + archaic «пред»: «Преклонившегося» is a past active participle of reflexive «преклониться» (to bow low) — 'having reverently bowed'. «Пред» is the archaic, elevated form of «перед» (+ instrumental «девушкой») — 'before an innocent girl'.
> Impersonal reflexive + dative-like «у меня»: «У меня… сжалось сердце» ('my heart contracted') uses the reflexive «сжаться» with the experiencer marked by «у меня» (у + genitive). The heart 'tightens of itself' — an involuntary inner event, the kind Dostoevsky renders impersonally.

Я почувствовал, что может выйти потом (да и вышла потом, вышла!) клевета!  
I felt that out of this might later come (and indeed it did come later, it did!) slander!
> Aspect play: «может выйти» / «вышла»: The verb «выйти» ('to come out, result') appears first as perfective infinitive «может выйти» (might result) and then, in the parenthesis, as perfective past «вышла» twice for emphatic confirmation — 'and indeed it did come out!'. The subject «клевета» (slander) is held to the end for impact.

Со злобным смешком говорили потом во всем городе, что рассказ, может быть, не совсем был точен, именно в том месте, где офицер отпустил от себя девицу «будто бы только с почтительным поклоном».  
With a malicious snigger it was said afterward throughout the whole town that the account had perhaps not been entirely accurate, precisely at the point where the officer dismissed the girl from his presence "supposedly with only a respectful bow."
> Subjectless «говорили» + instrumental of manner: «Говорили» (3rd plural with no subject) is the impersonal 'people said / it was said'. «Со злобным смешком» is «с» + instrumental for accompanying manner — 'with a malicious snigger'.
> Expressive «смешок» and bookish «девица»: «Смешок» is the diminutive of «смех» — a small, here nasty, snicker (the «-ок» colours it pejoratively). «Девица» is an elevated/archaic word for a young unmarried woman, more formal than «девушка», fitting the gossipy-genteel register.
> Reportative «будто бы» (alleged): «Будто бы» means 'supposedly / as if', flagging a claim the speaker doubts — here the malicious insinuation that the officer dismissed her 'supposedly with only a respectful bow'. It marks reported speech the narrator distances himself from.

Намекали, что тут нечто «пропущено».  
It was hinted that something here had been "left out."
> Short passive participle «пропущено»: «Пропущено» is the short neuter past passive participle of «пропустить» (to leave out, omit) — predicative 'has been left out'. «Намекали» is again the subjectless plural 'they hinted'. The scare-quotes mark the townsfolk's coy euphemism.

«Да если б и не было пропущено, если б и всё правда была, — говорили даже самые почтенные наши дамы, — то и тогда еще неизвестно, очень ли благородно так поступить было девушке, даже хоть бы спасая отца?»  
"And even if nothing had been left out, even if it were all true," said even the most respectable of our ladies, "it remains a question even so whether it was very noble of a girl to act in that way, even if she was saving her father."
> Counterfactual «если б» chain: Two counterfactual clauses with «если б» (reduced «бы») and past-form verbs: 'even if nothing had been left out, even if it were all true'. The «и» after «если б» is the concessive 'even'. «Не было пропущено» combines negation with the passive participle.
> «ли» question + dative subject of evaluation: «Очень ли благородно… было» fronts «благородно» with «ли» for an embedded question 'whether it was very noble'. «Девушке… поступить» is the dative-experiencer with an infinitive: the impersonal frame 'for a girl to act'.
> Concessive «хоть бы» + gerund «спасая»: «Хоть бы спасая отца» ('even if she was saving her father') combines the concessive «хоть бы» with the present gerund «спасая» (saving). The gerund supplies the concessive circumstance attached to the implied subject.

И неужели Катерина Ивановна, с ее умом, с ее болезненною проницательностью, не предчувствовала заранее, что так заговорят?  
And could Katerina Ivanovna, with her intelligence, with her morbid perceptiveness, really have failed to foresee in advance that people would talk so?
> Rhetorical particle «неужели»: «Неужели» is an incredulous question particle — 'could it really be that…?', expecting a 'no'. Paired with «не предчувствовала», it conveys the narrator's astonishment that she could NOT have foreseen the gossip.
> «болезненная проницательность» — morbid acuteness: «Болезненный» here means 'morbid, sickly' rather than literally 'painful', and «проницательность» is keen insight/perceptiveness. Together they name the over-sensitive, almost pathological perceptiveness Dostoevsky ascribes to his most self-tormenting characters. Note the archaic instrumental «-ою».

Непременно предчувствовала, и вот решилась же сказать всё!  
She certainly did foresee it — and yet she resolved to tell everything!
> Particles «вот… же» of insistence: «Вот… же» heap emphasis: «вот» points triumphantly ('and yet there!'), «же» insists against expectation — 'and yet she did resolve to say everything!'. «Решилась» is reflexive «решиться» (to bring oneself to, dare).

Разумеется, все эти грязненькие сомнения в правде рассказа начались лишь потом, а в первую минуту всё и все были потрясены.  
Of course, all these grubby little doubts about the truth of her account began only afterward; in the first moment everything and everyone was overwhelmed.
> Diminutive «грязненькие» — grubby little: «Грязненькие» adds the expressive diminutive «-еньк-» to «грязный» (dirty), yielding a contemptuous 'grubby little' rather than merely 'small'. The suffix loads the doubts with the narrator's moral disdain.
> Contrastive «а» + «всё и все»: The contrastive «а» pivots from 'afterward' to 'in the first moment'. «Всё и все» plays neuter «всё» (everything) against masculine-plural «все» (everyone), both subjects of «были потрясены» (short passive participle, 'were overwhelmed') — a sweeping totality.

Что же до членов суда, то Катерину Ивановну выслушали в благоговейном, так сказать, даже стыдливом молчании.  
As for the members of the court, they heard Katerina Ivanovna out in a reverent, one might even say a bashful, silence.
> The «что до… то» frame: «Что (же) до X, то…» is a bookish topic-fronting formula, 'as for X, then…', that hoists the topic to the front and resumes the main clause with «то». The particle «же» adds a light insistent emphasis to the shift of subject.
> Prepositional of manner: «в… молчании» (in… silence) is the prepositional case after «в», here naming the manner in which they listened. The adjectives «благоговейном… стыдливом» agree with «молчании» in the prepositional.
> «благоговейный» — reverent, awestruck: An elevated, faintly liturgical word for reverence before something holy (the noun «благоговение»). Applied to a courtroom hush, it lends Katerina Ivanovna's testimony an almost sacred aura.

