# The Brothers Karamazov, A Sudden Catastrophe

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c5. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c5.json.


Замечу, что его вызвали было еще до Алеши.  
I should note that they had tried to call him even before Alyosha.
> The 'almost-but-not' particle «было»: «было» after a past-tense perfective marks an action that was begun or about to happen but did not come off as intended — here, they had set about summoning Ivan but it fell through. This frozen particle (etymologically the neuter past of «быть») recurs all through the chapter («вскочил было», «пошел было», «начал было») and is a hallmark of 19th-century narrative prose.
> Perfective future as a narrator's aside: «Замечу» is the perfective «заметить» conjugated like a present, which yields a single completed future: 'I will note (just this once)'. The chronicler-narrator uses it to step momentarily out of the scene, a conversational reflex very common in Dostoevsky's first-person frame.

Но судебный пристав доложил тогда председателю, что, по внезапному нездоровью или какому-то припадку, свидетель не может явиться сейчас, но только что оправится, то когда угодно готов будет дать свое показание.  
But the court usher reported to the presiding judge at the time that, owing to a sudden indisposition or some kind of fit, the witness could not appear just then, though as soon as he recovered he would be ready to give his testimony whenever it pleased the court.
> «по» + dative = 'owing to': Here «по» governs the dative «нездоровью» in its causal sense, 'owing to / because of a sudden indisposition'. «по» is one of the prepositions that always take the dative, and this bureaucratic 'by reason of' register suits the usher's official report.
> Compound future + perfective infinitive: «будет» here is the future of «быть» supporting the short adjective «готов» ('ready'), and «дать показание» ('to give testimony') is a perfective infinitive naming the single completed act. Together they project a one-off future event the witness promises to perform once recovered.

Этого, впрочем, как-то никто не слыхал, и узнали уже впоследствии.  
This, however, somehow no one had heard, and it came to light only afterward.
> «слыхал» — the folksy variant of «слышал»: «слыхать» is a colloquial, slightly old-fashioned by-form of «слышать» ('to hear'), common in 19th-century narration. It carries a faint flavour of oral storytelling, as if reporting hearsay; the chronicler uses it to underline that no one actually caught what was said at the time.
> Negative concord: «никто… не»: Russian requires double negation: the negative pronoun «никто» ('no one') still demands «не» on the verb, so literally 'no one did not hear'. The two negatives make one negation — a fixed rule, not emphasis.

Появление его в первую минуту было почти не замечено: главные свидетели, особенно две соперницы, были уже допрошены; любопытство было пока удовлетворено.  
His appearance, in the first moment, went almost unnoticed: the chief witnesses, especially the two rivals, had already been examined; curiosity, for the time being, was satisfied.
> A run of passive participles: Three short-form past passive participles in a row — «замечено» (noticed), «допрошены» (examined/questioned), «удовлетворено» (satisfied) — each joined to «было/были» to state a result. The agentless passive gives the courtroom report its cool, official detachment.
> «соперницы» — the two female rivals: «соперница» is the feminine of «соперник», 'rival'. The 'two rivals' are Katerina Ivanovna and Grushenka, the women whose love and jealousy have driven the whole drama; naming them only as 'the two rivals' is the chronicler's discreet shorthand.

В публике чувствовалось даже утомление.  
Among the public one could even feel a certain weariness.
> Impersonal «-ся»: 'one could feel': «чувствовалось» is the reflexive «чувствоваться» in a neuter impersonal frame — there is no grammatical subject; the sense is 'it was felt / one could feel'. The «-ся» here builds a subjectless middle-passive that lets the mood hang in the air over the whole room.

Предстояло еще выслушать несколько свидетелей, которые, вероятно, ничего особенного не могли сообщить ввиду всего, что было уже сообщено.  
There were still several witnesses left to be heard, who in all likelihood could add nothing of importance in light of everything that had already been reported.
> Impersonal «предстояло» + infinitive: «предстояло» ('it remained / was still in store') is a subjectless impersonal verb taking the infinitive «выслушать»: 'there was still to be heard'. Such impersonal framing, with no nominative actor, is a favourite Russian way of presenting an obligation as simply looming.
> Genitive of negation: «ничего особенного»: Under the negated «не могли сообщить», the object slides into the genitive: «ничего особенного» ('nothing of importance'), genitive forms of «ничто/особенное». A negated indefinite object regularly takes this genitive rather than the accusative.
> The relative «который»: «которые» opens a relative clause modifying «свидетелей» ('witnesses'), agreeing with it in number and gender but taking nominative as the subject of its own clause. The comma-set «который»-clause is the standard literary way to pile descriptive detail onto a noun.

Время же уходило.  
And time was wearing on.
> Emphatic «же» and imperfective «уходило»: The particle «же» here is lightly adversative-emphatic, pinning attention on «время» — 'time, for its part, was slipping away'. The imperfective past «уходило» (of «уходить») views the passing as an ongoing process, not a completed event, which is why English reaches for 'was wearing on'.

Иван Федорович приблизился как-то удивительно медленно, ни на кого не глядя и опустив даже голову, точно о чем-то нахмуренно соображая.  
Ivan Fyodorovich approached somehow strangely slowly, looking at no one and even with his head lowered, as though he were puzzling over something with a frown.
> Two gerunds: simultaneous vs. prior: «глядя» is an imperfective present gerund ('while looking'), describing manner alongside the main verb; «опустив» is a perfective past gerund ('having lowered'), describing a completed prior act. Russian deftly chains both «деепричастия» onto one subject, a signature of literary narration.
> Negative concord with «ни… не»: «ни на кого… не глядя» literally stacks 'not at no one not looking' — «ни на кого» ('at no one', accusative/genitive of «никто» split around the preposition «на») demands «не» on the gerund. The intensifying «ни» reinforces the negation rather than cancelling it.
> «соображать» — to ponder, work out: «соображать» means to mull or figure something out in one's head; with «нахмуренно» ('with a frown') it paints Ivan inwardly puzzling. Here it is itself a present gerund «соображая», 'as though working something out'.

Одет он был безукоризненно, но лицо его, на меня по крайней мере, произвело болезненное впечатление: было в этом лице что-то как бы тронутое землей, что-то похожее на лицо помирающего человека.  
He was dressed impeccably, but his face, on me at least, made a sickly impression: there was something in that face as if already touched by the grave, something resembling the face of a dying man.
> «тронутое землей» — touched by the grave: Literally 'touched by earth', this is a vivid death-image: «земля» here evokes the grave, the soil that takes the dead. The phrase makes Ivan's face look already claimed by death, foreshadowing the brain-fever about to break over him.
> «помирать» — the folksy 'to die': «помирать/помереть» is a colloquial, homely variant of «умирать/умереть» ('to die'). Its plain peasant flavour, against the bookish «болезненное впечатление», quietly lowers the register at the moment death is named.
> Present active participle «помирающий»: «помирающего» is the present active participle of «помирать» ('dying'), declined to agree with «человека» in the genitive. The participle compresses 'a man who is dying' into a single modifier — typical bookish economy.

Глаза были мутны; он поднял их и медленно обвел ими залу.  
His eyes were clouded; he raised them and slowly swept the courtroom with them.
> Short-form predicate adjective «мутны»: «мутны» is the short form of «мутный» ('clouded, turbid'), used predicatively after «были». Short adjectives can only predicate, and they carry a slightly bookish, often state-describing flavour well suited to this clinical observation of his eyes.
> Instrumental of means: «ими»: «ими» ('with them', i.e. his eyes) is the instrumental, the case of the instrument by which the room is 'swept'. «обвести глазами» — to run one's eyes over — is a fixed idiom that always puts the eyes in the instrumental.

Алеша вдруг вскочил было со своего стула и простонал: ах!  
Alyosha suddenly half rose from his chair and let out a groan: ah!
> «было» again: a half-completed start: «вскочил было» tells us Alyosha started up from his seat — and the «было» hints the impulse was checked or came to nothing in the moment. The chronicler reaches for this particle whenever a movement is begun but interrupted.
> «простонать» — to let out a groan: The perfective «простонать» (from «стонать», to moan) means to utter something with a groan — a single completed cry. The «про-» prefix gives it the sense of voicing a brief sound aloud, here the involuntary «ах!»

Я помню это.  
I remember it.

Но и это мало кто уловил.  
But even this few people caught.
> Fronted object and «мало кто»: The object «это» is fronted before the subject «мало кто» ('few people') for emphasis — Russian's free, case-driven word order lets the topic ('even this') lead while the new information trails. «мало кто» is an idiom meaning 'hardly anyone'.

Председатель начал было с того, что он свидетель без присяги, что он может показывать или умолчать, но что, конечно, всё показанное должно быть по совести, и т. д., и т. д.  
The presiding judge began by saying that he was a witness not under oath, that he might testify or hold his tongue, but that, of course, whatever he did testify must be in accordance with his conscience, and so on, and so on.
> «начать с того, что…»: «начать с того, что…» is a set frame, 'to begin by (saying) that…', where the correlative «того» (genitive of «то» after «с») points forward to the «что»-clause. Combined with «было», it tells us the judge merely started this preamble before Ivan's laughter cut in.
> «по совести» — in good conscience: «по совести» means 'according to one's conscience, honestly'. The phrase carries weight in this novel of guilt and conscience: the judge means it as legal boilerplate, but for Ivan, whose conscience is tearing him apart, the words land very differently.

Иван Федорович слушал и мутно глядел на него; но вдруг лицо его стало медленно раздвигаться в улыбку, и только что председатель, с удивлением на него смотревший, кончил говорить, он вдруг рассмеялся.  
Ivan Fyodorovich listened and gazed at him dully; but suddenly his face slowly began to spread into a smile, and the moment the presiding judge, who had been watching him in astonishment, finished speaking, he suddenly burst out laughing.
> Imperfective background, perfective turn: The imperfectives «слушал», «глядел», and «раздвигаться» hold the scene as ongoing process, until the perfective «стало» and «рассмеялся» snap it forward to the sudden laugh. This interplay of standing imperfective background and perfective event is the basic engine of Russian narrative.
> Past active participle «смотревший»: «смотревший» is the past active participle of «смотреть» ('who had been watching'), agreeing with «председатель» in the nominative masculine. It packs a whole «который»-clause — 'the judge, who had been looking at him in astonishment' — into one inserted phrase.
> «только что» — 'the moment that': Here «только что» works as a temporal hinge, 'just as / the moment that' the judge finished speaking. The perfective «кончил» marks the completion that triggers the next perfective event, «рассмеялся».

— Ну и что же еще? — громко спросил он  
"Well, and what else?" he asked loudly.
> Particle «же» in a challenge: «что же еще?» loads the question with «же» — an insistent, faintly impatient 'well, and what else then?'. The particle conveys Ivan's needling tone, which a flat English 'what else' can only approximate.

Всё затихло в зале, что-то как бы почувствовалось.  
Everything went still in the hall, as though something were being sensed in the air.
> Impersonal «-ся» again: «почувствовалось» repeats the subjectless reflexive of «чувствоваться» ('something seemed to be sensed'), with the vague «что-то» as a placeholder rather than a true agent. The «-ся» dissolves any actor, leaving only a mood gripping the room.

Председатель забеспокоился.  
The presiding judge grew uneasy.

— Вы… может быть, еще не так здоровы? — проговорил он было, ища глазами судебного пристава.  
"You... perhaps you are not yet quite well?" he started to say, his eyes searching for the court usher.
> Short adjective «здоровы»: «здоровы» is the short plural form of «здоровый», predicating a state: 'are you not quite well?'. The polite «Вы» takes plural agreement, and the short form fits this momentary-condition sense.
> «было» plus a present gerund: «проговорил он было» marks the judge's question as begun-and-checked, while «ища» is the present gerund of «искать» ('searching') describing the simultaneous hunt for the usher. Note again «глазами» in the instrumental — 'with his eyes'.

— Не беспокойтесь, ваше превосходительство, я достаточно здоров и могу вам кое-что рассказать любопытное, — ответил вдруг совсем спокойно и почтительно Иван Федорович.  
"Do not trouble yourself, Your Excellency, I am well enough and can tell you something rather curious," Ivan Fyodorovich answered, all at once perfectly calm and respectful.
> Polite negative imperative: «Не беспокойтесь» is the imperative of the reflexive «беспокоиться» ('to worry') with the plural/polite «-те»: 'don't trouble yourself'. The «-сь» (post-vowel «-ся») makes it reflexive, and «не» + imperfective imperative is the normal shape of a polite prohibition.
> «кое-что» — 'a little something': «кое-что» is an indefinite pronoun, 'something (in particular), a thing or two', formed with the prefix «кое-». Paired with «любопытное» ('curious'), it teases that Ivan has a specific revelation in store — soon to detonate.

— Вы имеете предъявить какое-нибудь особое сообщение? — всё еще с недоверчивостью продолжал председатель.  
"You have some particular statement to make?" the presiding judge went on, still with a note of distrust.
> «недоверчивость» — distrust: «недоверчивость» ('mistrust, suspicion') is built from «доверчивость» ('trustfulness') with the negating prefix «не-». In the instrumental «с недоверчивостью» it describes the manner of the judge's continued questioning — 'with distrust'.

Иван Федорович потупился, помедлил несколько секунд и, подняв снова голову, ответил как бы заикаясь:  
Ivan Fyodorovich dropped his eyes, paused a few seconds, and, raising his head again, answered as if stammering:
> Perfective chain + a gerund: A string of perfectives — «потупился» (dropped his eyes), «помедлил» (paused), «ответил» (answered) — drives the action forward step by step, with the perfective past gerund «подняв» ('having raised') folding in a completed sub-action. The «по-» on «помедлил» adds the 'for a little while' sense.
> «как бы» + gerund: 'as if': «как бы» ('as it were, as if') softens the present gerund «заикаясь» ('stammering') into a hedged impression — he answered 'as though stammering'. Dostoevsky's narrator loves «как бы» for marking an observation as tentative rather than asserted.

— Нет… не имею.  
"No... I have none."
> Negated «иметь»: «не имею» ('I do not have') uses the verb «иметь», which in Russian is rather bookish — everyday Russian prefers the «у меня есть» construction. Its bare, clipped use here gives Ivan's denial a stiff, formal edge.

Не имею ничего особенного.  
"I have nothing in particular."
> Genitive of negation: «ничего особенного»: The negated «не имею» pulls its object into the genitive: «ничего особенного» ('nothing in particular'), the genitive forms of «ничто» and «особенное». A negated object regularly takes this genitive in place of the accusative.

Ему стали предлагать вопросы.  
They began to put questions to him.
> Dative «Ему» + impersonal 'they': «Ему» is the dative ('to him'), the indirect object of the questions put to him, while the subjectless «стали предлагать» ('began to put') is an indefinite-personal 'they began'. Russian routinely drops the agent like this, letting the action fall impersonally on the dative experiencer.

Он отвечал совсем как-то нехотя, как-то усиленно кратко, с каким-то даже отвращением, всё более и более нараставшим, хотя, впрочем, отвечал все-таки толково.  
He answered altogether somehow reluctantly, somehow with a forced brevity, even with a kind of disgust that kept mounting more and more, though, for all that, he answered coherently enough.
> Stacked manner adverbials: The narrator piles up adverbials of manner — «нехотя» (reluctantly), «усиленно кратко» (with forced brevity), «с… отвращением» (with disgust) — each prefaced by the vague «как-то / с каким-то» ('somehow / a kind of'). This hedging vagueness, repeated obsessively, is a defining tic of Dostoevsky's nervous narration.
> Past active participle «нараставший»: «нараставшим» is the past active participle of «нарастать» ('to grow, mount'), in the instrumental to agree with «отвращением» — 'a disgust that kept mounting'. The imperfective stem gives it an ongoing, swelling sense rather than a completed one.
> «толково» — sensibly, coherently: «толково» (from «толк», 'sense') means 'to the point, coherently, with good sense'. The point is the contrast: however reluctant and disgusted Ivan is, he still answers «толково» — lucidly — which makes his coming collapse the more alarming.

На многое отговорился незнанием.  
To much of it he excused himself with not knowing.
> Instrumental of means: «незнанием»: «отговориться» ('to beg off, plead as an excuse') governs the instrumental: «незнанием» means 'by (pleading) not-knowing'. The instrumental names the means by which he excused himself; «незнание» is the noun 'lack of knowledge', with the «не-» prefix.

Про счеты отца с Дмитрием Федоровичем ничего не знал.  
Of his father's accounts with Dmitri Fyodorovich he knew nothing.
> Fronted topic with «про» + genitive of negation: The topic «про счеты отца с Дмитрием» ('about Father's accounts with Dmitri') is fronted for emphasis, and the negated «не знал» takes the genitive object «ничего» ('nothing'). The colloquial «про» + accusative ('about') is more conversational than «о» + prepositional.
> «счёты» — accounts, scores to settle: «счёты» (plural) means money 'accounts' or 'reckonings' between people, and idiomatically the scores or grudges they breed. Father Fyodor and Dmitri's bitter dispute over Dmitri's inheritance — the money at the heart of the murder — is exactly this «счёты».

«И не занимался этим», — произнес он.  
"And I never concerned myself with it," he pronounced.
> Instrumental after «заниматься»: The reflexive «заниматься» ('to occupy oneself with') governs the instrumental: «этим» ('with this'). Even negated, the case stays instrumental — this is the verb's fixed government, not a genitive of negation, since «этим» is an oblique object, not a direct one.

Об угрозах убить отца слышал от подсудимого.  
Of the threats to kill his father he had heard from the defendant.
> «подсудимый» — the defendant: «подсудимый» (literally 'the one under judgment', built from «суд», 'court') is the legal term for the accused on trial — here Dmitri. It is a substantivized adjective, declined like «человека»; in the genitive «от подсудимого» it means 'from the defendant'.

Про деньги в пакете слышал от Смердякова…  
Of the money in the envelope he had heard from Smerdyakov...
> Subjectless reported testimony: The clause drops the subject «он» entirely — the verb «слышал» (masculine past) alone carries it, in the clipped indirect-report style the narrator uses to summarise Ivan's answers. «от Смердякова» ('from Smerdyakov') uses «от» + genitive for the source.

— Всё одно и то же, — прервал он вдруг с утомленным видом, — я ничего не могу сообщить суду особенного.  
"It is all one and the same thing," he broke off suddenly with a weary air, "I can tell the court nothing in particular."
> «одно и то же» — 'one and the same': «(всё) одно и то же» is a fixed phrase, 'it's all one and the same thing, the same old story'. The wearied formula signals Ivan breaking off in exhaustion, dismissing the whole interrogation as pointless repetition.
> Genitive of negation once more: «не могу сообщить… особенного» again drives the object into the genitive: «ничего особенного». The repeated genitive-of-negation phrase becomes almost a refrain of Ivan's testimony — 'nothing in particular' he can give.

— Я вижу, вы нездоровы, и понимаю ваши чувства… — начал было председатель.  
"I see you are unwell, and I understand your feelings..." the presiding judge began.
> «было»: the interrupted opening: Yet again «начал было» — 'the judge had begun (but was cut off)'. The particle quietly tells us the conciliatory speech never finished, since Ivan's revelation is about to overwhelm the courtroom.

Он обратился было к сторонам, к прокурору и защитнику, приглашая их, если найдут нужным, предложить вопросы, как вдруг Иван Федорович изнеможенным голосом попросил:  
He was on the point of turning to the parties, to the prosecutor and the defense counsel, inviting them, if they thought it necessary, to put their questions, when suddenly Ivan Fyodorovich asked in an exhausted voice:
> «было» + gerund + «как вдруг»: «обратился было» (had started to turn), the present gerund «приглашая» (inviting), and the pivot «как вдруг» ('when suddenly') together stage an action launched and abruptly cut across by Ivan's plea. «как вдруг» is the narrator's standard hinge for an interrupting event.
> «найти нужным» — 'to think it necessary': «найти нужным» is an idiom, 'to deem/find it necessary', with «нужным» in the instrumental as a predicate complement of the implied object. The perfective future «найдут» ('they will find') makes it a one-off condition: 'if they should think it necessary'.

— Отпустите меня, ваше превосходительство, я чувствую себя очень нездоровым.  
"Let me go, Your Excellency, I feel very unwell."
> Polite imperative «отпустите»: «Отпустите» is the perfective imperative of «отпустить» ('to let go, release') with polite «-те»: 'let me go, release me'. The perfective fits a single requested act, and the politeness suits his address to 'Your Excellency'.
> Reflexive «себя» + instrumental predicate: «чувствовать себя» ('to feel oneself [to be]') takes the reflexive pronoun «себя» as object and an instrumental complement «нездоровым» ('unwell') describing the state felt. This is the standard frame for 'I feel [some way]', with the adjective always in the instrumental.

И с этим словом, не дожидаясь позволения, вдруг сам повернулся и пошел было из залы.  
And with these words, not waiting for permission, he suddenly turned of his own accord and started to walk out of the hall.
> Gerund + genitive of negation: «не дожидаясь позволения» is a negated present gerund of «дожидаться» ('to wait for') governing the genitive «позволения» — 'not waiting for permission'. «дожидаться» normally takes the genitive of what is awaited, and the negation reinforces it.
> «пошёл было» — set off but stopped: «пошёл было» — 'he set off (but didn't get away)' — uses «было» once more to flag the aborted exit, since the next sentence has him stop and return. «пошёл» is the perfective of the unidirectional motion verb «идти», marking the single act of starting to walk.
> Intensifier «сам» — 'of his own accord': «сам» here intensifies the subject, 'he himself / of his own accord', stressing that Ivan turned to leave without being dismissed. Distinct from the reflexive «себя», «сам» agrees with the subject and underscores his willful, unsanctioned move.

Но, пройдя шага четыре, остановился, как бы что-то вдруг обдумав, тихо усмехнулся и воротился опять на прежнее место.  
But having gone some four paces, he stopped, as if he had suddenly thought something over, gave a quiet chuckle, and returned to his former place.
> Two perfective gerunds: «пройдя» ('having gone') and «обдумав» ('having thought over') are both perfective past gerunds in «-я/-в», each naming a completed action prior to the main verbs. They share Ivan's subject and stack his movements economically: having walked, having pondered, he stops and returns.
> Approximation by inversion: «шага четыре»: Putting the noun before the numeral — «шага четыре» instead of «четыре шага» — signals approximation: 'some four paces, about four steps'. «шага» is genitive singular, as the count 2–4 requires after «четыре».
> «воротиться» — the old word for 'return': «воротиться» is an archaic/folksy variant of «возвратиться / вернуться» ('to return'). Its slightly antique flavour suits the chronicle's 19th-century voice; modern Russian would more likely say «вернулся».

— Я, ваше превосходительство, как та крестьянская девка… знаете, как это: «Захоцу — вскоцу, захоцу — не вскоцу».  
"I, Your Excellency, am like that peasant girl... you know how it goes: 'If I want, I'll jump up; if I want, I won't jump up.'"
> Peasant dialect spelling: The girl's line is written in non-standard peasant pronunciation: «захоцу/вскоцу» stand for «захочу/вскочу» ('I'll want to' / 'I'll jump up'), with «ц» replacing «ч». This 'tsokanye' feature (merging «ч» into «ц») marks rural Northern Russian speech, and Dostoevsky spells it phonetically to convey the girl's class and region. Our English keeps the line plain, since the dialect lives entirely in the Russian spelling — listen for the «ц» sound where standard Russian would say «ч».
> «девка» — a peasant lass: «девка» means a young peasant woman or 'lass'; in peasant speech it is neutral, though in polite urban usage it can sound coarse. Ivan deliberately reaches for this folk register to compare his own perverse balking on the stand to a village girl's whim.
> Perfective futures: 'I'll want, I'll jump': Beneath the dialect spelling, «захочу» and «вскочу» are perfective verbs conjugated like a present to give simple future meaning — 'I will (suddenly) want' and 'I will jump up'. The perfective captures each as a single sharp impulse, fitting the girl's capricious 'now I will, now I won't'.

За ней ходят с сарафаном али с паневой, что ли, чтоб она вскочила, чтобы завязать и венчать везти, а она говорит: «Захоцу — вскоцу, захоцу — не вскоцу»…  
They come after her with the sarafan, or with the panyova, whatever it is, so that she'll jump up, so they can tie her up and carry her off to be married, and she keeps saying: 'If I want, I'll jump up; if I want, I won't jump up'...
> «али» and «что ли» — folk hedges: «али» is a dialectal/archaic variant of «или» ('or'), and «что ли» is a colloquial tag meaning 'or something, whatever it is'. Together they keep Ivan's retelling deliberately loose and folksy, mimicking peasant speech as he half-remembers the custom.
> «чтобы» + past for purpose: Both «чтоб(ы)» clauses express purpose: «чтоб она вскочила» uses the past-form irrealis (subject differs) — 'so that she'd jump up' — while «чтобы завязать… везти» takes infinitives (purpose with the same understood actors). This is the core «чтобы» split: past-form when the subject changes, infinitive when it doesn't.

Это в какой-то нашей народности…  
It's in some folk custom of ours...
> «народность» — folk custom / national character: «народность» (from «народ», 'the people') here means a folk custom or piece of national lore — 'something in our folkways'. The word also carried heavy ideological weight in Dostoevsky's era as one of the pillars of the 'Official Nationality' triad; Ivan throws it out vaguely, 'some folk thing of ours'.

— Что вы этим хотите сказать? — строго спросил председатель.  
"What do you mean to say by this?" the presiding judge asked sternly.
> Instrumental of means: «этим»: «этим» ('by this') is the instrumental — the means by which Ivan supposedly conveys his point: 'what do you mean to say by this?'. «хотеть сказать» ('to mean') is the fixed idiom for intended meaning.

— А вот, — вынул вдруг Иван Федорович пачку денег, — вот деньги… те самые, которые лежали вот в том пакете, — он кивнул на стол с вещественными доказательствами, — и из-за которых убили отца.  
"Why, here," Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly pulled out a packet of money, "here is the money... the very money that lay in that envelope there," he nodded toward the table with the material evidence, "and for the sake of which Father was killed.
> Twin «который»-clauses: Two relative clauses hang off «деньги»: «которые лежали в… пакете» (nominative, subject of its clause) and «из-за которых убили отца» (genitive after «из-за», 'because of which'). The relative «который» keeps the same gender/number but shifts case to fit each clause's grammar.
> «тот самый» — 'the very one': «те самые деньги» ('the very same money') uses the demonstrative «тот» reinforced by «самый» to point with insistence — not just 'that money' but 'that very money'. The «тот… который» pairing then sets up the relative clauses identifying it.

Куда положить?  
Where shall I put it?
> Bare infinitive question: «Куда положить?» ('Where to put it?') is a subjectless infinitive question — Russian poses deliberative 'where shall I…?' with a plain perfective infinitive and no modal. The understood dative experiencer ('for me to…') stays unspoken, a compact impersonal construction.

Господин судебный пристав, передайте.  
Mister court usher, hand it over."
> Imperative «передайте»: «передайте» is the perfective imperative of «передать» ('to hand over, pass') with polite «-те». A single requested act, addressed formally to the «господин судебный пристав» — the courtroom courtesy held even at this delirious moment.

Судебный пристав взял всю пачку и передал председателю.  
The court usher took the whole packet and passed it to the presiding judge.

— Каким образом могли эти деньги очутиться у вас… если это те самые деньги? — в удивлении проговорил председатель.  
"How could this money have come into your hands... if it is the very same money?" the presiding judge said in astonishment.
> «очутиться» — to find oneself / turn up: «очутиться» means to end up or turn up somewhere, often unexpectedly: 'how could this money have come to be in your hands?'. It exists only in the perfective and only in this 'suddenly find oneself' sense — there is no «-аю» present.
> «каким образом» — instrumental idiom: «каким образом» ('in what way, how') is a fixed instrumental phrase, literally 'by what manner'. «у вас» uses «у» + genitive for possession/location — 'in your keeping'. The judge's astonished 'how on earth…?' frames the bombshell.

— Получил от Смердякова, от убийцы, вчера.  
"I got it from Smerdyakov, from the murderer, yesterday.
> Subject-drop and «от» + genitive: Ivan drops the «я» — the masculine «получил» ('I got') carries it — and names the source twice with «от» + genitive: «от Смердякова, от убийцы» ('from Smerdyakov, from the murderer'). The doubled phrase, naming him outright as the killer, is the hammer-blow of the confession.

Был у него пред тем, как он повесился.  
I was at his place just before he hanged himself.
> «пред тем, как» — 'just before': «пред тем, как…» (bookish for «перед тем, как») is the temporal frame 'just before (he)…', with the correlative «тем» (instrumental of «то») governed by «пред» and pointing to the «как»-clause. The archaic «пред» (for «перед») lends the chronicle's elevated tone.
> Reflexive «-ся»: 'hanged himself': «повесился» is the reflexive of «повесить» ('to hang [something]'): the «-ся» turns the act back on the subject — 'he hanged himself'. Smerdyakov's suicide, just disclosed, is the dark pivot of Ivan's whole testimony.

Убил отца он, а не брат.  
It was he who killed Father, not my brother.
> Emphatic word order: subject last: Russian's free order lets the verb and object lead — «Убил отца он» — throwing the subject «он» ('he') into the stressed final slot: 'it was HE who killed Father'. The contrastive «а не брат» ('and not my brother') uses «а», the topic-shifting 'but', to set the killer against the accused.

Он убил, а я его научил убить… Кто не желает смерти отца?..  
He killed him, but I put him up to it... Who doesn't wish for his father's death?.."
> Contrastive «а»: 'he… but I…': The coordinating «а» pivots between two agents — «Он убил, а я… научил» ('he killed, but I taught/incited [him]') — marking a shift of subject rather than flat opposition. This is the untranslatable hinge «а»: not quite 'and', not quite 'but'.
> Genitive after «желать»: «желать» ('to wish for, desire') governs the genitive of its object: «смерти отца» ('the death of [one's] father'). Even un-negated, «желать» takes the genitive of the thing wished — a verb of striving/wanting. Ivan's terrible rhetorical question implicates everyone present.

— Вы в уме или нет? — вырвалось невольно у председателя.  
"Are you in your right mind or not?" broke involuntarily from the presiding judge.
> «в уме» — in one's right mind: «быть в уме» is an idiom, 'to be in one's right mind, sane'; «ум» is 'mind, reason'. The judge's blurted 'are you in your right mind or not?' sets up Ivan's bitter wordplay in the next line, where he seizes on «ум» itself.
> Reflexive «-ся» + dative-like «у»: «вырвалось» (reflexive of «вырвать», 'to tear out') is impersonal-middle: the cry 'broke involuntarily' out of the speaker, with «у председателя» ('from the judge') marking the source. The «-ся» makes the outburst happen of itself, beyond his will — exactly «невольно», 'involuntarily'.

— То-то и есть, что в уме… и в подлом уме, в таком же, как и вы, как и все эти… р-рожи! — обернулся он вдруг на публику.  
"That's just the point, that I am in my right mind... and a vile mind it is, the very same as yours, as all these... m-mugs!" He turned suddenly on the public.
> «То-то и есть» — 'that's just it': «То-то и есть, что…» is a colloquial fixed phrase, 'that's exactly the point, that…'. Ivan flings the judge's «в уме» back at him — 'precisely, I AM in my right mind' — turning the question of his sanity into a savage admission of shared guilt.
> Comparative correlative «такой же, как»: «такой же… как и вы» ('the very same as you') uses «такой же» ('such, the same kind') paired with «как» to draw the comparison — his vile mind is identical to theirs. The «же» intensifies the sameness, hammering home the accusation.
> «рожа» — 'mug, ugly face': «рожа» is a crude, contemptuous word for a face — 'mug, ugly snout'. The stammered «р-рожи» (the doubled «р» rendering his spitting fury) makes it a slur hurled at the whole crowd. Against his earlier polite 'Your Excellency', the coarseness measures how far Ivan has cracked.

— Убили отца, а притворяются, что испугались, — проскрежетал он с яростным презрением.  
"They killed their father and pretend to be horrified," he ground out with furious contempt.
> Indefinite-personal plural + «а»: Subjectless «Убили… притворяются» ('they killed… they pretend') is the indefinite-personal 'they', the bare 3rd-plural verb standing for 'people' at large. The «а» pivots between the deed and the pose — 'they killed their father, yet pretend to be horrified'.
> «проскрежетать» — to grind out: «проскрежетать» (from «скрежетать», to grind/gnash) means to utter through gritted teeth — 'he ground out'. Paired with «с яростным презрением» ('with furious contempt'), the verb makes the words themselves sound like grating teeth.

— Друг пред другом кривляются.  
"They put on airs in front of one another.
> «кривляться» — to grimace, put on airs: «кривляться» (from «кривой», crooked) means to make faces, clown, or strike false poses — here 'they put on airs / play-act for one another'. «друг пред другом» is the reciprocal 'one before another' (with archaic «пред» for «перед»). Ivan accuses the whole room of theatrical hypocrisy.

Лгуны!  
Liars!
> «лгун» — liar: «лгун» ('liar', from «лгать», to lie) is a sharp, plain noun of abuse; the plural «лгуны!» is hurled at the courtroom. Its bluntness, standing as a one-word exclamation, intensifies Ivan's mounting tirade.

Все желают смерти отца.  
They all wish for their father's death.
> Genitive after «желать»: Again «желать» takes the genitive of its object: «смерти отца» ('the death of [the] father'). Ivan universalises his earlier rhetorical question into a flat accusation — 'all of them wish for their father's death' — the genitive marking the desired thing.

Один гад съедает другую гадину… Не будь отцеубийства — все бы они рассердились и разошлись злые… Зрелищ!  
One viper devours another... Were there no parricide, they'd all have gone home cross and out of sorts... A show! They want a show!
> «гад / гадина» — vermin, reptile: «гад» and its feminine «гадина» mean a loathsome creeping creature — reptile, vermin — and figuratively a vile person. 'One viper devours another' reduces humanity to mutually consuming vermin; the imperfective «съедает» makes it a timeless, general truth, not one event.
> Conditional with «бы» and imperative-as-condition: «Не будь отцеубийства» uses the imperative form «будь» as a counterfactual condition ('were there no parricide'), and the main clause carries the irrealis «бы»: «все бы они рассердились и разошлись» ('they'd all have got cross and dispersed'). The «бы» + past is Russia's single hypothetical mood.
> «отцеубийство» — parricide: «отцеубийство» ('parricide', literally 'father-killing', from «отец» + «убить») is the grave compound naming the novel's central crime. Its weight here, dropped into Ivan's raving, is deliberate: the killing of the father is both the literal charge and the book's vast moral theme.