Прокурор не позволил себе ни единого дальнейшего вопроса на эту тему.  
The prosecutor did not permit himself a single further question on the subject.
> Genitive of negation with «ни единого»: Under negation the object «вопрос» shifts from accusative to genitive — «ни единого… вопроса». The intensifier «ни» ('not a single') reinforces the negation and itself demands the genitive of the noun it counts.
> Reflexive «себе» — 'allow oneself': «позволить себе» literally 'permit to oneself', with the dative of the reflexive pronoun «себя». «себе» points back to the subject (the prosecutor) and has no nominative form.

Фетюкович глубоко поклонился ей.  
Fetyukovich bowed to her deeply.
> Dative object of «поклониться»: «поклониться» (to bow to) governs the dative — one bows 'to' someone — hence «ей» (to her). The «-ся» here is lexicalised: the verb exists only in this reflexive form.

О, он почти торжествовал!  
Oh, he was all but triumphant!
> Imperfective past for an inner state: «торжествовал» (was triumphant) is imperfective past, viewing the exultation as an ongoing condition rather than a single event. «почти» ('almost') softens it to a swelling, not-quite-declared triumph.
> «торжествовать» — to triumph, exult: A solemn, somewhat elevated verb (cf. «торжество», a celebration or triumph). The narrator's «О» and exclamation lend it an ironic, theatrical flourish over the lawyer's private gloating.

Многое было приобретено: человек, отдающий, в благородном порыве, последние пять тысяч, и потом тот же человек, убивающий отца ночью с целью ограбить его на три тысячи, — это было нечто отчасти и несвязуемое.  
Much had been gained: a man who, in a noble impulse, gives away his last five thousand, and then that same man murdering his father in the night in order to rob him of three thousand — there was something here that did not altogether hang together.
> Past passive participle (short form): «было приобретено» is the periphrastic passive: «было» (was) plus the short neuter past passive participle «приобретено» (had been gained), from perfective «приобрести». The short form states a result; the agent, if named, would stand in the instrumental.
> Present active participles in apposition: «отдающий» (giving away) and «убивающий» (murdering) are present active participles in -ющ-, each compressing a «который»-clause into one adjectival word and agreeing with «человек». Their parallelism stages the two irreconcilable portraits of the same man.
> «с целью» + infinitive — purpose: «с целью» ('with the aim of') plus the perfective infinitive «ограбить» expresses purpose, a tighter bookish alternative to a «чтобы»-clause.
> «несвязуемое» — that won't connect up: A rare, almost coined adjective (negated «не-» + «связуемое», 'joinable') meaning the two halves of the picture cannot be reconciled. The bookish passive-participial form suits the narrator's analytic register.

По крайней мере хоть грабеж-то мог теперь устранить Фетюкович.  
At the very least Fetyukovich could now do away with the robbery.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «грабеж» highlights it as the known topic — 'the robbery, at least'. This is the topic-marking «-то», distinct from the indefinite «что-то»; it foregrounds the one charge the defense can now neutralise.
> «хоть» as concessive minimiser: Stacked with «по крайней мере» ('at least'), the particle «хоть» scales the claim down to a minimum — 'at the very least, the robbery anyway'. Such concessive particles are the fine grain of the narrator's hedging voice.

«Дело» вдруг облилось каким-то новым светом.  
The "case" was suddenly bathed in some new light.
> Instrumental of means with «-ся» verb: «облилось» (was bathed/flooded), a reflexive perfective, takes the instrumental «светом» (with light) to name what it was flooded by. The «-ся» gives the intransitive, middle sense 'became suffused'.
> Indefinite «какой-то»: «какой-то» ('some… or other') marks the new light as real but undefined — the narrator gestures at a shift in mood he cannot yet pin down. The «-то» series flags a specific-but-unknown quality.

Что-то симпатичное пронеслось в пользу Мити.  
Something sympathetic had swept through the room in Mitya's favor.
> Neuter indefinite subject: «Что-то симпатичное» ('something sympathetic') is a neuter indefinite subject; the adjective takes neuter agreement and the verb «пронеслось» (swept through) the neuter past. Russian readily makes an unnamed atmosphere the grammatical subject.
> «в пользу» — in favour of: A fixed phrase, «в пользу» + genitive, 'in favour / to the benefit of'. «Мити» is the genitive of the affectionate diminutive «Митя» (for Дмитрий).

Он же… про него рассказывали, что он раз или два во время показания Катерины Ивановны вскочил было с места, потом упал опять на скамью и закрыл обеими ладонями лицо.  
As for him… they told afterward that once or twice during Katerina Ivanovna's testimony he had started up from his seat, then dropped back onto the bench and covered his face with both palms.
> Contrastive «же» after the pronoun: Postposed «же» on «он» marks a sharp turn of subject — 'As for him…' — pivoting from the courtroom mood back to Mitya himself. It is the spoken hinge English can only render with stress.
> The particle «было» — an interrupted action: «было» after a perfective past («вскочил было») marks an action begun or just completed but then reversed or undercut — he started up, only to drop back down. This 19th-century «было» of the abandoned action has no neat English equivalent.
> Subjectless 'they said': «рассказывали» (they told/related), 3rd-person plural with no stated subject, is Russian's standard impersonal 'people said'. It frames Mitya's behaviour as courtroom hearsay the narrator merely relays.
> Instrumental of means; «оба/обе»: «обеими ладонями» (with both palms) is the instrumental of means. «обеими» is the feminine form of the dual-like quantifier «обе» ('both'), agreeing with feminine «ладони».

Но когда она кончила, он вдруг рыдающим голосом воскликнул, простирая к ней руки:  
But when she had finished, he suddenly cried out in a sobbing voice, stretching his hands toward her:
> Imperfective gerund of simultaneous action: «простирая» (stretching out) is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») in -я, naming an action going on at the same time as the main verb «воскликнул». It shares Mitya as its subject — he cried out while reaching toward her.
> Perfective past in a temporal clause: «кончила» (she had finished) is perfective past, marking the completed point after which the main event follows. «когда» + perfective gives the 'once / after she had done' sense that anchors the sequence.
> «простирать» — to stretch forth: A solemn, elevated verb for extending the arms (cf. liturgical 'stretch forth thy hands'), nobler than everyday «протягивать». It dignifies Mitya's anguished gesture toward Katerina.

— Катя, зачем меня погубила!  
"Katya, why have you destroyed me!"
> Dropped pronoun; «зачем» of reproach: The subject «ты» is omitted — the feminine past «погубила» alone tells us he addresses Katya. «зачем» ('what for, why') here is accusatory rather than truly inquiring: 'why on earth have you ruined me'.

И громко зарыдал было на всю залу.  
And he began to weep aloud for the whole hall to hear.
> Ingressive «за-» + «было»: The prefix «за-» on «рыдать» gives an inceptive perfective, 'burst into sobbing'; «было» again signals the action was begun but at once checked (see the next sentence). Aspect and particle together stage a sob he immediately stifles.
> «на всю залу» — for the whole hall: Idiomatic «на всю залу» = loud enough to fill the whole courtroom. Note the older feminine «зала» (hall) where modern Russian prefers the masculine «зал».