«Хлеба и зрелищ!»  
"Bread and circuses!"
> Genitive after an implied 'give': Both nouns stand in the genitive — «хлеба» (partitive genitive of «хлеб») and «зрелищ» (genitive plural of «зрелище») — under an understood verb of giving/wanting. The genitive of the thing demanded ('[give us] of bread and of shows') matches the Latin's accusatives only in sense, not form.

Впрочем, ведь и я хорош!  
Though, after all, I'm a fine one myself!
> Particle «ведь» + ironic «хорош»: «ведь» appeals to shared understanding — 'after all, you know' — softening Ivan's sudden turn against himself. «хорош» is the short adjective «хороший» used ironically: «я хорош!» means 'I'm a fine one [too]!', i.e. no better than the rest. The short form drives the sarcastic predicate.

Есть у вас вода или нет, дайте напиться, Христа ради! — схватил он вдруг себя за голову.  
Have you any water or not, give me a drink, for Christ's sake!" He suddenly clutched his head.
> Imperative «дайте» + reflexive infinitive: «дайте напиться» pairs the polite imperative «дайте» ('give') with the reflexive perfective infinitive «напиться» ('to drink one's fill') — literally 'let [me] get a drink'. The «-ся» here gives the 'satisfy oneself with drinking' sense, and the construction is the everyday way to ask for water.
> Reflexive «себя» + «за» + accusative: «схватить себя за голову» ('to clutch oneself by the head') uses the reflexive object «себя» plus the «за + accusative» construction for the body-part seized — 'grabbed himself by the head'. This «за голову / за руку» pattern is the fixed Russian way to say one grabs a part of someone.

Судебный пристав тотчас к нему приблизился.  
The court usher approached him at once.
> Perfective approach with «к» + dative: The perfective «приблизился» (drew near, in one completed move) governs «к нему» — the preposition «к» always takes the dative, here the prepositional third-person pronoun with its added н-. The single completed step contrasts with the imperfective drift of «приближаться».

Алеша вдруг вскочил и закричал: «Он болен, не верьте ему, он в белой горячке!»  
Alyosha suddenly sprang up and cried out: "He is ill, do not believe him, he is in delirium tremens!"
> A chain of perfectives: «вскочил» (sprang up) and «закричал» (started shouting) are both perfective past, each naming a single completed jolt of action; «за-» on «кричать» marks the sudden onset of crying out. They drive the narrative forward event by event.
> Negated imperative + dative object: «верьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «верить»; negated by «не», it warns the court off. «Верить» governs the dative, hence «ему» — you believe to someone in Russian.
> «белая горячка» — delirium tremens: Literally 'white fever', «белая горячка» is the 19th-century term for the hallucinatory delirium of acute alcohol withdrawal. Alyosha flings it out as a desperate medical excuse for Ivan's confession; Katerina Ivanovna will echo it at the chapter's end.

Катерина Ивановна стремительно встала со своего стула и, неподвижная от ужаса, смотрела на Ивана Федоровича.  
Katerina Ivanovna rose impetuously from her chair and, motionless with horror, stared at Ivan Fyodorovich.
> «от» + genitive of cause: «от ужаса» (from horror) uses «от» with the genitive to name the cause of a state — a standard way Russian attributes an involuntary condition. The long-form adjective «неподвижная» agrees with Катерина Ивановна in feminine nominative.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «со своего стула» — 'from her own chair' — uses the reflexive possessive «свой», which always points back to the clause's subject (Katerina Ivanovna). Using «её» instead would suggest someone else's chair.
> «стремительно» — headlong, impetuously: From «стремиться» (to strive, rush toward), the adverb conveys a violent, headlong rush. Dostoevsky pins it to Katerina Ivanovna twice in this scene (cf. «стремительно воскликнула» below), marking her characteristic impulsive intensity.

Митя поднялся и с какою-то дикою искривленною улыбкой жадно смотрел и слушал брата.  
Mitya stood up and, with some wild, twisted smile, watched and listened to his brother avidly.
> Archaic instrumental endings in -ою: «с» (with) governs the instrumental, and the modifiers carry the bookish 19th-century feminine instrumental ending -ою/-ою rather than modern -ой («какою-то дикою искривленною» for «какой-то дикой искривлённой»). The accumulation of three agreeing words paints the smile before the noun arrives.
> Indefinite «-то»: 'some kind of': The clitic «-то» on «какой» marks a specific but unnamed quality — 'some (particular) wild, twisted smile', not just any. It signals the narrator registering something real yet not fully nameable on Mitya's face.

— Успокойтесь, не помешанный, я только убийца! — начал опять Иван.  
"Calm yourselves, I am not mad, I am only a murderer!" Ivan began again.
> Reflexive imperative «-тесь»: «Успокойтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of the reflexive verb «успокоиться» (to calm down): the imperative «-те» plus the reflexive clitic «-сь» after the vowel. The «-ся/-сь» here gives the middle, change-of-state sense — calm yourself, become calm.
> Zero copula with nominative predicates: The present tense uses no 'to be': «я только убийца» is simply 'I [am] only a murderer', the predicate noun standing in the bare nominative. Ivan's chilling self-definition lands all the harder for needing no verb.
> «помешанный» — deranged: A past passive participle of «помешать(ся)» used as an adjective/noun: 'one whose mind is disturbed', a madman. Ivan rejects the label «помешанный» only to claim the worse one, «убийца».

— С убийцы нельзя же спрашивать красноречия… — прибавил он вдруг для чего-то и искривленно засмеялся.  
"You can't expect eloquence from a murderer..." he added suddenly, for some reason, and gave a twisted laugh.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + genitive object: «нельзя» heads a subjectless construction — 'one cannot / it's not allowed' — with no nominative subject. «спрашивать» here governs the genitive «красноречия» (to demand eloquence of someone), and «с убийцы» uses «с» + genitive for the source one demands from.
> The insisting particle «же»: «же» adds an appeal to the obvious — 'you surely can't expect…'. It gives Ivan's grim joke its tone of self-evidence, as if the point needed no arguing.
> «красноречие» — eloquence: A bookish compound, literally 'beautiful-speech' («красный» in its old sense 'beautiful' + «речь»), parallel to Latin elo-quentia. Ivan mocks the courtroom's appetite for fine oratory.

Прокурор в видимом смятении нагнулся к председателю.  
The prosecutor, in evident agitation, leaned toward the presiding judge.
> «в» + prepositional for a state: «в видимом смятении» (in evident agitation) sets the prosecutor's inner state with «в» + prepositional, the locative extended metaphorically to a condition. The adjective «видимом» agrees in neuter prepositional.

Члены суда суетливо шептались между собой.  
The members of the court whispered among themselves in a flurry.
> Reciprocal «-ся» with «между собой»: «шептались» is the reciprocal reflexive — they whispered to one another — reinforced by «между собой», 'among themselves', with the reflexive pronoun «собой» in the instrumental after «между».
> «суетливо» — fussily, in a flurry: From «суета» (bustle, vanity — also the biblical 'vanity of vanities'), the adverb paints the judges' agitated, scurrying whispers. It is one of a cluster of bustle-words («суматоха», «суетливо») Dostoevsky uses to convey the courtroom's collapse into chaos.

Фетюкович весь навострил уши, прислушиваясь.  
Fetyukovich pricked up his ears, listening intently.
> Idiom «навострить уши» — to prick up one's ears: A vivid idiom (literally 'to sharpen the ears'), drawn from an animal turning its ears to a sound. Of the defense lawyer Fetyukovich it suggests a hound catching a scent — he senses Ivan's words may help his case.
> Imperfective gerund «прислушиваясь»: «прислушиваясь» (listening intently) is an imperfective present gerund — деепричастие — naming an action simultaneous with the main verb «навострил». It shares Fetyukovich as subject and adds the attendant circumstance to his alertness.

Зала замерла в ожидании.  
The hall froze in expectation.
> Perfective «замерла» — froze: «замерла» (came to a dead halt) is perfective past, feminine to agree with «зала» (the hall): a single sudden freezing of the whole room. «в ожидании» (in expectation) gives the prepositional of an attendant state.

Председатель вдруг как бы опомнился.  
The presiding judge suddenly seemed to come to himself.
> Hedging «как бы» — 'as if': «как бы» (literally 'as if', containing the irrealis particle «бы») softens the verb into a guarded impression: the judge 'seemed to' come to himself. Dostoevsky's narrator uses this hedge repeatedly to keep events at one remove, refusing to vouch fully for what he saw.
> «опомниться» — to come to one's senses: A perfective reflexive, 'to recover one's wits, snap out of a daze'. The presiding judge, momentarily stunned by the scene, regains command of the room.

— Свидетель, ваши слова непонятны и здесь невозможны.  
"Witness, your words are incomprehensible and impermissible here.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «непонятны» and «невозможны» are short-form adjectives in the plural, used predicatively after the zero copula — a markedly bookish, formal register fitting a judge's pronouncement. The short form states a categorical verdict on the words: incomprehensible and impermissible.

Успокойтесь, если можете, и расскажите… если вправду имеете что сказать.  
Calm yourself, if you can, and tell us... if you really have something to say.
> Imperatives framing a conditional: Two perfective imperatives, «Успокойтесь» and «расскажите», bracket the real conditional «если можете» (if you can). «если» + present indicative states an open, real condition, distinct from the «бы»-conditional of unreal cases.
> «имеете что сказать» — bookish 'have something to say': «что сказать» here is 'something to say' (что functioning as an indefinite object of the infinitive), and «иметь» + infinitive is an elevated, almost legalistic 'to have [the matter] to say'. The phrasing suits the courtroom's formal register.

Чем вы можете подтвердить такое признание… если вы только не бредите?  
By what can you confirm such a confession... if you are not simply raving?"
> Instrumental «чем» — by what means: «Чем» is the instrumental of «что», asking 'by what means?' — the case of the instrument used to confirm the confession. The question fronts the means, a natural Russian information structure.
> Conditional «если … только не»: «если … только не бредите» — 'unless you are simply raving' — combines «если не» with the limiting «только». The imperfective present «бредите» frames raving as an ongoing state.
> «бредить» — to rave, be delirious: To talk wildly in fever or delirium. The judge's word picks up the «белая горячка» theme — is Ivan confessing or merely delirious? — the question the whole scene turns on.

— То-то и есть, что не имею свидетелей.  
"That's just the point, that I have no witnesses.
> Idiom «то-то и есть» — 'that's just the point': A fixed colloquial expression, 'that's exactly it / there's the rub', conceding the interlocutor has touched the crux. Ivan seizes on the judge's word to admit his fatal lack of proof.
> Genitive of negation: Under negation the object of «иметь» shifts from accusative to genitive plural: «не имею свидетелей», 'I have no witnesses'. This genitive-of-negation is one of the case's most pervasive jobs.

Собака Смердяков не пришлет с того света вам показание… в пакете.  
The dog Smerdyakov won't send you his testimony from the other world... in an envelope.
> Perfective future under negation: «не пришлёт» is the simple (perfective) future of «прислать» — conjugated like a present but pointing forward: 'will not send'. «с того света» ('from the other world') uses «с» + genitive with the demonstrative «тот».

Вам бы всё пакетов, довольно и одного.  
You'd want envelopes for everything; one is enough.
> Dative + «бы»: 'you'd want…': A subjectless wish-construction: the experiencer in the dative «вам», the irrealis «бы», and the genitive «пакетов» (you'd be after envelopes). «всё» here is adverbial, 'always, forever' — 'envelopes are all you ever want'. The verb is left unspoken, a clipped colloquial ellipsis.
> «довольно» + genitive, with focusing «и»: «довольно» ('enough') governs the genitive «одного» (of one). The particle «и» here focuses — 'even one is enough / one alone suffices'.

Нет у меня свидетелей… Кроме только разве одного, — задумчиво усмехнулся он.  
I have no witnesses... Except, perhaps, just one," he chuckled pensively.
> «нет» + genitive of an absent subject: The existential negator «нет» forces the absent thing into the genitive: «свидетелей» (witnesses) — there are none of them. Fronting «Нет» and inverting «у меня» gives the line a weary, emphatic fall.
> Stacked hedging particles: Three softeners pile up — «кроме» (except), «только» (only), «разве» (perhaps, save) — before «одного» (one [witness]). The accumulation lets Ivan hint, half-mockingly, at the devil he will name next.
> Perfective semelfactive «усмехнулся»: The «-ну-» suffix in «усмехнулся» marks a single momentary act — one brief smirk — and the «-ся» makes it intransitive/reflexive. The adverb «задумчиво» (pensively) colours the gesture.

— Кто ваш свидетель?  
"Who is your witness?"
> Zero-copula identity question: 'Who [is] your witness?' — a present-tense identifying clause with no verb, both «кто» and «свидетель» in the nominative. «ваш» is the polite/plural possessive agreeing with «свидетель».

— С хвостом, ваше превосходительство, не по форме будет!  
"He has a tail, Your Excellency, it wouldn't be in proper form!
> «с хвостом» — 'with a tail': Ivan answers 'who is your witness?' with «С хвостом» — 'one with a tail', i.e. the devil. The folk image of the horned, tailed devil makes the answer at once a riddle and a confession of his hallucinations.
> «не по форме» + future of «быть»: «по форме» ('according to proper form/procedure') takes «по» + dative; negated, 'it wouldn't be regular'. «будет» is the simple future of «быть», 'it will [turn out to] be' — Ivan mocking legal propriety.

Le diable n’existe point!  
Le diable n'existe point!

Не обращайте внимания, дрянной, мелкий черт, — прибавил он, вдруг перестав смеяться и как бы конфиденциально, — он, наверно, здесь где-нибудь, вот под этим столом с вещественными доказательствами, где ж ему сидеть, как не там?  
Never mind, a paltry, petty little devil," he added, suddenly leaving off laughing and as if confidentially, "he is surely here somewhere, right under that table with the material evidence — where else would he sit, if not there?
> «дрянной, мелкий чёрт» — a paltry, petty devil: «дрянной» (trashy, worthless, from «дрянь» 'rubbish') and «мелкий» (petty, small-time) reduce Satan to a shabby nonentity. This is precisely Ivan's devil from Chapter IX — not a grand Mephistopheles but a seedy, sponging gentleman — and the diminishment is the point.
> Perfective gerund «перестав»: «перестав смеяться» — 'having stopped laughing' — is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) in «-в», naming a completed action just prior to the main verb «прибавил». «перестать» governs an imperfective infinitive, «смеяться».
> Dative + infinitive rhetorical question: A subjectless dative-and-infinitive question: «ему сидеть» — literally 'where [is it] for him to sit?', the devil in the dative as the one who would do the sitting. «ж» (= «же») sharpens it, «как не там» means 'if not there', expecting the answer 'nowhere else'.

Видите, слушайте меня: я ему сказал: не хочу молчать, а он про геологический переворот… глупости!  
You see, listen to me: I told him I won't keep silent, and he went on about some geological upheaval... nonsense!
> Imperfective infinitive after «хотеть»: «не хочу молчать» — 'I don't want to keep silent'. «молчать» is imperfective, naming the ongoing state of silence Ivan refuses; the negation falls on the wanting, not the silence.
> Contrastive «а» with a verbless clause: The hinge «а» sets Ivan's resolve against the devil's evasion — 'I said X, while he [went on] about Y'. The verb is elided: «он про геологический переворот» leaves only «про» + accusative, 'on about a geological upheaval', the colloquial ellipsis miming Ivan's broken speech.

Ну, освободите же изверга… он гимн запел, это потому, что ему легко!  
Well, set the monster free... he has struck up a hymn, and that's because it comes easy to him!
> Imperative urged by «же»: «освободите» is the perfective imperative 'set free [in one act]', and «же» here urges and presses — 'go on, free him!'. «изверга» is animate masculine accusative (= genitive form), the object to be released — Mitya.
> «изверг» — monster, fiend: A heavy literary word for a monster or brute (etymologically one 'cast out'). Ivan applies it bitterly to Mitya — the brother wrongly accused — and Katerina Ivanovna will hurl the same word at Mitya minutes later.
> Dative-subject «ему легко»: «ему легко» — 'it is easy for him' — is a classic impersonal: the experiencer in the dative «ему», the predicate the invariable «легко», no nominative subject. Ivan reads Mitya's hymn-singing as the ease of a soul ready to suffer.

Всё равно что пьяная каналья загорланит, как «поехал Ванька в Питер», а я за две секунды радости отдал бы квадриллион квадриллионов.  
It's just the same as when some drunken scoundrel bawls out 'Off went Vanka to Petersburg,' and I would have given a quadrillion of quadrillions for two seconds of joy.
> «каналья» and «загорланить»: «каналья» (from Italian canaglia, 'rabble') is an abusive 'scoundrel, rogue'; «загорланить» (inceptive «за-» + «горланить», to bawl) is 'to start bellowing at the top of one's lungs'. The coarse, low-register pair sets up Ivan's deliberately degrading comparison.
> Conditional «отдал бы»: «отдал бы» — past-tense verb + «бы» — is the conditional: 'I would have given'. The hyperbolic «квадриллион квадриллионов» (a quadrillion of quadrillions) echoes the devil's parable of the sinner made to walk a quadrillion kilometres before reaching heaven.

Не знаете вы меня!  
You don't know me!
> Inverted word order for emphasis: Neutral order would be «Вы меня не знаете»; fronting the negated verb — «Не знаете вы меня!» — throws the weight onto the not-knowing, an emphatic, almost wounded outburst. Russian's case-marked freedom lets position carry the stress.

О, как это всё у вас глупо!  
Oh, how stupid this all is of you!
> «как … глупо» exclamation + «у вас» of judgement: «как … глупо!» is the exclamatory 'how stupid…!', with the short/adverbial «глупо» as predicate. «у вас» ('on your part, among you') uses «у» + genitive to lay the foolishness at the court's door.

Ну, берите же меня вместо него!  
Come, take me instead of him!
> Imperfective imperative + «вместо» + genitive: «берите» is the imperfective imperative 'take' (general, urging the action itself), pressed by «же». «вместо него» ('instead of him') uses «вместо» + genitive — Ivan demanding to be substituted for Mitya.

Для чего же нибудь я пришел… Отчего, отчего это всё, что ни есть, так глупо!..  
I came here for some reason... Why, why is everything, whatever there is, so stupid!.."
> «для чего-нибудь» — for some reason or other: «для чего-нибудь» ('for some [unspecified] purpose') uses «для» + genitive of the indefinite «что-нибудь», whose «-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'any reason at all'. Split here as «для чего же нибудь», with «же» wedged in, miming Ivan's faltering speech.
> «что ни есть» — 'whatever there is': The set turn «что ни есть» uses concessive «ни» to mean 'whatsoever, every last thing'. The «ни» here is generalizing rather than purely negative — 'everything, the whole of it, is so stupid'.

И он опять стал медленно и как бы в задумчивости оглядывать залу.  
And once more he began slowly, as if in thought, to look about the hall.
> «стать» + imperfective infinitive (ingressive): «стал … оглядывать» — 'began to look about' — uses perfective «стать» plus an imperfective infinitive to mark the onset of a continuing action. «оглядывать» being imperfective keeps the gazing open-ended.
> Hedging «как бы» again: Once more the narrator hedges Ivan's state with «как бы» ('as if') — 'as if in thought' — declining to assert what was really in his mind. «в задумчивости» gives the state in the prepositional.

Но уже всё заволновалось.  
But by now everything was in commotion.
> Inceptive «за-» + reflexive «-ся»: «заволновалось» fuses the inceptive prefix «за-» (a sudden beginning) with the reflexive «-ся» (an intransitive change of state): 'everything began to seethe / grew agitated'. Neuter singular «всё … заволновалось» treats the whole room as one stirring mass.

Алеша кинулся было к нему со своего места, но судебный пристав уже схватил Ивана Федоровича за руку.  
Alyosha started to rush to him from his place, but the court usher had already seized Ivan Fyodorovich by the arm.
> The particle «было» — an action begun and broken off: «было» after a perfective verb marks an action that was just started but checked or undone: Alyosha 'started to rush' — and was stopped (the usher already had Ivan). This special «было» is a fine point of 19th-century narrative aspect.
> «схватить … за» + accusative body-part: The idiom «схватить кого-то за руку» — 'to seize someone by the arm' — puts the person in the accusative («Ивана Фёдоровича») and the gripped part after «за» in the accusative («за руку»). Russian routinely marks the body part this way rather than with a possessive.

— Это что еще такое? — вскричал тот, вглядываясь в упор в лицо пристава, и вдруг, схватив его за плечи, яростно ударил об пол.  
"What is this now?" he cried out, staring point-blank into the usher's face, and suddenly, grabbing him by the shoulders, hurled him furiously to the floor.
> Idiomatic «Что это такое?»: The scrambled «Это что ещё такое?» is the indignant 'What [on earth] is this now?', with «такое» reinforcing «что» and «ещё» adding affront. The free order throws «что» into the middle for spoken emphasis.
> Two gerunds framing a perfective verb: An imperfective gerund «вглядываясь» (staring, simultaneous) and a perfective gerund «схватив» (having grabbed, prior) cluster around the main perfective verb «ударил» (hurled). This dense participial layering is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's narrative syntax, compressing several actions onto one subject.
> «в упор» — point-blank, fixedly: An idiom for looking 'straight in the face, point-blank', with the unflinching directness of a gun held at zero range. Ivan's mad stare into the usher's face just before he throws him down.

Но стража уже подоспела, его схватили, и тут он завопил неистовым воплем.  
But the guards were already on hand; they seized him, and at that he let out a frenzied howl.
> Collective «стража» as singular: «стража» (the guard, the watch) is a singular feminine collective noun standing for several guards, so the verb is singular «подоспела». «подоспеть» means to arrive just in time; «уже» stresses they were already on hand.
> Cognate intensifier «завопил … воплем»: Verb and noun share a root — «завопил … воплем», 'howled a howl' — an etymological figure that intensifies the cry. «неистовым» (frenzied, ungovernable, from «неистовство») in the instrumental of manner doubles the violence. «за-» marks the sudden bursting-out of the howl.

И всё время, пока его уносили, он вопил и выкрикивал что-то несвязное.  
And the whole time he was being carried out, he howled and shouted something incoherent.
> «пока» + imperfective: 'while…': «пока его уносили» — 'while they were carrying him out' — pairs the temporal conjunction «пока» with the imperfective past «уносили» to frame an ongoing background action. The unnamed plural subject ('they') is the standard Russian impersonal-agent construction.
> Imperfective duration + indefinite «что-то»: The imperfective pair «вопил и выкрикивал» renders sustained, repeated howling and shouting throughout the removal. «что-то несвязное» ('something incoherent') uses «-то» for a real but unidentifiable content — the narrator could not make out the words.

Поднялась суматоха.  
An uproar broke out.
> «суматоха» — uproar, hubbub: A turmoil of confused movement and noise. With «суетливо» and «заволновалось» it belongs to Dostoevsky's lexicon of collapse: the orderly courtroom dissolving into chaos. The narrator will repeat «суматоха» a few lines on, confessing his own confusion.
> Verb-first presentation: Beginning with the verb — «Поднялась суматоха» rather than «Суматоха поднялась» — presents the uproar as new information erupting onto the scene, the comment preceding its subject. The reflexive «поднялась» is here intransitive 'arose'.

Я не упомню всего в порядке, сам был взволнован и не мог уследить.  
I cannot recall it all in order, I was myself agitated and could not follow it.
> Genitive of negation with «всё»: Negated, the object «всё» appears as genitive «всего» — 'I cannot recall it all'. «упомнить» (perfective) is 'to retain in memory / recall'; the narrator's admission of imperfect memory frames the whole chaotic scene.

Знаю только, что потом, когда уже всё успокоилось и все поняли, в чем дело, судебному приставу таки досталось, хотя он и основательно объяснил начальству, что свидетель был всё время здоров, что его видел доктор, когда час пред тем с ним сделалась легкая дурнота, но что до входа в залу он всё говорил связно, так что предвидеть было ничего невозможно; что он сам, напротив, настаивал и непременно хотел дать показание.  
I know only that afterward, when everything had quieted down and everyone understood what the matter was, the court usher did catch it, though he explained thoroughly to his superiors that the witness had been well the entire time, that the doctor had seen him an hour earlier when a slight faintness had come over him, but that up to the moment he entered the hall he had spoken coherently throughout, so that it was impossible to foresee anything; that he himself, on the contrary, had insisted and was bent on giving his testimony.
> Impersonal «досталось» + dative: «досталось» used impersonally with a dative means 'someone caught it / got a scolding': «судебному приставу таки досталось» — 'the usher did catch it'. The colloquial «таки» ('after all, indeed') and the dative experiencer make a wholly subjectless idiom.
> A chain of «что»-clauses in reported speech: The usher's whole self-defence is reported indirectly through a long series of «что»-clauses ('that…, that…, but that…') — the subordinating «что» introducing reported fact. This unbroken indirect-discourse chain mirrors his anxious, run-on justification to his superiors.
> «с кем-то сделалось» — something came over someone: The reflexive «сделаться» with «с» + instrumental means an affliction 'befell' a person: «с ним сделалась … дурнота», 'a faintness came over him'. This is the same frame used below for Katerina Ivanovna's hysterics («с … сделалась истерика»), the body as passive site of what happens to it.
> Impersonal «было невозможно» with «ничего»: A subjectless predicate: «было невозможно … предвидеть» — 'it was impossible to foresee'. Negative concord pulls in «ничего» (genitive of «ничто»), so 'impossible to foresee anything' carries the «ни»-word and the negation together.
> «дурнота» — faintness, a turn: A feeling of sickness or faintness, 'a turn' coming over one (from «дурной», 'bad, ill'). The doctor had noted Ivan's brief «дурнота» an hour before — a clinical foreshadowing of the full collapse the court has just witnessed.

Но прежде чем хоть сколько-нибудь успокоились и пришли в себя, сейчас же вслед за этою сценой разразилась и другая: с Катериной Ивановной сделалась истерика.  
But before people had calmed down even a little and come to themselves, right on the heels of this scene another broke out: Katerina Ivanovna was seized with hysterics.
> «прежде чем» + perfectives: «прежде чем» ('before') governs the perfectives «успокоились» and «пришли в себя» — completed acts that had not yet happened when the next scene broke out. «прийти в себя» is the set idiom 'to come to oneself, recover'.
> Affliction-frame: «с … сделалась истерика»: Again the body is acted upon: «с Катериной Ивановной сделалась истерика», 'Katerina Ivanovna was seized with hysterics' — «с» + instrumental for the person, the fit itself as grammatical subject. The construction denies her any agency over the breakdown.
> «разразиться» — to burst forth: A forceful perfective, 'to break out, erupt' (of a storm, a scandal, a scene). The second «сцена» 'разразилась' on the very heels of the first, the verb borrowed from thunderstorms to convey the courtroom's mounting catastrophe.

Она, громко взвизгивая, зарыдала, но не хотела уйти, рвалась, молила, чтоб ее не уводили, и вдруг закричала председателю:  
Shrieking loudly, she burst into sobs, but would not leave, struggled, pleaded that they not take her away, and suddenly cried out to the presiding judge:
> Imperfective gerund of manner: «взвизгивая» (shrieking) is an imperfective present gerund describing the manner accompanying «зарыдала». The «-ив-/-ыв-» stem makes it iterative — repeated, shrill little shrieks — heightened by «громко».
> «чтобы» + past form for an indirect plea: After a verb of entreaty, «чтоб(ы)» takes the past-tense (irrealis) form: «чтоб её не уводили», 'that they not take her away'. The «бы» buried in «чтоб» marks the willed, not-yet-real outcome she begs for; the plural «уводили» is the impersonal 'they'.
> A surge of inceptive perfectives: «зарыдала» (burst out sobbing) and «закричала» (cried out) carry the inceptive «за-», while «рвалась» and «молила» are imperfective for sustained struggling and pleading. The mix of sudden onsets and durative middles renders the rhythm of her hysteria.

— Я должна сообщить еще одно показание, немедленно… немедленно!..  
"I must give one more piece of testimony, at once... at once!..
> «должна» — short adjective of obligation: «должна» is the feminine short form of «должный», used predicatively as a modal: 'I must / am obliged to'. Agreeing in feminine, it shows the speaker is Katerina Ivanovna; it governs the perfective infinitive «сообщить» (to communicate, in one act).
> «немедленно» — at once, immediately: A bookish-emphatic 'without delay' (literally 'un-tarry-ingly'). Its doubling, like «скорее, скорее» just below, conveys Katerina Ivanovna's frantic urgency to be heard before she can be silenced.

Вот бумага, письмо… возьмите, прочтите скорее, скорее!  
Here is a paper, a letter... take it, read it quickly, quickly!
> Perfective imperatives + comparative «скорее»: «возьмите» and «прочтите» are perfective imperatives demanding a single completed act — take it, read it through. «скорее» is the comparative of «скоро» used adverbially as an urgent 'quicker! faster!'.

Это письмо этого изверга, вот этого, этого! — она указывала на Митю.  
It is the letter of that monster, of that one, that one!" She was pointing at Mitya.
> Stuttered demonstrative «этот»: The genitive/accusative «этого» (animate, of «этот») points to Mitya, doubled with «вот» ('there, that very one') in a stammering repetition. «вот» + demonstrative is the deictic gesture made audible — she is literally pointing as she speaks.
> Imperfective «указывала» — sustained gesture: The imperfective past «указывала» (was pointing) frames a continuous gesture accompanying her cry, not a single jab. «указывать на» + accusative is the regular government for 'to point at someone'.

— Это он убил отца, вы увидите сейчас, он мне пишет, как он убьет отца!  
"It was he who killed Father, you will see in a moment, he writes to me how he is going to kill his father!
> Cleft emphasis with «это … он»: «Это он убил отца» is a cleft — 'It was he who killed Father' — where invariable «это» plus fronted «он» throws the whole stress onto the agent. Word order, not a special construction, does the work of English 'it was he who'.
> Perfective future «убьёт» in reported content: «как он убьёт отца» — 'how he will kill his father' — uses the simple perfective future «убьёт» to report what the letter announced as a single intended deed. The present-tense narration of a past letter keeps the menace vivid.

А тот больной, больной, тот в белой горячке!  
And that one is ill, ill, that one is in delirium tremens!
> Distancing «тот» + predicative long-form «больной»: «тот» ('that one [over there]') distinguishes Ivan from Mitya, the «этот» of the previous line — the demonstrative pair doing the deictic sorting. The repeated «больной» ('ill') is predicative with zero copula, set against Mitya's «изверг».

Я уже три дня вижу, что он в горячке!  
For three days now I have seen that he is in a fever!"
> Present «вижу» over a span: 'I have seen': Russian uses the imperfective present «вижу» with «уже три дня» for an action begun in the past and still going — English's present perfect 'I have seen for three days'. «он в горячке» is the verbless 'he [is] in a fever', «в» + prepositional.

Так вскрикивала она вне себя.  
So she cried out, beside herself.
> «вне себя» — beside oneself: The idiom «вне себя» ('outside oneself', i.e. beside oneself with emotion) uses «вне» + genitive of the reflexive «себя». Russian locates loss of self-control as being literally outside one's own person.

Судебный пристав взял бумагу, которую она протягивала председателю, а она, упав на свой стул и закрыв лицо, начала конвульсивно и беззвучно рыдать, вся сотрясаясь и подавляя малейший стон в боязни, что ее вышлют из залы.  
The court usher took the paper she was holding out to the presiding judge, and she, sinking onto her chair and covering her face, began to sob convulsively and soundlessly, her whole body shaking, stifling the faintest moan for fear that she would be put out of the hall.
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «которую» agrees with «бумагу» in feminine singular but takes the accusative its own clause demands (the object of «протягивала»). The imperfective «протягивала» catches the paper still in mid-air, being held out, as the usher takes it.
> A garland of gerunds: Four деепричастия hang off the main verb «начала рыдать»: perfective «упав» (having sunk) and «закрыв» (having covered) for the prior acts, imperfective «сотрясаясь» (shaking) and «подавляя» (stifling) for what goes on as she sobs. All share her as subject, packing the whole collapse into one sentence.
> Fear-clause with «что» + perfective future: «в боязни, что её вышлют» — 'in fear that they would put her out' — uses «что» for the feared eventuality, with the perfective future «вышлют» (impersonal 'they') naming the dreaded single act. «подавляя малейший стон» fronts the superlative «малейший» (the very faintest).

Бумага, поданная ею, была то самое письмо Мити из трактира «Столичный город», которое Иван Федорович называл «математической» важности документом.  
The paper she had handed over was that very letter of Mitya's from the tavern "The Metropolis," which Ivan Fyodorovich had called a document of "mathematical" importance.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «поданная» is a past passive participle (from perfective «подать») agreeing with «бумага» — 'the paper handed over'. Its agent stands, as the rule requires, in the instrumental: «ею» ('by her'). This compressed participle replaces a full который-clause.
> Correlative «то самое … которое»: «то самое письмо, которое…» — 'that very letter which…' — pairs the emphatic demonstrative «то самое» ('that very same') with the relative «которое», a standard correlative frame for singling out a known referent. «называл» is imperfective, of a repeated past characterization.

Увы! за ним именно признали эту математичность, и, не будь этого письма, может быть и не погиб бы Митя, или по крайней мере не погиб бы так ужасно!  
Alas! it was precisely this mathematical quality that they recognized in it, and had it not been for this letter, perhaps Mitya would not have perished, or at least would not have perished so terribly!
> Conditional «не будь» — 'had it not been for': «не будь этого письма» is a vivid conditional using a bare imperative form of «быть» for an unreal past condition: 'had this letter not existed'. The absent subject sits in the genitive «этого письма» (genitive of negation), and the result-clause «не погиб бы Митя» carries «бы».
> «Увы!» — alas: An archaic-poetic interjection of lament, 'alas!'. The chronicler-narrator breaks his report to grieve over the letter's effect, foretelling Mitya's ruin — a rare lapse of his composure into open sorrow.
> «погибнуть» — to perish, be ruined: «погибнуть» means to perish, be destroyed, come to ruin — here Mitya's destruction by an unjust verdict rather than literal death. The repetition «не погиб бы … не погиб бы так ужасно» tolls his doom and softens it in the same breath: not ruin, or at least not so cruel a ruin.