Впрочем, мигом сдержал себя и опять прокричал:  
He checked himself in an instant, however, and cried out again:
> «себя» vs. «-ся»: «сдержал себя» (checked himself) uses the full reflexive object pronoun «себя» for deliberate emphasis on self-control, where the verb «сдержаться» could carry the same sense more compactly.
> «мигом» — in a flash: A frozen instrumental of «миг» (an instant) functioning as an adverb, 'in a flash, instantly'. Such adverbial instrumentals (cf. «шёпотом», «бегом») are a productive corner of Russian.

— Теперь я приговорен!  
"Now I am condemned!"
> Short past passive participle as predicate: «приговорён» is the short masculine past passive participle of «приговорить» (to sentence) — 'I am condemned'. The short form, standing as predicate with an implied 'am', states the result as a finished verdict over Mitya.

А затем как бы закоченел на месте, стиснув зубы и сжав крестом на груди руки.  
And after that he seemed to freeze stiff where he sat, his teeth clenched and his arms folded crosswise on his chest.
> Two perfective past gerunds: «стиснув» (having clenched) and «сжав» (having folded) are perfective past gerunds in -в, naming the completed actions that produce his frozen posture. Sharing the subject with «закоченел», they pile attendant detail in one terse clause.
> «как бы» — softening simile: «как бы» ('as if, as it were') hedges the verb «закоченел» (froze stiff) into a simile — he seemed to turn rigid. The narrator marks the description as impression, not literal fact.
> «крестом» — crosswise, in a cross: Instrumental of «крест» used adverbially: arms folded 'in the form of a cross' over the chest. The image quietly overlays a religious resonance on Mitya's frozen, martyr-like stillness.

Катерина Ивановна осталась в зале и села на указанный ей стул.  
Katerina Ivanovna remained in the hall and sat down on the chair that had been pointed out to her.
> Past passive participle as modifier: «указанный» (pointed-out, indicated) is a long-form past passive participle modifying «стул»; «ей» (to her) is its dative complement — the chair indicated to her. It compresses a relative clause into a single adjective.
> Two perfectives advance the scene: «осталась» (remained) and «села» (sat down) are perfective pasts, each a single completed move that carries the narrative one step forward, against the imperfective background description that follows.

Она была бледна и сидела потупившись.  
She was pale and sat with her eyes cast down.
> Short adjective in predicate: «бледна» is the short feminine form of «бледный» (pale), used predicatively after «была». The short adjective, characteristically bookish, presents her pallor as a state of that moment.
> Gerund of «-ся» verb: «потупившись» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «потупиться» (to cast one's eyes down). It modifies «сидела» — she sat 'having lowered her gaze' — and the «-сь» is the post-vowel form of the reflexive clitic.

Рассказывали бывшие близ нее, что она долго вся дрожала как в лихорадке.  
Those who had been near her told afterward that for a long while she trembled all over as though in a fever.
> Substantivised past active participle: «бывшие» (those who had been), the past active participle of «быть», stands on its own as a noun-phrase subject — 'those who had been near her'. «близ» is a bookish preposition ('near') governing the genitive «нее».
> Imperfective of prolonged trembling: «дрожала» (was trembling), imperfective past with «долго» (a long while), views the shaking as drawn-out process. «вся» ('all over') intensifies it; «как в лихорадке» = 'as in a fever'.

К допросу явилась Грушенька.  
Grushenka came forward to be examined.
> Fronted phrase, verb-before-subject: The dative-goal phrase «к допросу» ('for the examination') is fronted and the verb «явилась» precedes the subject «Грушенька» — a presentational order that introduces a new figure onto the scene with weight.

Я подхожу близко к той катастрофе, которая, разразившись внезапно, действительно, может быть, погубила Митю.  
I am drawing near to that catastrophe which, breaking out abruptly, may indeed have been what destroyed Mitya.
> Relative «которая» wrapping a gerund: The relative «которая» agrees with feminine «катастрофе» in gender/number but takes nominative as subject of its own clause. Nested inside it, the perfective gerund «разразившись» (having broken out) adds a prior circumstance — the catastrophe, once it erupted, destroyed Mitya.
> Present tense as narratorial 'now': «подхожу» (I am drawing near), present of imperfective «подходить», marks the chronicler-narrator stepping into the foreground in his own storytelling present — a recurring device of this novel's intimate chronicler.

Ибо я уверен, да и все тоже, все юристы после так говорили, что не явись этого эпизода, преступнику по крайней мере дали бы снисхождение.  
For I am convinced — and so is everyone, all the lawyers said as much afterward — that had this episode not occurred, the prisoner would at the very least have been shown some leniency.
> Conditional: imperative-as-protasis + «бы»: «не явись» is a 2nd-person imperative form pressed into service as the 'if' clause of an irrealis condition ('had this episode not appeared'), with the apodosis «дали бы» (would have given) built from past + «бы». This imperative-conditional is a vivid bookish counterfactual.
> Subjectless 'they would have shown leniency': «дали бы» is again the subjectless 3rd-plural ('they/the court would have granted'), with «снисхождение» (leniency, mitigation) as object. The dropped subject keeps the focus on the impersonal verdict of the court.
> «ибо» — archaic 'for': «Ибо» is a bookish, Church-Slavonic-flavoured conjunction for 'for, because', heavier and more solemn than «потому что». It pitches the narrator's aside into a higher, almost scriptural register.

Но об этом сейчас.  
But of that presently.
> Verbless sentence: A complete utterance with no verb: «об этом» (about that, prepositional after «о») plus «сейчас» ('presently') — 'but of that in a moment'. Russian freely omits the copula, leaving a crisp narratorial deferral.

Два слова лишь прежде о Грушеньке.  
First just a couple of words about Grushenka.
> Genitive singular after «два»: After «два» the noun takes the genitive singular: «два слова» ('a couple of words'). The fronted «лишь» ('only, just') and «прежде» ('beforehand') compress this into a terse aside.
> «Грушенька» — the affectionate name: An affectionate diminutive of Аграфена / Груша, built with the warm «-еньк-» suffix. The narrator's habitual use of it signals his tenderness toward her even as a witness.

Она явилась в залу тоже вся одетая в черное, в своей прекрасной черной шали на плечах.  
She too came into the hall dressed entirely in black, with her beautiful black shawl over her shoulders.
> Past passive participle + «в» of attire: «одетая» (dressed) is a long-form past passive participle agreeing with the subject; «в черное» ('in black', accusative neuter substantivised) names what she is dressed in. «вся» ('entirely') stresses head-to-toe black.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «своей» (her own) refers back to the clause subject Grushenka, where «её» could ambiguously mean someone else's. The whole phrase is prepositional after «в», with all three words agreeing in case.