Повторяю, трудно было уследить за подробностями.  
I repeat, it was hard to follow the particulars.
> Impersonal «трудно было» + infinitive: A subjectless predicate of difficulty: «трудно было уследить», 'it was hard to follow'. «уследить за» governs the instrumental «за подробностями» ('keep track of the details'). The narrator's recurring refrain of difficulty keeps the scene deliberately blurred.

Мне и теперь всё это представляется в такой суматохе.  
Even now it all comes back to me in such a confusion.
> Dative experiencer with «представляется»: «Мне … представляется» — 'it appears to me, it comes back to me' — sets the narrator as a dative experiencer of the reflexive «представляться», with «всё это» as what presents itself to his mind. «в такой суматохе» repeats the chaos-word, now of memory.

Должно быть, председатель тут же сообщил новый документ суду, прокурору, защитнику, присяжным.  
The presiding judge must have communicated the new document then and there to the court, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the jurors.
> Modal «должно быть» — 'must have': The parenthetical «должно быть» ('it must be, presumably') marks the narrator's inference: he did not see it, but it must have happened. It frames the whole sentence as reconstruction rather than witnessed fact, of a piece with his confessed uncertainty.

Я помню только, как свидетельницу начали спрашивать.  
I remember only how they began to question the witness.
> Feminine «свидетельница» + impersonal 'they': «свидетельница» is the feminine of «свидетель» (the -ниц- suffix forming the female agent) — the witness now being Katerina Ivanovna, in the animate accusative «свидетельницу». «начали спрашивать» is the impersonal plural 'they began to question', subject unnamed.

На вопрос: успокоилась ли она? мягко обращенный к ней председателем, Катерина Ивановна стремительно воскликнула:  
To the question, gently put to her by the presiding judge, of whether she had calmed down, Katerina Ivanovna exclaimed impetuously:
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether': «успокоилась ли она» is an indirect yes/no question: «ли» follows the focused word «успокоилась» to mean 'whether she had calmed down'. This enclitic «ли», more literary than mere intonation, embeds the judge's gentle query inside the narrator's report.
> Past passive participle as a tucked-in modifier: «мягко обращённый к ней председателем» — 'gently put to her by the presiding judge' — is a past passive participle (from «обратить») modifying «вопрос», with its agent «председателем» in the instrumental. The whole participial phrase nests between «вопрос» and the colon, bookish and compressed.

— Я готова, готова!  
"I am ready, ready!
> Short adjective «готова»: «готова» is the feminine short-form adjective 'ready', predicative after the zero copula. Its repetition, agreeing in feminine, conveys Katerina Ivanovna's breathless eagerness — the short form being the natural way Russian says 'I'm ready'.

Я совершенно в состоянии вам отвечать, — прибавила она, видимо всё еще ужасно боясь, что ее почему-нибудь не выслушают.  
I am perfectly capable of answering you," she added, evidently still terribly afraid that for some reason they would not hear her out.
> Gerund of an inherently reflexive verb: «боясь» is the imperfective gerund of «бояться» — a verb that exists only in the «-ся» form — describing the fear that persists as she speaks. It governs the «что»-clause «что ее … не выслушают», 'that they would not hear her out'.
> Indefinite «почему-нибудь» — 'for some reason': «почему-нибудь» ('for some reason or other') uses «-нибудь» for an unspecified, hypothetical cause — she fears a refusal on any grounds at all. The perfective future «не выслушают» is the impersonal 'they won't hear her out'.

Ее попросили объяснить подробнее: какое это письмо и при каких обстоятельствах она его получила?  
They asked her to explain in more detail: what letter was this, and under what circumstances had she received it?
> Impersonal 'they asked her': «Её попросили объяснить» — accusative «её» as the one asked, the subject unnamed plural 'they'. «попросить» + accusative-of-person + infinitive is the standard frame for requesting someone to do something. «объяснить … подробнее» takes the comparative adverb 'in more detail'.
> «при» + prepositional — attendant circumstances: «при каких обстоятельствах» ('under what circumstances') uses «при» + prepositional, the preposition's job being to set the circumstances accompanying an event. «какие» here is the interrogative adjective agreeing in plural prepositional.

— Я получила его накануне самого преступления, а писал он его еще за день из трактира, стало быть, за два дня до своего преступления — посмотрите, оно написано на каком-то счете! — прокричала она задыхаясь.  
"I received it on the very eve of the crime, but he had written it a day earlier still, from the tavern — that is to say, two days before his crime. Look, it is written on some sort of bill!" she cried out, gasping for breath.
> Aspect contrast: «получила» vs «писал»: Perfective «получила» pins the single moment of receiving, while imperfective «писал» views the writing as a process some days earlier — 'he was writing it'. The contrastive «а» hinges the two, and the aspect itself lays out the timeline she is reconstructing.
> Genitive time-phrases: «накануне … преступления» ('on the eve of the crime') and «за два дня до … преступления» ('two days before the crime') both end in the genitive: «накануне» and «до» each govern it. «самого» ('the very') intensifies «преступления».
> «стало быть» — 'that is to say, therefore': A common discourse marker drawing an inference, 'so then, consequently'. Katerina Ivanovna uses it to do the damning arithmetic aloud — the letter predates the murder by two days, proving premeditation.

— Он меня тогда ненавидел, потому что сам сделал подлый поступок и пошел за этою тварью… и потому еще, что должен был мне эти три тысячи..  
"He hated me then, because he had himself done a vile thing and gone off after that creature... and because, besides, he owed me those three thousand..."
> Causal «потому что» doubled: She gives two reasons with «потому что» ('because') and the resumptive «и потому ещё, что» ('and because, besides'), the subordinator «что» heading each cause. The parallel structure builds her accusation reason upon reason.
> «должен» of debt + dative creditor: Here «должен был» means 'owed' (a literal debt), with the creditor in the dative «мне» and the sum in the accusative «эти три тысячи». «три тысячи» takes «тысячи» in the genitive singular after the numeral 'three'.
> «тварь» — 'creature', as an insult: «тварь» literally means a created being, but as invective it is a contemptuous 'creature, vile thing' — Katerina Ivanovna's scornful term for Grushenka. «за этою тварью» ('after that creature') uses «за» + the archaic instrumental «-ою», 'in pursuit of'.

О, ему было обидно за эти три тысячи из-за своей же низости!  
Oh, those three thousand stung him—and it was his own baseness that made them sting!
> Dative experiencer of feeling: A classic impersonal construction: the person who feels stands in the dative («ему»), with the neuter «было обидно» and no nominative subject — 'it was painful to him'. (Our English shifts the subject to Katya; the Russian keeps the grammar impersonal.)
> Reflexive «свой» plus the particle «же»: «Свой» points the possession back to the clause's own experiencer (the masculine dative «ему», i.e. Mitya) — his own baseness, no one else's — and «же» insists on it ('his very own'), one of the tiny emphatic particles that carry the heat of the speech. (Our English loosely shifts the subject to Katya, but the Russian «своей» is grammatically his.)
> «низость» — baseness: A bookish abstract noun in -ость from «низкий» ('low'): moral lowness, baseness. It belongs to the same charged moral vocabulary («бесчестен», «подлец», «изверг») that saturates this whole confession.

Эти три тысячи вот как были — я вас прошу, я вас умоляю меня выслушать: еще за три недели до того, как убил отца, он пришел ко мне утром.  
Here is how those three thousand came about—I beg you, I implore you to hear me out: a full three weeks before he killed his father, he came to me one morning.
> Doubled verb, accusative object, perfective infinitive: «Вас» is the accusative object of both verbs; the rising pair «прошу… умоляю» («I beg… I implore») is Dostoevsky's hallmark intensifying repetition. The perfective infinitive «выслушать» frames the hearing-out as a single completed act, not an ongoing one.
> «до того, как» + perfective past: A temporal clause 'before he killed his father'. The pronoun «он» is dropped — the perfective past «убил» (masculine -л) already carries person and gender — and «отца» is the animate-masculine accusative, identical in form to the genitive.

Я знала, что ему надо — деньги, и знала на что — вот, вот именно на то, чтобы соблазнить эту тварь и увезти с собой.  
I knew what he needed—money—and I knew what for: precisely, precisely to seduce that creature and carry her off with him.
> Purpose «чтобы» with perfective infinitives: «Чтобы» + infinitive states purpose ('in order to seduce… and carry off'). Both verbs are perfective, viewing seduction and abduction as single accomplished aims; «с собой» uses the reflexive «себя» in the instrumental, 'with himself'.
> «тварь» — creature, here as contempt: Literally a 'created thing' (from «творить», to create) — neutral in Scripture ('every creature'), but flung at a woman it becomes a venomous slur, 'that creature'. Katya's repeated «эта тварь» for Grushenka is pure jealousy made lexical.

Я знала тогда, что уж он мне изменил и хочет бросить меня, и я, я сама протянула тогда ему эти деньги, сама предложила будто бы для того, чтоб отослать моей сестре в Москве, — и когда отдавала, то посмотрела ему в лицо и сказала, что он может, когда хочет, послать, «хоть еще через месяц».  
I knew then that he had already betrayed me and wanted to abandon me, and I, I myself held out that money to him, I myself offered it, supposedly to send to my sister in Moscow—and as I gave it over, I looked him in the face and said that he could send it whenever he wished, "even a month from now."
> «изменить» + dative: to betray someone: «Изменить» governs the dative of the person betrayed («мне»), not a direct object — a fixed pattern for this verb. The particle «уж» (a clipped «уже», 'already') adds a weary 'by then'.
> Emphatic «сама» and repeated subject: The stammered «я, я» and the intensifier «сама» ('I myself') hammer her own agency — she, of her own hand, held the money out. «Сама» is the feminine of the emphatic «сам», stressing that the subject did it personally.
> Pretext clause and case contrast: «Будто бы» ('supposedly') flags the pretext as false. «Чтоб» (clipped «чтобы») + perfective infinitive gives the alleged purpose; «сестре» is dative (the recipient), while «в Москве» is prepositional for location — contrast «в Москву» which would mean motion toward.
> «через» + accusative of elapsed time: «Через месяц» means 'a month from now / after a month has passed' — «через» with the accusative measures time still to elapse. «Хоть» here is concessive, 'even, if you like'.

Ну как же, как же бы он не понял, что я в глаза ему прямо говорила: «Тебе надо денег для измены мне с твоею тварью, так вот тебе эти деньги, я сама тебе их даю, возьми, если ты так бесчестен, что возьмешь!..»  
How could he, how could he have failed to understand that I was telling him straight to his face: "You need money to betray me with your creature—well, here is the money, I give it to you myself, take it, if you are vile enough to take it!.."
> Rhetorical conditional with «бы» and «же»: «Бы» turns «не понял» into a hypothetical — 'how could he possibly have failed to understand' — and «же» pours emphasis on the «как». The double negative incredulity ('how would he NOT have understood') is sharper in Russian than English can be.
> Dative + «надо» + genitive object: Impersonal need: «тебе надо» ('you need', dative experiencer) takes its object «денег» in the genitive — the partitive/quantity genitive natural with «надо денег». «Для измены» is genitive after «для», 'for the betrayal'.
> Short adjective «бесчестен» as predicate: The short form «бесчестен» ('dishonorable, base') can only be a predicate — 'if you are so dishonorable' — and carries the bookish, absolute flavour of a moral verdict. The result clause «так… что» ('so… that') leans on it.

Я уличить его хотела, и что же?  
I wanted to catch him out—and what then?
> Inverted word order: object and verb before «хотела»: Neutral order would be «я хотела уличить его»; fronting «уличить его» throws the weight onto the act of catching-him-out. Free word order lets her foreground the intention, the comment falling on «хотела».
> «и что же?» — and what then?: A set rhetorical turn: «что же» ('well, what?') with the insistent particle «же», bracing the listener for a bitter answer. It is the verbal pivot into her self-accusation.

Он взял, он их взял, и унес, и истратил их с этою тварью там, в одну ночь…  
He took it, he took it, and carried it off, and squandered it with that creature there, in a single night…
> Chain of perfective pasts: A string of perfective verbs — «взял… унес… истратил» — drives the narration forward event by completed event: took, carried off, spent. The breathless «он… он их» repetition is her trauma stuttering through the grammar.
> «в» + accusative for duration 'in a single night': Here «в одну ночь» means 'in the space of one night' — «в» with the accusative measuring the span within which the squandering was completed, fitting the perfective «истратил».

Но он понял, он понял, что я всё знаю, уверяю вас, что он тогда понял и то, что я, отдавая ему деньги, только пытаю его: будет ли он так бесчестен, что возьмет от меня, или нет?  
But he understood, he understood that I knew everything; I assure you that he understood, even then, that in handing him the money I was merely testing him: would he be base enough to take it from me, or not?
> Imperfective gerund «отдавая» (attendant action): The деепричастие «отдавая» ('[while] handing over') from imperfective «отдавать» names the action going on at the same time as the main verb, sharing its subject 'I'. It compresses 'as I gave him the money' into one verb-adverb.
> Embedded yes/no question with «ли»: «Ли» turns the indirect question into 'whether he would be base enough to take it' — the focused word «будет» fronted, «ли» trailing it. This literary «ли» is far more frequent in Dostoevsky's narration than in speech.

В глаза ему глядела, и он мне глядел в глаза и всё понимал, всё понимал, и взял, и взял, и унес мои деньги!  
I gazed into his eyes, and he gazed into mine and understood it all, understood it all, and took it, and took it, and carried off my money!
> Mirroring word order and dative «of looking»: The two clauses mirror each other — «в глаза ему / он мне в глаза» — a chiasmus enacting the locked gaze. «Глядеть в глаза» takes the person in the dative («ему», «мне»): to look into someone's eyes.
> Imperfective then perfective: knowing vs. seizing: «Понимал» (imperfective) holds the durative understanding as an ongoing state; «взял» (perfective) snaps to the single decisive act of taking. The obsessive doubling is Katya's voice, but the aspect shift quietly tells the whole moral story.

— Правда, Катя! — завопил вдруг Митя, — в глаза смотрел и понимал, что бесчестишь меня и все-таки взял твои деньги!  
"It's true, Katya!" Mitya suddenly cried out, "I looked into your eyes and knew that you were dishonoring me, and still I took your money!"
> «завопить» — to cry out, with inceptive «за-»: From «вопить» ('to wail, howl'); the prefix «за-» marks the sudden onset of the action — 'he burst out wailing'. Much more violent than 'said', it pitches Mitya's interjection at a scream.
> «Катя» — the intimate diminutive of Катерина: Mitya addresses her by the bare affectionate short form «Катя» (from «Катерина»). Against the courtroom's formal «Катерина Ивановна», this diminutive lays bare the intimacy between them — the naming itself is characterisation.

Презирайте подлеца, презирайте все, заслужил!  
Despise the scoundrel, all of you despise me, I have earned it!
> Plural imperative «презирайте»: «Презирайте» is the polite/plural imperative ('despise [you all]'), addressed to the whole court; «все» is the subject 'everyone'. The bare imperative repeated is Mitya hurling self-condemnation outward.
> «подлец» — scoundrel: A strong term of abuse, 'scoundrel, base wretch'. Mitya speaks of himself in the third person — «презирайте подлеца» ('despise the scoundrel') — turning self-loathing into a public exhibit. The animate accusative «подлеца» equals the genitive.

— Подсудимый, — вскричал председатель, — еще слово — я вас велю вывесть.  
"Defendant," the presiding judge cried out, "one more word and I will have you removed."
> «велеть» + infinitive; archaic «вывесть»: «Велю» ('I shall order') governs the infinitive «вывесть» — 'I will have you led out'. «Вывесть» is the older variant of modern «вывести», the kind of period form natural in a 19th-century courtroom register.

— Эти деньги его мучили, — продолжала, судорожно торопясь, Катя, — он хотел мне их отдать, он хотел, это правда, но ему деньги нужны были и для этой твари.  
"That money tormented him," Katya went on, hurrying convulsively, "he wanted to give it back to me, he did want to, that is the truth, but he also needed the money for that creature.
> Gerund «торопясь» (simultaneous manner): The imperfective деепричастие «торопясь» ('hurrying') from «торопиться» describes how Katya speaks — convulsively rushing — while she goes on. The reflexive -ся verb is one that exists only in this form.
> Dative + «нужны» agreeing with «деньги»: In this need-construction the thing needed is grammatically the subject: «деньги нужны» (money [is] needed), with «нужны» agreeing in plural; the needer «ему» stands in the dative. English inverts it to 'he needed the money'.

Вот он и убил отца, а денег все-таки мне не отдал, а уехал с ней в ту деревню, где его схватили.  
And so he killed his father, yet still did not return the money to me, but went off with her to that village where they seized him.
> «вот… и» — the resultative 'and so': «Вот он и убил» means 'and so he went and killed' — the «вот… и» frame draws a grim conclusion from what precedes, the «и» here adverbial ('indeed, went and') rather than the conjunction 'and'.
> Genitive of negation: «денег… не отдал»: Under negation the object «деньги» shifts to the genitive «денег» — 'did not give back (any of) the money'. The fronting of «денег» also throws emphasis onto the unreturned money, the heart of her grievance.
> Prefixed motion verb and relative «где»-clause: «Уехал» is the perfective of «уезжать/уехать» — the prefix «у-» means departure, 'went away by vehicle'. «В ту деревню» (accusative, motion toward) is then specified by the relative clause «где его схватили».