Плавно, своею неслышною походкой, с маленькою раскачкой, как ходят иногда полные женщины, приблизилась она к балюстраде, пристально смотря на председателя и ни разу не взглянув ни направо, ни налево.  
Smoothly, with her noiseless gait and a slight swaying motion, the way stout women sometimes walk, she approached the balustrade, gazing fixedly at the presiding judge and not once glancing either to the right or to the left.
> Archaic instrumental in -ою: «своею… походкой» (with her gait) and «с маленькою раскачкой» (with a slight sway) are instrumentals of manner; the long endings -ою/-ою are the bookish 19th-century variant of modern -ой, lending a measured, literary cadence.
> Paired gerunds, imperfective vs perfective: «смотря» (gazing), imperfective present gerund, gives the sustained look; «не взглянув» (not having glanced), perfective past gerund under negation, gives the single look she never gave. The aspect contrast sets ongoing stare against absent glance.
> Multidirectional «ходят» for habit: «ходят» (walk, generally) is the multidirectional motion verb, the right choice for a habitual, characteristic manner of walking — 'the way stout women sometimes walk', not a single trip.

По-моему, она была очень хороша собой в ту минуту и вовсе не бледна, как уверяли потом дамы.  
To my mind she looked very handsome at that moment, and not at all pale, as the ladies later insisted.
> Short adjective + «собой» idiom: «хороша собой» is a set phrase, 'good-looking', literally 'good in herself': the short feminine adjective «хороша» plus the instrumental of the reflexive «себя». «собой» here means 'in respect of her own person'.
> «как» of reported claim: «как уверяли… дамы» ('as the ladies insisted') subordinates the gossip the narrator is contradicting. «уверяли» is imperfective past — repeated, insistent claiming.

Уверяли тоже, что у ней было какое-то сосредоточенное и злое лицо.  
They also insisted that her face wore a kind of concentrated, malicious look.
> «у» + genitive of possession: «у ней было… лицо» = 'she had a… face', the standard «у кого-то есть» possessive frame with «у» + genitive «ней». «ней» is a colloquial/older variant of «неё» after a preposition.
> «сосредоточенный» / «злой»: «сосредоточенное» (concentrated, intent — from «сосредоточить») paired with «злое» (angry, malicious) sketches the hostile composure the ladies impute to her. «злой» ranges from 'angry' to 'wicked', and Dostoevsky exploits the blur.

Я думаю только, что она была раздражена и тяжело чувствовала на себе презрительно-любопытные взгляды жадной к скандалу нашей публики.  
I think only that she was irritated and felt keenly upon her the contemptuously curious stares of our public, so greedy for a scandal.
> «на себе» — felt upon herself: «чувствовала на себе… взгляды» = 'felt the stares upon herself', with reflexive «себе» (prepositional after «на») pointing back to Grushenka. The imperfective «чувствовала» renders it a sustained, oppressive awareness.
> Genitive phrase with embedded adjective: The genitive «нашей публики» (of our public) is expanded by «жадной к скандалу» ('greedy for scandal'), itself an adjective governing «к» + dative «скандалу». The whole stack agrees in the genitive after «взгляды… публики».

Это был характер гордый, не выносящий презрения, один из таких, которые, чуть лишь заподозрят от кого презрение, — тотчас воспламеняются гневом и жаждой отпора.  
Hers was a proud character, one that could not endure contempt — the sort of person who, at the very suspicion of contempt from anyone, instantly flares up with anger and a craving to strike back.
> Present active participle + genitive of negation: «не выносящий» (not enduring), a present active participle modifying «характер», takes the genitive «презрения» under its negation — the genitive of negation operating inside a participial phrase.
> Relative clause with perfective future of condition: Inside the «которые» relative clause, «заподозрят» (would suspect), a perfective present-form = future, expresses the recurring trigger after «чуть лишь» ('the moment that'); the main «воспламеняются» (flare up) is present for the habitual reaction.
> «жажда отпора» — a craving to strike back: «жажда» (thirst, craving) + genitive «отпора» (rebuff, retaliation) — instrumental «жаждой» here. The pairing 'thirst for retaliation' is high, almost epic diction for a flash of temper.

При этом была, конечно, и робость, и внутренний стыд за эту робость, так что немудрено, что разговор ее был неровен — то гневлив, то презрителен и усиленно груб, то вдруг звучала искренняя сердечная нотка самоосуждения, самообвинения.  
Mixed in with this, of course, there was also a shyness, and an inner shame at that shyness, so that it is no wonder her speech was uneven — now wrathful, now contemptuous and emphatically rude, then suddenly a sincere, heartfelt note of self-reproach, of self-accusation would ring out.
> Impersonal predicate «немудрено»: «немудрено, что…» ('it is no wonder that…') is an impersonal, subjectless predicate — a frozen short-form word governing a «что»-clause. Russian builds many such judgements with no nominative subject.
> Correlative «то… то…»: The «то… то…» construction lists alternating states ('now this, now that'). The first members are short adjectives («гневлив», «презрителен»); the last switches to a finite verb «звучала», mirroring in grammar the unevenness of her speech.
> «само-» compounds of self-reproach: «самоосуждение» (self-condemnation) and «самообвинение» (self-accusation) are «само-» ('self') compounds — abstract bookish nouns in genitive here. The doubling underscores the self-lacerating note Dostoevsky hears in her.

Иногда же говорила так, как будто летела в какую-то пропасть: «все-де равно, что бы ни вышло, а я все-таки скажу…»  
And sometimes she spoke as though she were hurtling into some abyss: "It's all the same, whatever may come of it, I'll say it anyway…"
> «как будто» + imperfective of process: «как будто» ('as if') introduces a simile; «летела» (was flying/hurtling), imperfective past, paints the plunge as ongoing motion into «пропасть» (abyss, accusative of direction after «в»).
> Reportive «-де» and concessive «что бы ни»: The clitic «-де» flags reported speech ('she said'), an old colloquial hearsay marker. «что бы ни вышло» ('whatever may come of it') is the concessive «кто/что бы ни» pattern, built on «бы» + past, expressing 'no matter what'.

Насчет знакомства своего с Федором Павловичем она резко заметила: «Всё пустяки, разве я виновата, что он ко мне привязался?»  
Concerning her acquaintance with Fyodor Pavlovich she remarked sharply: "It's all nonsense — is it my fault that he fastened himself onto me?"
> Rhetorical particle «разве»: «разве» turns the clause into an indignant rhetorical question expecting 'no' — 'is it really my fault…?'. «виновата» is the short feminine adjective ('to blame'), and «привязался» is the reflexive perfective 'fastened himself onto'.
> «привязаться» — to latch onto: Reflexive «привязаться» (от «привязать», to tie) means both 'to become attached to' and, dismissively, 'to pester/latch onto'. Grushenka means the contemptuous sense — Fyodor Pavlovich fastened himself on her.

А потом через минуту прибавила: «Я во всем виновата, я смеялась над тем и другим — и над стариком, и над этим — и их обоих до того довела. Из-за меня всё произошло».  
And then, a moment later, she added: "I'm to blame for everything, I laughed at the one and the other — at the old man and at this one too — and drove them both to such a pitch. It all came about because of me."
> Animate accusative «обоих»; «до того… что»: «их обоих» (both of them) shows the animate accusative borrowing the genitive form «обоих». «до того довела» ('drove them to such a pitch') uses «до того» to set up an intensity, here left to «—» rather than a full «что»-clause.
> Causal «из-за» + genitive: «из-за меня» = 'because of me', the compound preposition «из-за» governing the genitive «меня» to assign blame/cause. «произошло» (came about) is perfective — the whole affair as a finished event.

Как-то коснулось дело до Самсонова: «Какое кому дело, — с каким-то наглым вызовом тотчас же огрызнулась она, — он был мой благодетель, он меня босоногую взял, когда меня родные из избы вышвырнули».  
The matter happened to touch on Samsonov: "What business is that of anyone's," she snapped back at once with a kind of insolent defiance, "he was my benefactor, he took me in barefoot when my own people threw me out of the house."
> Impersonal «какое кому дело»: An idiomatic subjectless retort: «(какое) кому дело» = 'what business is it of anyone's', with the dative «кому» naming the (indefinite) person concerned. Russian frames 'it's none of X's business' through this dative-experiencer pattern.
> «огрызнуться» — to snap back: A vivid colloquial perfective, literally 'to snarl/snap back' (cf. «грызть», to gnaw). It paints Grushenka's retort as an animal flash of teeth, matched by «с наглым вызовом» (with insolent defiance).

Председатель, впрочем весьма вежливо, напомнил ей, что надо отвечать прямо на вопросы, не вдаваясь в излишние подробности.  
The presiding judge, very courteously for all that, reminded her that she must answer the questions directly, without going into unnecessary detail.
> Dative object + impersonal «надо»: «напомнил ей» (reminded her) takes the dative «ей». The reported content uses impersonal «надо» ('one must') + infinitive «отвечать» — a subjectless obligation rather than a 'you must'.
> Negated imperfective gerund: «не вдаваясь» ('without going into'), an imperfective gerund of reflexive «вдаваться», renders the English 'without …-ing'. It modifies «отвечать», prescribing the manner of answering.

Грушенька покраснела, и глаза ее сверкнули.  
Grushenka flushed, and her eyes flashed.
> Inceptive «по-» and instantaneous perfectives: «покраснела» (flushed), with inceptive «по-», and «сверкнули» (flashed) are perfective pasts marking two abrupt, momentary changes. The terse paired perfectives mirror the sudden flare of her reaction.

Пакета с деньгами она не видала, а только слыхала от «злодея», что есть у Федора Павловича какой-то пакет с тремя тысячами.  
She had not seen the packet of money; she had only heard from "the villain" that Fyodor Pavlovich had some packet with three thousand in it.
> Fronted genitive of negation: «Пакета… не видала» — the object «пакет» appears in the genitive «пакета» under the negated «видала», and is fronted as the topic. «видала» is a colloquial imperfective past variant of «видела».
> «у… есть» possession in reported speech: The reported clause «есть у Федора Павловича… пакет» is the «у кого-то есть что-то» possessive frame: «у» + genitive «Федора Павловича» plus «пакет» in the nominative as what exists. «слыхала» is again the colloquial imperfective for 'had heard'.

«Только это всё глупости, я смеялась, и ни за что бы туда не пошла…»  
"Only it's all foolishness, I was laughing, and nothing on earth would have made me go there…"
> Conditional «бы» + «ни за что» negation: «ни за что… не пошла бы» is an unreal conditional ('nothing would have made me go'), past «пошла» + «бы». «ни за что» ('for nothing in the world') is an ни-intensified negation working in concord with «не».
> Unidirectional «пойти» of motion: «пошла» is the perfective of «идти» (one-way going) — a single, directed trip 'there' («туда»). She denies ever making that one journey, not habitual visits.

— Про кого вы сейчас упомянули как о «злодее»? — осведомился прокурор.  
"Whom did you just refer to as 'the villain'?" the prosecutor inquired.
> «про» + accusative interrogative: «Про кого» ('about whom') fronts the accusative interrogative «кого» governed by «про» (about). «упомянули» (referred to / mentioned) is the perfective of a completed act of naming.
> «осведомиться» — to inquire (formally): A formal, official verb for inquiring, fitting the prosecutor's measured courtroom register. It recurs in this scene («Осведомились…») as the narrator's marker of the lawyers' polished questioning.

— А про лакея, про Смердякова, что барина своего убил, а вчера повесился.  
"Why, the lackey, Smerdyakov, the one who killed his master and hanged himself yesterday."
> Relative «что» + reflexive «свой»: Here «что» functions as a colloquial relative ('the one who'), introducing the clause that identifies Smerdyakov. «барина своего» (his own master) is the animate accusative «барина» with reflexive «своего» pointing back to Smerdyakov.

Конечно, ее мигом спросили: какие же у ней основания для такого решительного обвинения, но оснований не оказалось тоже и у ней никаких.  
Naturally she was asked at once what grounds she had for such a decisive accusation, but it turned out that she too had no grounds whatsoever.
> Genitive of negation with «не оказалось»: «не оказалось» ('there turned out to be none'), an impersonal negated existential, forces its logical subject «оснований» (grounds) into the genitive plural. «никаких» ('none whatever') reinforces in negative concord with «не».
> Subjectless 'they asked her': «спросили» with no subject is again the impersonal 3rd-plural ('she was asked'), keeping the court itself, not any one questioner, as the agent. «мигом» = 'in a flash'.

— Так Дмитрий Федорович мне сам говорил, ему и верьте.  
"Dmitri Fyodorovich told me so himself, you should believe him."
> Imperative with dative + emphatic «и»: «верьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «верить» (to believe), which governs the dative «ему» (believe him). The little «и» here is emphatic — 'him is the one you should believe'.