Там он опять прокутил эти деньги, которые украл у убитого им отца.  
There he squandered that money once again—the money he had stolen from the father he had murdered.
> Relative «которые» + past passive participle «убитого»: «Которые» ('which') is accusative, the object of «украл» inside its clause. Folded in is «убитого им отца» — 'the father murdered by him' — where the past passive participle «убитый» takes the agent in the instrumental «им».
> «прокутить» — to blow on carousing: From «кутить» ('to carouse, go on a spree'); the prefix «про-» means to squander away (one's money) through such revelry. The choice paints the spending as drunken dissipation, not mere expense.

А за день до того, как убил отца, и написал мне это письмо, написал пьяный, я сейчас тогда увидела, написал из злобы и зная, наверно зная, что я никому не покажу этого письма, даже если б он и убил.  
And a day before he killed his father, he wrote me this letter—he wrote it drunk, I saw that at once—he wrote it out of spite, and knowing, knowing for certain, that I would show this letter to no one, even if he did go through with the murder.
> Gerund «зная» chained to a finite verb: «Зная» is the imperfective gerund of «знать», 'knowing', running alongside «написал»: he wrote out of spite, [all the while] knowing. «Из злобы» uses «из» + genitive for motive, 'out of spite'.
> Hypothetical «если б… и»: «Если б» (clipped «если бы») + past «убил» builds the irrealis 'even if he had killed'. The «и» after it is concessive-emphatic, 'even (actually) did it' — a delicate stacking of particles that English renders as 'went through with it'.

А то бы он не написал.  
Otherwise he would not have written it.
> «а то бы» — otherwise + conditional: «А то» means 'otherwise, or else', and the «бы» on «не написал» makes the whole thing a counterfactual: 'otherwise he would not have written it'. A whole hypothetical condensed into four words.

Он знал, что я не захочу ему мстить и его погубить!  
He knew that I would not want to take my revenge and ruin him!
> «мстить» + dative, «погубить» + accusative: Two verbs share «не захочу» ('would not want'): «мстить» governs the dative of the person avenged-upon («ему»), while «погубить» (perfective, 'to destroy, ruin') takes the accusative «его». The same 'him' surfaces in two cases.

Но прочтите, прочтите внимательно, пожалуйста внимательнее, и вы увидите, что он в письме всё описал, всё заранее: как убьет отца и где у того деньги лежат.  
But read it, read it carefully, please, more carefully still, and you will see that in the letter he set it all down, all of it in advance: how he would kill his father and where the old man kept his money.
> Perfective imperative «прочтите»: «Прочтите» is the polite imperative of perfective «прочесть» ('read [through to the end]') — a single completed reading is demanded, not the process «читайте». The repetition is Katya's urgency pressing on the court.
> Perfective future «убьет» and demonstrative «у того»: «Убьет» is the perfective present-form used for future, 'how he would kill'. «У того» — 'at that one's', i.e. where the old man kept his money — uses the demonstrative «тот» in the genitive after «у» to track the father as a discourse referent.

Посмотрите, пожалуйста не пропустите, там есть одна фраза: «Убью, только бы уехал Иван».  
Look closely, please do not skip it, there is one phrase there: "I'll kill him, only let Ivan get away first."
> Negated perfective imperative: «Не пропустите» — 'do not skip / miss it' — is the perfective imperative under negation, warning against a single failure to notice. With perfectives, a negated imperative typically warns of an accidental lapse.
> «только бы» + past = 'if only / so long as': «Убью» is bare perfective future, 'I'll kill [him]'. «Только бы уехал Иван» uses the wishing «только бы» + past form: 'only let Ivan get away first', the «бы» marking the desired condition. A chilling clause Katya isolates as proof of premeditation.

Значит, он заранее уж обдумал, как он убьет, — злорадно и ехидно подсказывала суду Катерина Ивановна.  
So you see, he had thought out in advance how he would do the killing," Katerina Ivanovna prompted the court with gloating, venomous malice.
> Perfective «обдумал» vs. future «убьет»: «Обдумал» (perfective past, 'had thought through') reports the completed planning; the embedded «как он убьет» keeps the perfective future for the still-to-come deed. «Заранее уж» piles 'beforehand, already' onto the premeditation.
> «злорадно», «ехидно» — gloating, venomous: «Злорадно» ('with malicious joy', from «зло» + «радость», literally 'evil-gladness') and «ехидно» ('spitefully, snidely', from «ехидна», a viper/echidna). The narrator's adverbs expose the relish under Katya's testimony.

О, видно было, что она до тонкости вчиталась в это роковое письмо и изучила в нем каждую черточку.  
Oh, it was plain that she had pored over that fatal letter down to its finest nuances and had studied every last stroke of it.
> «вчитаться» — to read oneself deep into: A reflexive perfective from «читать» with «в-»: to immerse oneself in a text until one grasps its every detail. «До тонкости вчиталась» — 'pored over it down to its subtleties' — captures her obsessive study.
> «черточка» — diminutive 'little stroke': The diminutive of «черта» ('line, stroke, feature'), suffix -очк-: 'every last little stroke' of the handwriting. The diminutive intensifies the sense of minute, exhaustive scrutiny rather than smallness.
> Adjective–noun agreement: «роковое письмо»: «Роковое» ('fateful, fatal', from «рок», fate/doom) agrees with neuter «письмо» in the neuter singular -ое ending. The long attributive adjective carries the tragic weight: this is the doom-laden letter.

— Не пьяный он бы мне не написал, но посмотрите, там всё описано вперед, всё точь-в-точь, как он потом убил, вся программа!  
"Had he not been drunk he would never have written it to me, but look here, it is all set down beforehand, everything exactly, point for point, as he afterward did the murder—the whole program!"
> Counterfactual with «бы» and double negation: 'Had he not been drunk, he would not have written to me': «не пьяный» negates the condition, «бы… не написал» the result — a full counterfactual with no «если», the «бы» alone carrying the irrealis. The logic: only drunkenness produced the letter.
> «точь-в-точь» — exactly, point for point: A reduplicated colloquial idiom (from «точка», 'point'): 'exactly so, to the letter'. Paired with «всё описано вперед» it stresses how perfectly the letter prefigured the crime.

Так восклицала она вне себя и уж, конечно, презирая все для себя последствия, хотя, разумеется, их предвидела еще, может, за месяц тому, потому что и тогда еще, может быть, содрогаясь от злобы, мечтала: «Не прочесть ли это суду?»  
So she exclaimed, beside herself, and, of course, scorning every consequence to herself—though she had, naturally, foreseen them perhaps a month before, since even then, perhaps, shuddering with malice, she had dreamed: "Shall I not read it aloud to the court?"
> Chained gerunds of the literary narration: Two imperfective gerunds — «презирая» ('scorning') and «содрогаясь» ('shuddering') — hang attendant circumstances on the finite verbs «восклицала… мечтала». Such dense participial/gerund chains are a signature of 19th-century bookish prose.
> Deliberative «не… ли» with dative «суду»: A self-questioning 'Shall I not read this to the court?': the perfective infinitive «прочесть» with «не… ли» frames a wavering deliberation, and «суду» is the dative recipient, 'to the court'. The «ли» gives it the inward, hesitating tone.
> «вне себя» — beside oneself: Idiom 'outside oneself' (with the reflexive «себя» in its genitive form after «вне»): overcome, no longer in control. It recurs as the keynote of Katya's whole testimony — «в исступлении», «в истерике», «обезумевшей».

Теперь же как бы полетела с горы.  
Now, though, it was as if she had flung herself headlong down a mountainside.
> «как бы» softening a vivid image: «Как бы» ('as if, as it were') hedges the metaphor — she did not literally fall, but it was as though she 'flew down a mountain'. The «бы» here is part of the comparative «как бы», not a conditional.

Помню, кажется, именно тут же письмо было прочитано вслух секретарем и произвело потрясающее впечатление.  
I remember that the letter was, I think, read aloud right then by the secretary, and that it produced an overwhelming impression.
> Periphrastic passive with instrumental agent: «Было прочитано» = «быть» + short past passive participle of «прочитать»: 'was read aloud'. The agent is in the instrumental, «секретарем» ('by the secretary') — the standard way Russian names the doer of a passive.

Обратились к Мите с вопросом: «Признает ли он это письмо?»  
They turned to Mitya with the question: "Does he acknowledge this letter?"
> Impersonal-plural «обратились» + «к» dative: The subjectless third-person plural «обратились» ('they turned') is Russian's neutral way of saying 'one turned / the court turned'. «К Мите» uses «к» + dative for direction toward a person.
> Yes/no question with «ли»: «Признает ли он…?» — the verb fronted, «ли» following — is the formal 'Does he acknowledge this letter?'. «Признать» here is the legal sense 'to recognize as one's own'.

— Мое, мое! — воскликнул Митя.  
"Mine, it's mine!" Mitya exclaimed.
> Bare possessive «мое» as a full sentence: Just the neuter possessive «мое» ('mine'), agreeing with the dropped «письмо», stands as Mitya's whole reply — with the zero copula of the present tense, no 'is' is needed. Two words confess authorship of the fatal letter.

— Не пьяный бы не написал!..  
"Had I not been drunk I would never have written it!.."
> Elliptical counterfactual, subject dropped: Mitya echoes Katya's own counterfactual but pares it to the bone: 'Sober [I] wouldn't have written it', subject «я» dropped, «бы» carrying the irrealis. The clipped repetition binds his confession to her accusation.

За многое мы друг друга ненавидели, Катя, но клянусь, клянусь, я тебя и ненавидя любил, а ты меня — нет!  
We hated each other for a great many things, Katya, but I swear, I swear, even hating you I loved you—and you did not love me!
> Gerund «ненавидя» inside the main clause: The imperfective gerund «ненавидя» ('[while] hating') sits between subject and verb: 'I, even while hating you, loved you'. The «и» before it is concessive, 'even'. The gerund makes hatred and love simultaneous in one breath.
> Contrastive «а» and gapped negation: «А» marks the gentle but pointed contrast — 'but you [loved] me — not'. The verb is gapped, «нет» standing in for «не любила»: a terse, devastating ellipsis the «а» pivots on.

Он упал на свое место, ломая руки в отчаянии.  
He sank back into his seat, wringing his hands in despair.
> Imperfective gerund of manner «ломая руки»: «Ломая» ('wringing', literally 'breaking') is the imperfective gerund from «ломать», describing the manner of «упал»: he sank down, wringing his hands. «В отчаянии» is prepositional, 'in despair'.

Прокурор и защитник стали предлагать перекрестные вопросы, главное в том смысле: «что, дескать, побудило вас давеча утаить такой документ и показывать прежде совершенно в другом духе и тоне?»  
The prosecutor and the defense counsel began putting cross-questions, chiefly to this effect: "What, may we ask, induced you earlier to conceal such a document and to give your evidence before in an altogether different spirit and tone?"
> «дескать» — reportative 'as it were, supposedly': An old quotative particle marking reported, second-hand speech and faint irony — here flagging the court's question as paraphrase. It belongs to the colloquial-archaic texture of narrated speech.
> «давеча» — a short while ago, earlier today: An archaic-colloquial adverb meaning 'earlier, a little while back (today)'. Frequent in 19th-century dialogue, it recurs through this scene as Katya contrasts what she said «давеча» with what she now confesses.

— Да, да, я давеча солгала, всё лгала, против чести и совести, но я хотела давеча спасти его, потому что он меня так ненавидел и так презирал, — как безумная воскликнула Катя.  
"Yes, yes, earlier I lied, I lied through it all, against my honor and my conscience, but earlier I wanted to save him, because he hated me so and despised me so," Katya cried out like a woman gone mad.
> Perfective «солгала» vs. imperfective «лгала»: «Солгала» (perfective) names the single act of telling the lie; «всё лгала» (imperfective) stretches it into a sustained, repeated lying — 'I lied through it all'. The aspect pair lets her confess both the act and the long deceit.
> «как» + nominative for 'like a madwoman': «Как безумная» — 'like a madwoman' — uses «как» with the nominative for a comparison of state. The feminine «безумная» (long adjective used as a noun) agrees with Katya as the implied subject.

— О, он презирал меня ужасно, презирал всегда, и знаете, знаете — он презирал меня с самой той минуты, когда я ему тогда в ноги за эти деньги поклонилась.  
"Oh, he despised me terribly, he always despised me, and you know, you know—he despised me from the very moment I bowed down to the ground before him over that money.
> «с» + genitive + «самый» 'from the very moment': «С… минуты» uses «с» + genitive for the starting point in time; «самой той» ('that very') intensifies and pins it down, both words in the genitive agreeing with «минуты». Then «когда» opens the defining time-clause.

Я увидала это… Я сейчас тогда же это почувствовала, но я долго себе не верила.  
I saw it… I felt it the instant it happened, but for a long time I would not believe myself.
> «верить» + dative; reflexive «себе»: «Верить» governs the dative of what/whom one trusts: «себе» ('myself'). 'For a long time I did not believe myself' — the reflexive pronoun in its dative form «себе», distinct from the verbal -ся.

Сколько раз я читала в глазах его: «Все-таки ты сама тогда ко мне пришла».  
How many times I read in his eyes: "All the same, you came to me of your own accord that time."
> Imperfective «читала» for habitual repetition: «Сколько раз… читала» — 'how many times I [used to] read' — the imperfective past carries the iterative sense of a thing done again and again. «В глазах его» fronts the location for emphasis, with «его» trailing as a possessive.
> «сама» and prefixed «прийти»: The imagined reproach in his eyes: «сама… пришла» — 'you came of your own accord'. «Пришла» is perfective «прийти» (arrive on foot); «сама» underscores that the coming was her own doing — the very fact that humiliates her.

О, он не понял, он не понял ничего, зачем я тогда прибежала, он способен подозревать только низость!  
Oh, he did not understand, he understood nothing of why I ran to him then; he is capable of suspecting only baseness!
> Negative concord: «не… ничего»: Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even with the negative pronoun «ничего» — literally 'he did not understand nothing', meaning 'he understood nothing'. The double negative is obligatory, not emphatic error.
> «прибежать» — to come running: Perfective of «прибегать/прибежать», prefixed «при-» (arrival) on «бежать» (run): she didn't merely come, she came running. The verb's urgency answers «зачем я тогда прибежала» — the desperate reason he failed to grasp.

Он мерил на себя, он думал, что и все такие, как он, — яростно проскрежетала Катя, совсем уже в исступлении.  
He measured everyone by himself, he thought that all are made as he is," Katya ground out furiously, by now wholly in a frenzy.
> Idiom «мерить на себя» with reflexive «себя»: «Мерить на себя» — to measure others by oneself, judge them by one's own standard. «На себя» uses the reflexive «себя» in the accusative after «на». Katya's bitter diagnosis: he assumed everyone as base as he.
> «проскрежетать» — to grind out (through one's teeth): From «скрежетать» ('to gnash, grate'), with «про-»: she ground the words out as through clenched teeth. With «в исступлении» ('in a frenzy') it pitches her delivery at the edge of breakdown.

— А жениться он на мне захотел потому только, что я получила наследство, потому, потому!  
"And he wanted to marry me only because I had come into an inheritance, only that, only that!
> «жениться на» + prepositional; emphatic order: A man's marrying is «жениться на ком» — «на мне» in the prepositional. The marked order, fronting «жениться» and stranding «потому только, что» ('only because'), throws all the weight onto the mercenary motive.

Я всегда подозревала, что потому!  
I always suspected that it was for that!
> Elliptical «что потому»: 'I always suspected [it was] for that' — the clause is gapped, «потому» ('for that reason') standing alone after «что». The terseness mimics obsessive certainty.

О, это зверь!  
Oh, he is a brute!
> Zero copula: «это зверь»: 'He is a brute' — Russian needs no 'is' in the present; «это зверь» juxtaposes demonstrative and predicate nominative directly. «Зверь» ('beast, wild animal') is one of a rising series — «зверь… изверг… изверг и убийца».

Он всю жизнь был уверен, что я всю жизнь буду пред ним трепетать от стыда за то, что тогда приходила, и что он может вечно за это презирать меня, а потому первенствовать, — вот почему он на мне захотел жениться!  
All his life he was convinced that all my life I would tremble before him in shame at having gone to him that time, and that he could despise me for it forever, and so lord it over me—that is why he wanted to marry me!
> Compound future «буду трепетать»: «Буду трепетать» is the imperfective compound future: «быть» conjugated + imperfective infinitive, naming an ongoing future state — 'I would [forever] tremble'. «Пред» is the bookish form of «перед» ('before'), + instrumental «ним».
> «первенствовать» — to take first place, lord it: A bookish verb from «первый» ('first'): to hold pre-eminence, dominate. Katya's claim is that Mitya wanted to marry her precisely in order to «первенствовать» — to reign over her in perpetual shame.

Это так, это всё так!  
It is so, it is all so!
> Predicate adverb «так» with zero copula: 'It is so, it is all so' — «так» ('so, thus') stands as the whole predicate with no copula. The bare, hammered repetition is Katya convincing herself as much as the court.