Разлучница его погубила, вот что, всему одна она причиной, вот что, — вся как будто содрогаясь от ненависти, прибавила Грушенька, и злобная нотка зазвенела в ее голосе.  
"The husband-stealer destroyed him, that's what it is, she alone is the cause of it all, that's what it is," Grushenka added, all but shuddering with hatred, and a spiteful note rang in her voice.
> Gerund of attendant manner: «содрогаясь» (shuddering), an imperfective gerund of reflexive «содрогаться», describes how she added her words. «от ненависти» ('with/from hatred') is «от» + genitive marking the cause of the shudder.
> «разлучница» — the woman who parts lovers: A pointedly feminine, folk-tinged noun (от «разлучить», to separate) for a rival who steals one's man away — rendered 'husband-stealer'. Grushenka hurls it at Katerina Ivanovna; the «-ниц-» suffix marks the female agent.

Осведомились, на кого она опять намекает.  
They asked her whom she was hinting at this time.
> Subjectless main verb + indirect question: «Осведомились» (they inquired) is once more the impersonal 3rd-plural. The embedded indirect question keeps «на кого» (at whom, accusative after «на») fronted before the imperfective present «намекает» (is hinting).

— А на барышню, на эту вот Катерину Ивановну.  
"Why, the young lady, this Katerina Ivanovna here."
> Reply-fragment with deictic «вот»: An answer-fragment with no verb, echoing the «на»+accusative of the question. «эту вот» ('this here'), with the pointing particle «вот», jabs deictically at Katerina Ivanovna present in the hall.
> «барышня» — the young lady: «барышня» is an unmarried young lady of the gentry/educated class. In Grushenka's mouth, contrasting her own peasant «изба» origins, the word carries a sneer at Katerina Ivanovna's refinement.

К себе меня тогда зазвала, шоколатом потчевала, прельстить хотела.  
"She summoned me to her that time, plied me with chocolate, wanted to win me over.
> Reflexive «к себе»; fronted objects: «к себе» ('to her own place', dative reflexive after «к») and the fronted accusative «меня» throw the emphasis onto the summoning. «зазвала» is the perfective of a single completed act of luring her over.
> «шоколат» and «потчевать»: «шоколатом» (instrumental) is an old colloquial form of 'chocolate'; «потчевать» is a folksy verb for plying or treating a guest with food and drink. The pairing renders Katerina's hospitality in mocking, homely terms.

Стыда в ней мало истинного, вот что…  
There's little true shame in her, that's what…"
> Genitive of quantity with «мало»: «мало стыда» ('little shame') puts the noun «стыд» in the genitive after the quantifier «мало». Scattered word order — «Стыда… мало истинного» — fronts 'shame' as the indignant topic, with «истинного» (true) tagging on.

Тут председатель уже строго остановил ее, прося умерить свои выражения.  
At this the presiding judge stopped her, sternly now, asking her to moderate her language.
> Gerund «прося» chaining a request: «прося» (asking), imperfective gerund of «просить», attaches the request to «остановил» (stopped her). «умерить свои выражения» ('moderate her language', literally 'her expressions', with reflexive «свои') is the infinitive complement of the asking.

Но сердце ревнивой женщины уже разгорелось, она готова была полететь хоть в бездну…  
But the heart of a jealous woman had already taken fire, and she was ready to fly into the abyss itself…
> Inceptive perfective «разгорелось»: «разгорелось» (took fire, flared up), reflexive perfective with kindling «раз-», marks the single decisive ignition of her jealousy. The genitive chain «сердце ревнивой женщины» ('the heart of a jealous woman') generalises her to a type.
> Short adjective «готова» + «хоть»: «готова была» = short feminine adjective «готова» ('ready') + «была», predicating readiness; «полететь» is the perfective infinitive 'to fly off'. «хоть в бездну» ('into the abyss itself') uses concessive «хоть» for 'even as far as'.

— При аресте в селе Мокром, — припоминая, спросил прокурор, — все видели и слышали, как вы, выбежав из другой комнаты, закричали: «Я во всем виновата, вместе в каторгу пойдем!»  
"At the arrest in the village of Mokroye," the prosecutor asked, recollecting, "everyone saw and heard how you, having run in from the other room, cried out: 'I'm to blame for everything, we'll go to penal servitude together!'
> Perfective gerund of prior motion: «выбежав» (having run out), perfective past gerund of prefixed motion verb «выбежать», names the action completed just before the shout «закричали». The prefix «вы-» (out of) plus genitive «из… комнаты» gives the precise trajectory.
> Perfective future «пойдём»: «пойдём» (we'll go), perfective present-form = simple future, vows a single committed departure together. «в каторгу» is accusative of direction after «в».

Стало быть, была уже и у вас в ту минуту уверенность, что он отцеубийца?  
So at that moment you too were already certain that he was a parricide?"
> «стало быть» — inferential 'so then': «Стало быть» ('so then, therefore') is a fixed inferential connective drawing a conclusion. «была… у вас… уверенность» is the «у» + genitive possessive ('you had a certainty'); the emphatic «и» means 'you too'.

— Я чувств моих тогдашних не помню, — ответила Грушенька, — все тогда закричали, что он отца убил, я и почувствовала, что это я виновата и что из-за меня он убил.  
"I don't remember my feelings at the time," Grushenka answered, "everyone was shouting then that he had killed his father, and so I felt that it was I who was to blame and that he had killed because of me.
> Genitive of negation, fronted: «чувств… не помню» ('I don't remember my feelings') puts the object «чувства» into the genitive plural «чувств» under negation, fronted as topic. «тогдашних» ('of-that-time', from «тогда») is a bookish adjective agreeing in the genitive.
> Inceptive «по-» + zero-copula predicate: «почувствовала» (came to feel), perfective with «по-», marks the onset of the feeling. The embedded «это я виновата» needs no verb 'to be' — short adjective «виновата» predicates 'I am to blame' directly.

А как он сказал, что неповинен, я ему тотчас поверила, и теперь верю, и всегда буду верить: не таков человек, чтобы солгал.  
But once he said he was innocent, I believed him on the spot, and I believe him now, and I always shall: he is not the kind of man to lie."
> Aspect across the tenses of belief: The triad spans all three time-frames: perfective past «поверила» (came to believe, on the spot), imperfective present «верю» (believe now), and compound future «буду верить» (will go on believing) — «быть» + imperfective infinitive for an enduring future.
> «не таков… чтобы» + past-form result: «не таков… чтобы солгал» = 'not such a man as to lie': the correlative «таков» ('such') with «чтобы» introducing the result, whose verb «солгал» takes the past form required after «чтобы».

Вопросы перешли к Фетюковичу.  
The questioning passed to Fetyukovich.
> Prefixed motion verb, figurative: «перешли» (passed over), perfective of prefixed «перейти» («пере-» = across/over), is used figuratively: the questioning 'passed' to Fetyukovich. «к Фетюковичу» is «к» + dative naming the goal.