Я пробовала победить его моею любовью, любовью без конца, даже измену его хотела снести, но он ничего, ничего не понял.  
I tried to conquer him with my love, with a love without end; I was even ready to bear his betrayal, but he understood nothing, nothing at all.
> Instrumental of means «моею любовью»: «Любовью» is instrumental, the means by which she tried to conquer him — 'with my love'. The ending «-ою» on «моею» is the older, bookish variant of «-ой» (модерн «моей»), at home in literary 19th-century prose.
> Negative concord intensified by repetition: Again «ничего… не понял» keeps the obligatory double negative; the doubled «ничего, ничего» pushes it past grammar into emotional emphasis — 'nothing, nothing at all'.

Да разве он может что-нибудь понять!  
As if he were even capable of understanding anything!
> Rhetorical «разве» and indefinite «что-нибудь»: «Разве» turns the question into incredulous denial — 'as if he could understand anything!'. «Что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite ('anything at all'), built from «что» + «-нибудь», fitting the open, dismissive scope.

Это изверг!  
He is a monster!
> «изверг» — monster, fiend: A heavy term, 'monster, inhuman wretch' (etymologically one 'cast out'). It escalates her earlier «зверь» and recurs in «изверг и убийца» — the very words Ivan strove to disprove. Stronger and more moral than English 'monster'.

Это письмо я получила только на другой день вечером, мне из трактира принесли, а еще утром, еще утром в тот день, я хотела было всё простить ему, всё, даже его измену!  
I received this letter only the next evening, it was brought to me from the tavern, but earlier that same morning, that very morning, I had meant to forgive him everything, everything, even his betrayal!"
> Impersonal-plural «принесли» + dative «мне»: The subjectless plural «принесли» ('they brought / it was brought') with dative «мне» — 'it was brought to me' — needs no named agent. «Из трактира» is «из» + genitive, 'from the tavern'.
> The particle «было» of the abandoned intention: «Хотела было… простить» uses the special «было» that marks an action begun or intended but cut short — 'I had been about to forgive'. «Простить» governs the dative of the forgiven person, «ему».

Конечно, председатель и прокурор ее успокоивали.  
Of course, the presiding judge and the prosecutor tried to calm her.
> Imperfective «успокоивали» of attempted action: The imperfective past «успокоивали» ('tried to calm') here reads as conative — an effort under way, not necessarily succeeding. «Ее» is the accusative object; the imperfective leaves the calming open-ended.

Я уверен, что им всем было даже, может быть, самим стыдно так пользоваться ее исступлением и выслушивать такие признания.  
I am convinced that they themselves were ashamed, perhaps, to be exploiting her frenzy in this way and to be listening to such confessions.
> Dative experiencer «им всем было стыдно»: Another impersonal feeling-construction: 'they were ashamed' is built on dative «им всем» + neuter «было стыдно», no nominative subject. The shame is something that happens to them — the experiencer-first frame Dostoevsky loves.
> «пользоваться» + instrumental: «Пользоваться» ('to use, exploit') governs the instrumental, «исступлением» — to exploit her frenzy. The verb's required case turns the abstract «исступление» (ecstatic frenzy, derangement) into the instrument of their advantage.

Я помню, я слышал, как они говорили ей: «Мы понимаем, как вам тяжело, поверьте, мы способны чувствовать», и проч., и проч., — а показания-то все-таки вытянули от обезумевшей женщины в истерике.  
I remember, I heard them say to her: "We understand how hard this is for you, believe us, we are capable of feeling," and so on, and so forth—and yet they went on extracting the testimony from a woman beside herself, hysterical.
> The topic clitic «-то»: Hyphenated «-то» on «показания» marks it as the known topic under contrast — 'the testimony, for all that, they did drag out'. This emphatic «-то» is distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то»; here it spotlights a given referent.
> Past active participle «обезумевшей»: «Обезумевшая» ('having gone mad / out of her mind') is a past active participle from «обезуметь», declined here as genitive feminine after «от». It compresses 'a woman who had lost her reason' into a single modifier — a bookish participial economy.

Она, наконец, описала с чрезвычайною ясностью, которая так часто, хотя и мгновенно, мелькает даже в минуты такого напряженного состояния, как Иван Федорович почти сходил с ума во все эти два месяца на том, чтобы спасти «изверга и убийцу», своего брата.  
At last she described, with that extraordinary lucidity which so often flashes out—even if only for an instant—at moments of such intense strain, how Ivan Fyodorovich had very nearly gone out of his mind over these last two months in his determination to save "the monster and murderer," his own brother.
> Instrumental of manner + relative «которая»: «С… ясностью» (instrumental after «с») describes the manner — 'with lucidity'. The relative «которая» agrees with feminine «ясность» but takes nominative for its own role as subject of «мелькает». Note again the bookish «-ою» ending on «чрезвычайною».
> Imperfective «сходил с ума» and purpose «чтобы»: «Сходил с ума» (imperfective, 'was going out of his mind') paints the prolonged torment; «на том, чтобы спасти» — 'over the aim of saving' — uses «чтобы» + perfective infinitive for the goal Ivan fixed on.

— Он себя мучил, — восклицала она, — он всё хотел уменьшить его вину, признаваясь мне, что он и сам не любил отца и, может быть, сам желал его смерти.  
"He tortured himself," she exclaimed, "he kept trying to lessen his brother's guilt, confessing to me that he himself had not loved their father and had, perhaps, himself wished for his death.
> Imperfective gerund «признаваясь»: «Признаваясь» ('confessing') is the imperfective gerund of the reflexive «признаваться», attendant on «хотел уменьшить»: he kept trying to lessen the guilt, [all the while] confessing to me. The -ся verb 'to confess, own up' governs the dative «мне».
> Genitive object «смерти» with «желать»: «Желать» characteristically takes the genitive of the thing wished — «его смерти», 'wished for his death'. This abstract-object genitive (not accusative) is the verb's fixed government, heightening the chilling, deliberate phrasing.

О, это глубокая, глубокая совесть!  
Oh, what a deep, deep conscience!
> Zero copula and emphatic adjective repetition: 'What a deep, deep conscience' — no copula; «это» plus the predicate noun «совесть» qualified by the doubled long adjective «глубокая». The repetition, as so often in this scene, is the marker of high emotion.

Он замучил себя совестью!  
He tormented himself to death with his conscience!
> Reflexive «себя» + instrumental of means: «Замучил себя» — 'tortured himself' — pairs the full reflexive object «себя» (accusative) with the perfective «замучить» ('torment to exhaustion'). «Совестью» is instrumental, the means: by/with his conscience.

Он всё мне открывал, всё, он приходил ко мне и говорил со мной каждый день как с единственным другом своим.  
He laid everything open to me, everything; he came to me and talked with me every single day as with his one and only friend.
> Imperfective verbs of habit: All three verbs — «открывал, приходил, говорил» — are imperfective past, painting a repeated, habitual practice: every day he would come, open his heart, talk. «Каждый день» seals the iterative reading.
> «с» + instrumental and reflexive «своим»: «С единственным другом своим» — 'as with his one and only friend' — takes the instrumental after «с» ('with'), the adjective «единственным» and reflexive possessive «своим» agreeing. «Свой» keeps the friendship his own.

Я имею честь быть его единственным другом! — воскликнула она вдруг, точно как бы с каким-то вызовом, засверкав глазами.  
I have the honor of being his one and only friend!" she exclaimed all at once, as though with a kind of defiance, her eyes flashing.
> «быть» + instrumental predicate: After the infinitive «быть», the predicate noun takes the instrumental: «единственным другом» ('[his] sole friend'). The formal idiom «иметь честь» ('to have the honor') lends her self-declaration a proud, almost ceremonial ring.
> Perfective gerund «засверкав»: «Засверкав» is the perfective past gerund from «засверкать» ('to begin flashing'), -в form: 'having flashed her eyes' / 'her eyes flashing'. «Глазами» is instrumental, the means of the flashing.

— Он ходил к Смердякову два раза.  
"He went to Smerdyakov twice.
> Multidirectional «ходил» for repeated trips: «Ходил» is the multidirectional motion verb (vs. unidirectional «шёл»), exactly right for round trips: 'he went [there and back] twice'. «Два раза» ('two times') and «к Смердякову» (dative after «к») confirm the repeated visits.

Однажды он пришел ко мне и говорит: если убил не брат, а Смердяков (потому что эту басню пустили здесь все, что убил Смердяков), то, может быть, виновен и я, потому что Смердяков знал, что я не люблю отца и, может быть, думал, что я желаю смерти отца.  
One day he came to me and said: if it was not my brother who did the killing but Smerdyakov (for everyone here had spread that fable, that it was Smerdyakov who killed him), then perhaps I too am guilty, because Smerdyakov knew that I did not love my father and perhaps thought that I desired my father's death.
> Contrastive «не… а» in a conditional: «Не брат, а Смердяков» — 'not the brother but Smerdyakov' — the «не… а» frame replaces one term with another (true contrast), unlike additive «и». It sits inside the real-condition «если убил…» that launches Ivan's torment.
> «пустить басню» — to set a fable / rumour going: «Басня» is a fable or fabrication; «пустить» a rumour means to set it loose, circulate it. 'Everyone here spread that fable' — the idiom captures how the false story of Smerdyakov's guilt took hold in the town.

Тогда я вынула это письмо и показала ему, и он уж совсем убедился, что убил брат, и это уже совсем сразило его.  
Then I drew out this letter and showed it to him, and he became utterly convinced that his brother had done the killing, and this struck him down completely.
> Sequence of perfective pasts: «Вынула… показала» (both perfective) move the moment forward as two completed acts: drew out, showed. «Показала ему» takes the dative «ему» for the person shown — the indirect object.
> «сразить» — to strike down, devastate: From «разить» ('to smite'), perfective «сразить»: literally to fell with a blow, here figuratively 'struck him down completely'. «Совсем сразило» — the proof in the letter annihilated Ivan's last hope of his brother's innocence.

Он не мог снести, что его родной брат — отцеубийца!  
He could not bear that his own brother was a parricide!
> Zero copula in the «что»-clause: The subordinate «что его родной брат — отцеубийца» has no verb at all: in the present, the dash stands in for the absent copula, 'that his own brother [is] a parricide'. «Снести» here is 'to bear, endure'.
> «отцеубийца» — parricide: A solemn compound, «отец» ('father') + «убийца» ('killer'): one who kills his own father. The gravest of crimes in the novel's moral universe, the word lands as the chapter's final, crushing blow on Ivan.

Еще неделю назад я видела, что он от этого болен.  
A week ago already I saw that he was ill from it.
> «назад» with the accusative of time: The time-span «неделю» stands in the bare accusative, the case Russian uses for a stretch of measured time; «назад» ('ago') follows it. «Еще» here means 'already, as much as' — a full week back.
> Reported «что» and a short adjective: «что» opens a reported-fact clause after «видела». Its predicate «болен» is the short (predicative) form of «больной» — bookish and stative, the mark of 19th-century prose. «от этого» = 'from this', genitive after «от».

В последние дни, он сидя у меня, бредил.  
These last days, sitting with me, he would rave.
> Gerund «сидя» — 'while sitting': «сидя» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «сидеть»: an indeclinable verb-adverb naming an action simultaneous with the main verb, 'while sitting with me'. It shares the subject «он» of «бредил».
> «бредить» — to rave, be delirious: «бредить» means to rave in fever or delirium, to talk wildly. The imperfective past «бредил» pictures it as an ongoing condition over «последние дни», hence the English 'would rave'.

Я видела, что он мешается в уме.  
I saw that his mind was giving way.
> «мешаться в уме» — to lose one's mind: An idiom: «мешаться в уме» (literally 'to get muddled in the mind') means a mind giving way, going to pieces. The reflexive «-ся» on «мешать» turns 'to mix' into the intransitive 'to become confused'.

Он ходил и бредил, его видели так по улицам.  
He walked about raving, and people saw him so in the streets.
> Indefinite-personal «видели»: A 3rd-person-plural verb with no stated subject ('they saw him') is Russian's indefinite-personal construction — English renders it 'people saw him' or a passive 'he was seen'. «по улицам» = 'about the streets', distributive «по» + dative plural.

Приезжий доктор, по моей просьбе, его осматривал третьего дня и сказал мне, что он близок к горячке, — всё чрез него, всё чрез изверга!  
At my request the visiting doctor examined him two days ago and told me that he was on the verge of brain-fever—and all of it through him, all of it through that monster!
> «третьего дня» — 'the day before yesterday': A frozen genitive time-phrase, literally 'of the third day', meaning two days ago. The genitive of time without a preposition survives in such set expressions.
> «чрез» and «изверг»: «чрез» is the elevated, contracted form of «через» ('through, because of') — here causal, 'all of it through him'. «изверг» is a strong word: a monster, a fiend, a brute. Katerina spits it at Mitya.

А вчера он узнал, что Смердяков умер — это его так поразило, что он сошел с ума… и всё от изверга, всё на том, чтобы спасти изверга!  
And yesterday he learned that Smerdyakov was dead—it shocked him so that he lost his mind… and all of it because of the monster, all of it for the sake of saving the monster!"
> Correlative «так… что» (result): «так… что» couples a degree adverb to a result clause: 'shocked him so much that…'. The perfective «поразило» and «сошел» each name a single completed event, driving the narrative forward.
> «сойти с ума» — to go mad: A fixed idiom, literally 'to come down off one's mind', i.e. to lose one's reason. «с ума» is genitive after «с» ('off, from').
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы» + the infinitive «спасти» expresses purpose, 'in order to save'. «всё на том» ('all of it bent on that') sets up the goal toward which everything tends.

О, разумеется, так говорить и так признаваться можно только какой-нибудь раз в жизни — в предсмертную минуту, например, всходя на эшафот.  
Oh, of course, to speak so and to confess so is something one can do perhaps only once in a lifetime—in one's dying moment, for instance, mounting the scaffold.
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «можно» ('it is possible / one can') is an invariable predicative governing the infinitives «говорить» and «признаваться»; there is no nominative subject — the generic 'one'. This is the impersonal, subjectless frame Russian favours for general truths.
> Gerund «всходя» — 'mounting': «всходя» is the imperfective present gerund of «всходить»: a simultaneous adverbial, 'while ascending the scaffold'. «на эшафот» is accusative of motion-toward after «на».

Но Катя именно была в своем характере и в своей минуте.  
But Katya was precisely in her own character and in her own moment.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «своем / своей» means 'her own', pointing back to the clause's subject Katya. «в своей минуте» — 'in her own moment' — is the prepositional of location, here metaphorical: she was wholly herself, true to her nature.

Это была та же самая стремительная Катя, которая кинулась тогда к молодому развратнику, чтобы спасти отца; та же самая Катя, которая давеча, пред всею этою публикой, гордая и целомудренная, принесла себя и девичий стыд свой в жертву, рассказав про «благородный поступок Мити», чтобы только лишь сколько-нибудь смягчить ожидавшую его участь.  
This was the same headlong Katya who had once flung herself before the young profligate to save her father; the same Katya who, earlier, before that whole assembly, proud and chaste, had sacrificed herself and her maiden's shame in telling of "Mitya's noble act," only that she might soften even a little the fate that awaited him.
> Correlative «та же самая… которая»: «та же самая» ('the very same') is the demonstrative «тот» reinforced by «же» and «самый»; «которая» then opens a relative clause agreeing in feminine singular but taking nominative as its own subject. The rhetorical repetition («та же самая Катя…») builds the narrator's insistence.
> «развратник» — profligate, debauchee: «развратник» (from «разврат», dissipation) is a libertine, a morally corrupt man — Mitya as Katya first knew him, when she came to him to save her father. The dative «молодому развратнику» follows «кинулась к».
> Gerund «рассказав» — 'in telling': «рассказав» is the perfective past gerund of «рассказать»: a prior or accompanying completed action, 'having told / in telling'. The idiom «принести себя в жертву» = 'to sacrifice oneself', with the reflexive pronoun «себя».
> «целомудренная» — chaste: A bookish, elevated word for chaste, virtuous, virginal (root «цело-» + «мудр-», 'whole-minded'). It heightens the pathos of Katya laying her «девичий стыд» (maiden's shame) on the altar before the whole courtroom.

И вот теперь точно так же она тоже принесла себя в жертву, но уже за другого, и, может быть, только лишь теперь, только в эту минуту, впервые почувствовав и осмыслив вполне, как дорог ей этот другой человек!  
And now, in just the same way, she too sacrificed herself, but this time for another man, and perhaps only now, only in this very moment, for the first time truly feeling and grasping how dear this other man was to her!
> Paired perfective gerunds: «почувствовав» and «осмыслив» are both perfective past gerunds (-в), 'having felt and grasped'. Chaining gerunds like this is a hallmark of literary narration; they compress two completed inner acts into the description of Katya's moment.
> Short adjective «дорог» + dative: «дорог» is the short predicative form of «дорогой» — here 'dear, precious'. The experiencer «ей» stands in the dative: 'how dear this man is to her', the dative-of-the-person pattern at the heart of Dostoevsky's emotional grammar.