Между прочим, я помню, он спросил про Ракитина и про двадцать пять рублей «за то, что привел к вам Алексея Федоровича Карамазова».  
Among other things, I remember, he asked about Rakitin and about the twenty-five rubles "for bringing Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov to you."
> «за то, что» — causal 'for': «за то, что…» ('for the fact that…', 'for —ing') gives the ground of payment: «за» + accusative «то» pointing forward to the «что»-clause. «привёл» is the perfective of prefixed «привести» — a single completed bringing.

— А что ж удивительного, что он деньги взял, — с презрительною злобой усмехнулась Грушенька, — он и всё ко мне приходил деньги канючить, рублей по тридцати, бывало, в месяц выберет, всё больше на баловство: пить-есть ему было на что и без моего.  
"And what's so surprising about his taking the money," Grushenka smirked with contemptuous spite, "he was always coming to me to wheedle money, he'd take maybe thirty rubles in a month, all of it mostly for indulgences: he had enough to eat and drink without anything from me."
> «что удивительного» + genitive: «что удивительного» ('what's surprising', literally 'what of-surprising', genitive «удивительного») is an idiomatic dismissive question; «ж» (= «же») adds an offhand insistence. The «что»-clause then states what is unsurprising.
> Distributive «по» + genitive of frequency: «по тридцати» uses distributive «по» ('about/at a rate of thirty each') with an old genitive «тридцати»; «рублей» is the genitive plural after the numeral. «выберет» here is a habitual perfective-future 'he'd take out', with «бывало» marking the recurrence.
> «канючить» and «баловство»: «канючить» is a contemptuous colloquial verb for whining/wheedling for money; «баловство» means frivolous indulgence, pampering oneself. Together they paint Rakitin as a petty cadger spending on treats.

— На каком же основании вы были так щедры к господину Ракитину? — подхватил Фетюкович, несмотря на то, что председатель сильно шевелился.  
"On what grounds were you so generous to Mr. Rakitin?" Fetyukovich pressed, in spite of the fact that the presiding judge was stirring uneasily.
> Concessive «несмотря на то, что»: «несмотря на то, что…» ('in spite of the fact that…') is the full concessive conjunction, «несмотря на» + the correlative «то» + «что». «шевелился» is imperfective past — the judge was stirring uneasily, a continuous fidget.
> Prepositional «на… основании» + «же»: «на каком основании» ('on what grounds', prepositional after «на») is a formal idiom for asking the basis of something. The intercalated «же» sharpens it into a pointed challenge.

— Да ведь он же мне двоюродный брат.  
"Why, he's my cousin.
> Stacked particles «да ведь… же»: Three particles cluster: «да» opens with concessive 'why', «ведь» appeals to shared obviousness ('after all'), «же» insists — together 'why, but he's my cousin, you see'. The zero copula leaves «он… двоюродный брат» verbless.
> «двоюродный брат» — first cousin: «двоюродный» ('of the second [degree]') + «брат» = first cousin. Russian builds kinship with such modifiers; «двоюродная сестра» is a female cousin, «троюродный» a second cousin.

Моя мать с его матерью родные сестры.  
My mother and his mother are own sisters.
> «X с Y» = 'X and Y' (joint subject): «мать с… матерью» literally 'mother with mother' functions as a coordinated plural subject ('my mother and his mother'), with «с» + instrumental «матерью». The predicate «родные сестры» (own/full sisters) is a verbless nominative complement.
> «родные» — full-blood kin: «родной» marks blood-kinship 'by birth': «родные сестры» are full sisters (same parents), as opposed to «двоюродные». The word also carries the warm sense of 'one's own dear'.

Он только всё молил меня никому про то здесь не сказывать, стыдился меня уж очень.  
He only kept begging me not to tell anyone here about it, he was that ashamed of me."
> Imperfective «всё молил» of persistence: «всё молил» ('kept on begging'), imperfective past with adverbial «всё» ('all the while'), stresses repeated, persistent pleading. «не сказывать» is the negated imperfective infinitive ('not to tell'), «сказывать» being a folksy/archaic variant of «говорить/сказать».
> «стыдиться» + genitive; emphatic «уж»: Reflexive «стыдился» (was ashamed) governs the genitive «меня» — one is ashamed 'of' someone. «уж очень» ('ever so', 'really very') is an emphatic intensifier, «уж» colouring the degree.

Этот новый факт оказался совершенною неожиданностью для всех, никто про него до сих пор не знал во всем городе, даже в монастыре, даже не знал Митя.  
This new fact came as a complete surprise to everyone; no one in the whole town had known of it until now, not even at the monastery, not even Mitya knew.
> Instrumental of the predicate after «оказаться»: «Оказаться» (to turn out to be) is one of the linking verbs that put their predicate in the instrumental: «неожиданностью» rather than «неожиданность». The agreeing adjective «совершенною» is the older bookish instrumental ending -ою for what is today -ой.
> Negative concord with «никто … не»: Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even when a negative pronoun is present, so «никто … не знал» literally stacks two negatives for one negation — 'no one knew'. The further «даже не знал Митя» extends the same negation.
> «до сих пор» — 'up to now': A fixed adverbial phrase, 'until now / to this day'. «сих» is the genitive plural of the archaic demonstrative «сей» (this), frozen into the idiom long after «сей» itself faded from speech.

Рассказывали, что Ракитин побагровел от стыда на своем стуле.  
They told that Rakitin turned crimson with shame in his seat.
> Subjectless «рассказывали» — 'they said': A bare third-person-plural verb with no stated subject is Russian's impersonal 'they / people' — 'it was told', 'rumour had it'. It opens reported gossip neutrally, without naming who did the telling.
> «побагроветь» — to flush crimson: From «багровый», a dark blood-red. The perfective prefix по- marks the onset of the state — he 'went crimson'. Stronger and more shaming than mere «покраснеть» (to blush red).
> Cause expressed by «от» + genitive: The preposition «от» here marks the cause of an involuntary reaction — 'crimson from shame' — and governs the genitive «стыда». This «от» of cause is standard with physical responses (дрожать от холода, плакать от радости).

Грушенька еще до входа в залу как-то узнала, что он показал против Мити, а потому и озлилась.  
Even before entering the hall Grushenka had somehow learned that he had testified against Mitya, and that was why she had grown furious.
> «до» + genitive verbal noun = 'before -ing': Russian often compresses 'before she entered' into a preposition plus a noun: «до входа» (before the entering), with «до» governing the genitive. «в залу» then uses the accusative of motion-toward.
> Indefinite «как-то» — 'somehow': The clitic -то makes the interrogative «как» indefinite: 'somehow, in some way' — a specific but unspecified manner. The same -то builds «кто-то», «что-то», «где-то».
> «а потому» and the reflexive «озлилась»: «а потому» means 'and that is why', the contrastive «а» hinging into a consequence. «озлилась» is the reflexive -ся perfective of «озлиться» (to grow bitter/furious) — the -ся marks a change of inner state, with the added particle «и» underscoring 'precisely for that reason'.

Вся давешняя речь господина Ракитина, всё благородство ее, все выходки на крепостное право, на гражданское неустройство России — всё это уже окончательно на этот раз было похерено и уничтожено в общем мнении.  
The whole of Mr. Rakitin's earlier speech, all its high-mindedness, all its sallies against serfdom, against the civic disorder of Russia — all of it was now finally, this time around, crossed out and annihilated in the common opinion.
> «давешний» — 'the earlier (one), from a while ago': A colloquial-archaic adjective, 'of a little while ago, the aforementioned' — pointing back to Rakitin's speech delivered earlier in the same session. Common in 19th-century narration, now decidedly old-fashioned.
> «выходка» — a sally, an antic: Here 'sallies, escapades' — Rakitin's showy rhetorical thrusts. The word carries a faint contempt (a stunt, a stroke of bravado), undercutting the high-mindedness it describes.
> Periphrastic passive: «было» + short passive participle: Two short past-passive participles, «похерено» and «уничтожено», join «было» to state a result — 'was crossed out and annihilated'. The short neuter -о agrees with the collective neuter subject «всё это». The agent ('in the common opinion') is left in a prepositional phrase rather than the instrumental.
> «похерить» — to cross out (from the letter 'хер'): «похерить» literally means to strike a thing through with an X — from «хер», the old name of the Cyrillic letter Х. By Dostoevsky's day it meant 'to cancel, write off'; the same root later spawned a vulgar slang sense, but here it is merely 'crossed out'.

Фетюкович был доволен: опять бог на шапку послал.  
Fetyukovich was content: once again God had dropped something into his cap.
> «бог на шапку послал» — God dropped it in his cap: A folksy idiom of unexpected good fortune: like alms falling into a beggar's upturned cap, fortune has handed the defence lawyer Fetyukovich a windfall. The chapter title — 'Fortune Smiles on Mitya' — turns on exactly this run of luck.
> Short adjective predicate «доволен»: «доволен» (satisfied, content) is a short-form adjective serving as predicate after «был» — the short form is the normal, bookish choice for such states. Its long counterpart «довольный» would feel attributive rather than predicative here.

Вообще же Грушеньку допрашивали не очень долго, да и не могла она, конечно, сообщить ничего особенно нового.  
On the whole Grushenka was not examined for very long, and of course she could communicate nothing especially new.
> Genitive of negation: «ничего нового»: Under negation the object slides into the genitive: «ничего … нового» rather than accusative «что-то новое». The negative pronoun «ничего» and the agreeing «нового» are both genitive, and «не могла» supplies the obligatory verbal «не».
> Connective «да и» — 'and besides': «да и» is an additive coordinator, 'and besides / and anyway', joining a confirming afterthought. The «да» here is the folksy 'and', distinct from «да» meaning 'yes'.
> Imperfective «допрашивали» — the questioning as process: Imperfective past frames the interrogation as an ongoing process viewed as a whole ('she was examined / they questioned her'), not a single completed act. Its perfective partner «допросить» would close the action off.

Оставила она в публике весьма неприятное впечатление.  
She left a most unpleasant impression on the public.
> Verb-first word order for narrative momentum: Fronting the verb «оставила» before the subject «она» is an emphatic, literary inversion that pushes the new information — the bad impression — toward the end. Case endings keep subject and object clear no matter the order.
> «весьма» — 'most, exceedingly': A bookish intensifier, 'very, exceedingly', more elevated than colloquial «очень». Its formal register suits the narrator's measured account of the public's reaction.
> «публика» — the courtroom spectators: Here «публика» is the assembled audience at the trial — the gallery whose collective opinion Dostoevsky tracks throughout the book. A near-false-friend: it means 'the public / the spectators', not a place of publication.

Сотни презрительных взглядов устремились на нее, когда она, кончив показание, уселась в зале довольно далеко от Катерины Ивановны.  
Hundreds of contemptuous glances fixed upon her when, her testimony finished, she took her seat in the hall a fair distance from Katerina Ivanovna.
> «сотни» + genitive plural after the numeral: «сотни» (hundreds) governs the genitive plural «презрительных взглядов» — the rule that quantity-words and numerals above four take the genitive plural of what they count. The reflexive «устремились» ('fixed themselves upon') uses -ся for the middle, self-directed motion.
> Perfective gerund «кончив» — 'having finished': «кончив» is a perfective adverbial participle («деепричастие») in -в: 'having finished her testimony'. It marks an action completed just before the main verb «уселась», and shares its subject — she finishes, then sits.
> «усесться» — to settle into a seat: A perfective reflexive of sitting, 'to settle oneself, take one's seat' — the у- prefix and -ся give a sense of getting comfortably installed, slightly more deliberate than plain «сесть».
> «показание» — testimony, deposition: The legal noun for 'testimony / evidence given', a bookish -ние formation from «показать» (to show, indicate). It is the witness's statement on the stand, central to the trial machinery of Book XII.

Всё время, пока ее спрашивали, Митя молчал, как бы окаменев, опустив глаза в землю.  
The whole time she was being questioned, Mitya was silent, as though turned to stone, his eyes lowered to the ground.
> «пока» + imperfective — 'while she was being questioned': «пока» ('while, as long as') opens a subordinate clause of simultaneous time, and pairs naturally with the imperfective «спрашивали» to express the ongoing background against which Mitya's silence stands.
> «как бы» + gerund «окаменев» — 'as though turned to stone': «окаменев» is a perfective gerund, 'having turned to stone', and «как бы» ('as if') softens it into a simile of Mitya's frozen state. The gerund shares the subject of «молчал» — he stays silent, as if petrified.
> Second perfective gerund «опустив»: A chain of «деепричастия» — «окаменев … опустив» — packs two attendant circumstances onto one main verb, a hallmark of literary Russian. «опустив глаза» ('having lowered his eyes') depicts the posture accompanying his silence.
> «окаменеть» — to turn to stone: Literally 'to become stone' (from «камень», stone), used figuratively for being frozen rigid by shock or despair. The image of Mitya petrified anticipates the verdict bearing down on him.

Появился свидетелем Иван Федорович.  
Ivan Fyodorovich appeared as a witness.
> Instrumental of role: «появился свидетелем»: «свидетелем» is instrumental — 'appeared as a witness' — the instrumental marking the capacity or role in which someone acts, just as it does after «быть» or «стать». The verb-first order again throws weight onto the named witness at the end.
---

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.