Она пожертвовала собою в испуге за него, вдруг вообразив, что он погубил себя своим показанием, что это он убил, а не брат, пожертвовала, чтобы спасти его, его славу, его репутацию!  
She sacrificed herself out of terror for him, suddenly imagining that he had ruined himself by his testimony, that it was he who had done the killing and not his brother—she sacrificed herself to save him, his good name, his reputation!
> Instrumental «собою»: «пожертвовать» governs the instrumental: «собою» (an older variant of «собой») is the reflexive pronoun in the instrumental, 'sacrificed herself'. «в испуге» = 'in fright', prepositional after «в».
> Gerund + instrumental of means: «вообразив» is the perfective gerund 'having suddenly imagined'. Inside the «что»-clause, «своим показанием» is the instrumental of means ('by his testimony'), and «погубил себя» pairs the verb with the reflexive object «себя».
> Emphatic «это он» and contrastive «а»: Fronted «это он убил» throws the weight onto 'he' — 'it was he who did the killing'. The conjunction «а» then sets the gentle contrast 'and not his brother', the untranslatable contrastive hinge of Russian.

И, однако, промелькнула страшная вещь: лгала ли она на Митю, описывая бывшие свои к нему отношения, — вот вопрос.  
And yet a terrible thing flashed out: had she been lying about Mitya in describing her former relations with him?—that was the question.
> Embedded question with «ли»: The enclitic «ли» frames the indirect yes/no question, 'whether she had been lying'. The focused word «лгала» is fronted and «ли» leans on it — a literary, formal alternative to plain question intonation.
> «промелькнуть» — to flash by: «промелькнуть» (perfective) is to flicker or flash past for an instant — the prefix «про-» gives the fleeting motion. Here a 'terrible thing' darts across the narrator's mind, a momentary suspicion.
> Participle «бывшие» — 'former': «бывшие» is the past active participle of «быть», used adjectivally for 'former, erstwhile'. It agrees with «отношения» (relations) in accusative plural and frames the noun the way a «который»-clause would.

Нет, нет, она не клеветала намеренно, крича, что Митя презирал ее за земной поклон!  
No, no, she was not slandering him on purpose when she cried out that Mitya had despised her for that bow to the ground!
> Gerund «крича» — 'crying out': «крича» is the imperfective present gerund of «кричать», a simultaneous adverbial, 'while crying out / as she cried'. «за земной поклон» = 'for the bow to the ground', causal «за» + accusative.

Она сама верила в это, она была глубоко убеждена, с самого, может быть, этого поклона, что простодушный, обожавший ее еще тогда Митя смеется над ней и презирает ее.  
She herself believed it; she was deeply convinced, perhaps from the moment of that very bow, that the simple-hearted Mitya, who even then adored her, was laughing at her and despising her.
> Participle «обожавший» before its noun: «обожавший» is the past active participle of «обожать» (to adore), agreeing with «Митя» and placed, with its objects, before the noun — a dense literary modifier meaning 'Mitya, who even then adored her'. Compressing a whole clause this way is characteristic of bookish prose.
> Short passive participle «убеждена»: «убеждена» is the short-form past passive participle of «убедить», joined to «была» to state a settled inner state: 'she was deeply convinced'. The short form, predicative only, agrees in feminine singular.
> «простодушный» — simple-hearted: «простодушный» ('simple' + 'soul') means guileless, naïve, openhearted — a recurring epithet for Mitya, who acts on impulse without calculation. It sharpens the irony: the simple-hearted man she imagined was mocking her.

И только из гордости она сама привязалась к нему тогда любовью, истерическою и надорванною, из уязвленной гордости, и эта любовь походила не на любовь, а на мщение.  
And it was only out of pride that she herself had then bound herself to him with a love that was hysterical and lacerated, a love born of wounded pride, and this love resembled not love at all, but revenge.
> «из» of motive + intensifier «сама»: «из гордости» ('out of pride') uses «из» + genitive for inner motive, a pattern repeated through this passage («из уязвленной гордости»). «сама» is the intensifier 'herself', stressing that the binding was her own doing. «привязалась к нему» — reflexive «-ся» verb governing «к» + dative.
> Negated «не… а» contrast: «не на любовь, а на мщение» is the classic «не X, а Y» frame — 'not on love, but on revenge'. «не» negates the first term, «а» introduces the corrected one; «походила на» (resembled) governs «на» + accusative throughout.
> «мщение» — vengeance: «мщение» is the elevated, bookish noun for revenge (the everyday word is «месть»). Its solemn weight suits the narrator's verdict on Katya's love — that it was, at bottom, retribution rather than affection.

О, может быть, эта надорванная любовь и выродилась бы в настоящую, может, Катя ничего и не желала, как этого, но Митя оскорбил ее изменой до глубины души, и душа не простила.  
Oh, perhaps this lacerated love might yet have ripened into the real thing; perhaps Katya wished for nothing else; but Mitya had wounded her to the depths of her soul by his betrayal, and her soul did not forgive.
> Conditional «бы» — 'might have ripened': Past-tense «выродилась» plus the particle «бы» forms the irrealis: 'might yet have turned into the real thing'. The «и» here is emphatic ('even'), and «бы» leans on the verb to mark the unrealized possibility.
> Instrumental of means «изменой»: «изменой» ('by betrayal') is the instrumental of means with «оскорбил» (wounded, insulted). «до глубины души» = 'to the depth of [her] soul', «до» + genitive marking the extreme reached.

Минута же мщения слетела неожиданно, и всё так долго и больно скоплявшееся в груди обиженной женщины разом, и опять-таки неожиданно, вырвалось наружу.  
The moment of revenge came swooping down unexpectedly, and everything that had so long and so painfully been gathering in the breast of the wronged woman burst out all at once—and, again, unexpectedly.
> Substantivized participle «скоплявшееся»: «скоплявшееся» is the past active participle of the reflexive «скопляться» (to accumulate), neuter to agree with «всё», acting as the subject — 'everything that had been gathering'. A heavy participial phrase carries the whole image of pent-up feeling.
> «вырваться наружу» — to burst out: «вырваться» (perfective, reflexive) is to tear oneself free, to break loose; «наружу» = 'outward, out into the open'. The pent-up emotion 'bursts out all at once' — «разом» reinforcing the suddenness.

Она предала Митю, но предала и себя!  
She betrayed Mitya, but she betrayed herself as well!
> Reflexive object «себя» and emphatic «и»: The verb «предала» (perfective, 'betrayed') is repeated with two objects: «Митю» and the reflexive «себя» ('herself'). The «и» before «себя» is emphatic — 'betrayed herself as well'. The terse parallelism delivers the aphoristic turn.

И, разумеется, только что успела высказаться, напряжение порвалось, и стыд подавил ее.  
And, of course, no sooner had she managed to say her piece than the strain snapped and shame overwhelmed her.
> «только что» — 'no sooner than': «только что успела высказаться» renders 'no sooner had she managed to speak out': «успеть» + perfective infinitive means 'to manage / have time to'. The reflexive «высказаться» = 'to say one's piece, get it all out'; «порвалось» (reflexive perfective) = 'snapped'.

Опять началась истерика, она упала, рыдая и выкрикивая.  
The hysterics began again; she collapsed, sobbing and crying out.
> Paired imperfective gerunds: «рыдая» and «выкрикивая» are imperfective present gerunds (-я), simultaneous with «упала»: 'she collapsed, sobbing and crying out'. The two ongoing actions frame the manner of her fall.
> «истерика» — a fit of hysterics: «истерика» is a fit of hysterics, an uncontrolled outburst of sobbing — distinct from the clinical «истерия». Repeated breakdowns of this kind punctuate the women's scenes in the novel and were a recognized 19th-century 'nervous' affliction.

Ее унесли.  
She was carried out.
> Indefinite-personal «унесли»: Two words carry the whole event: a 3rd-plural verb with no subject ('they carried her out') is the indefinite-personal construction, naturally rendered as the English passive 'she was carried out'. «унесли» is perfective — a single completed removal.

В ту минуту, когда ее выносили, с воплем бросилась к Мите Грушенька со своего места, так что ее и удержать не успели.  
At the very moment she was being borne away, Grushenka flung herself from her place toward Mitya with a wail, so quickly that there was no time to hold her back.
> Imperfective «выносили» — action in progress: «выносили» (imperfective past) sets the durative background — 'while she was being carried out' — against which the perfective «бросилась» (flung herself) strikes as a single event. The aspect contrast organizes the scene's timing.
> Result «так что» with negated «успели»: «так что» introduces a consequence: 'so [quickly] that there was no time to hold her back'. «не успели удержать» = 'failed to manage to restrain'; the emphatic «и» before «удержать» sharpens the impossibility.

— Митя! — завопила она, — погубила тебя твоя змея!  
"Mitya!" she screamed, "your serpent has destroyed you!
> Object-first word order: Verb–object–subject order («погубила тебя твоя змея» = 'destroyed you your serpent') fronts the action and the victim 'you', holding the subject «твоя змея» for the stinging end — Russian's free word order deployed for dramatic punch.
> «змея» — serpent, viper: «змея» (snake) hurled at a person means a treacherous, venomous woman — Grushenka's epithet for Katerina. The biblical serpent resonates beneath it; the possessive «твоя» ('your serpent') accuses Mitya of harboring her.

Вон она вам себя показала! — прокричала она, сотрясаясь от злобы, суду.  
There—now she has shown you what she really is!" she shrieked at the court, shaking with rage.
> Dative «вам», reflexive «себя»: «вам» is the dative 'to you (the court)' — to whom the showing is directed; «себя» is the reflexive object 'herself'. «Вон» = 'there, look', a deictic flourish: 'There—she's shown you what she is!'
> Gerund «сотрясаясь» — 'shaking': «сотрясаясь» is the imperfective reflexive present gerund, 'shaking / trembling', simultaneous with «прокричала». «от злобы» ('with rage') uses «от» + genitive for the cause of an involuntary state.

По мановению председателя ее схватили и стали выводить из залы.  
At a sign from the presiding judge she was seized and they began to lead her out of the courtroom.
> Phasal «стали» + imperfective infinitive: «стать» + imperfective infinitive («стали выводить») is the inceptive 'began to lead out'. It pairs with the perfective «схватили» (seized) — one done deed, then an action set in motion. Both verbs are again indefinite-personal ('they').

Она не давалась, билась и рвалась назад к Мите.  
She would not give in, struggling and straining back toward Mitya.
> Chain of imperfective reflexives: Three imperfective reflexive past verbs in a row — «не давалась» (would not give in), «билась» (struggled, thrashed), «рвалась» (strained, tore) — paint a continuous, repeated effort. The «-ся» turns each transitive verb into an intransitive struggle of the body.

Митя завопил и тоже рванулся к ней.  
Mitya cried out and lunged toward her in turn.
> Perfective «рванулся» — a single lunge: «рванулся» (perfective reflexive) is one sharp completed jerk — 'lunged' — against Grushenka's drawn-out imperfective «рвалась» in the line before. The aspect pair «рваться / рвануться» lets the prose distinguish her sustained straining from his single jolt.

Им овладели.  
He was overpowered.
> Instrumental object of «овладеть»: «овладеть» governs the instrumental, so «им» ('him') is instrumental, not accusative: literally 'they took possession of him', i.e. 'he was overpowered'. Subjectless 3rd-plural again leaves the agents unnamed.

Да, полагаю, что наши зрительницы-дамы остались довольны: зрелище было богатое.  
Yes, I daresay our lady spectators came away satisfied: the spectacle had been a rich one.
> «зрительницы» — female spectators: «зрительница» is the feminine of «зритель» (spectator), the «-ниц-» suffix marking a female agent. Yoked to «дамы», it dryly labels the courtroom's society ladies as an audience at a show — «зрелище было богатое», 'the spectacle was a rich one'.
> «остаться» + short adjective «довольны»: «остаться» + a predicative complement means 'to come away / end up' in a state; «довольны» is the short plural form of «довольный» (satisfied). The narrator's «полагаю, что» ('I daresay that') adds his ironic editorial voice.

Затем помню, как появился приезжий московский доктор.  
Then I remember the visiting Moscow doctor making his appearance.
> «как» introducing a perceived event: After «помню» ('I remember'), «как» introduces not a comparison but the remembered happening — 'I remember how the doctor appeared / I remember the doctor appearing'. «приезжий» ('visiting, out-of-town') and «московский» mark him as an outside authority from Moscow.

Кажется, председатель еще и прежде того посылал пристава, чтобы распорядиться оказать Ивану Федоровичу пособие.  
It seems the presiding judge had even before that sent a bailiff to arrange for aid to be given to Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Purpose «чтобы» + stacked infinitives: «чтобы распорядиться оказать пособие» = 'in order to arrange to render aid': «чтобы» + infinitive for purpose, then a second infinitive «оказать» dependent on «распорядиться». «Ивану Федоровичу» is the dative recipient of the «пособие».

Доктор доложил суду, что больной в опаснейшем припадке горячки и что следовало бы немедленно его увезти.  
The doctor reported to the court that the patient was in a most dangerous attack of brain-fever and that he ought to be taken away at once.
> Superlative «опаснейшем»: «опаснейшем» is the bookish suffixal superlative of «опасный» (in -ейш-), 'most dangerous', declined into the prepositional after «в». This synthetic superlative is more literary than the periphrastic «самый опасный».
> Impersonal «следовало бы» + infinitive: «следовало бы увезти» is an impersonal, subjectless construction: «следует» ('one ought') in the past plus «бы» softens it to 'he ought to be taken away'. The logical subject 'one' is unexpressed; the patient «его» is the infinitive's object.

На вопросы прокурора и защитника подтвердил, что пациент сам приходил к нему третьего дня и что он предрек ему тогда же скорую горячку, но что лечиться он не захотел.  
To questions from the prosecutor and the defense counsel he confirmed that the patient had come to him of his own accord two days before, and that he had then and there predicted an imminent brain-fever for him, but that he had refused treatment.
> Imperfective «приходил» — a round-trip: «приходил» (imperfective, prefixed motion) here means 'came [and went back]' — a completed there-and-back visit, which imperfective prefixed motion verbs typically convey. «сам» = 'of his own accord'; «третьего дня» = 'the day before yesterday'.
> «предречь» — to foretell: «предрек» (from «предречь», to foretell, prophesy) is an elevated, almost prophetic verb — the doctor 'foretold' the coming brain-fever. Its solemn ring lifts the clinical prediction toward the language of fate.
> Reflexive «лечиться» + fronted infinitive: «лечиться» (to undergo treatment, treat oneself) is reflexive; fronting the infinitive before «он не захотел» puts the stress on the treatment he refused. «захотеть» here = 'to be willing', its negation 'he would not'.

«Был же он положительно не в здравом состоянии ума, сам мне признавался, что наяву видит видения, встречает на улице разных лиц, которые уже померли, и что к нему каждый вечер ходит в гости сатана», — заключил доктор.  
"He was positively not in a sound state of mind; he confessed to me himself that he saw visions while wide awake, met various persons in the street who had already died, and that Satan came visiting him every evening," the doctor concluded.
> Particle «же» for emphasis: The modal particle «же», wedged after the fronted «был», adds insistence — 'He was, after all, positively not in a sound state of mind'. «не в здравом состоянии ума» = 'not in a sound state of mind', a fixed legal-clinical formula in the genitive «ума».
> Relative «которые» + colloquial «померли»: «которые уже померли» is a relative clause modifying «лиц» (persons), 'who had already died'. «померли» is a slightly colloquial/folk perfective of 'to die' (beside «умерли»), fitting the doctor's reported speech.

Дав свое показание, знаменитый врач удалился.  
Having given his evidence, the celebrated physician withdrew.
> Perfective gerund «дав» — 'having given': «Дав» is the perfective past gerund of «дать»: a prior completed action, 'having given his evidence'. It shares the subject «врач» with «удалился» (withdrew) and sets the formal, sequential rhythm of the courtroom narration.
> «удалиться» — to withdraw: «удалиться» (reflexive) is a formal, dignified verb for taking one's leave, retiring from a room — fitting the «знаменитый врач» (celebrated physician). It carries more ceremony than a plain «ушёл».

Представленное Катериной Ивановной письмо было присоединено к вещественным доказательствам.  
The letter presented by Katerina Ivanovna was added to the material evidence.
> Passive participles, agent in instrumental: «Представленное… письмо» is a past passive participle modifying 'letter' ('the letter presented'), with its agent «Катериной Ивановной» in the instrumental. The main predicate «было присоединено» is the short passive participle + «было», a formal periphrastic passive: 'was added'.

По совещании суд постановил: продолжать судебное следствие, а оба неожиданные показания (Катерины Ивановны и Ивана Федоровича) занести в протокол.  
After deliberation, the court resolved: to continue the judicial inquiry, and to enter both of the unexpected depositions (those of Katerina Ivanovna and of Ivan Fyodorovich) into the record.
> Resolution with infinitives; contrastive «а»: After «постановил» ('resolved') the content comes as bare infinitives — «продолжать» (imperfective: to go on with) and «занести» (perfective: to enter) — the impersonal idiom of official rulings. «а» links the two provisions with a mild 'and / while'.

Но уже не буду описывать дальнейшего судебного следствия.  
But I will not go on describing the further course of the judicial inquiry.
> Compound future «не буду описывать»: «буду описывать» is the imperfective compound future (быть + imperfective infinitive), here negated: 'I will not [go on] describing'. The negated direct object «дальнейшего… следствия» slips into the genitive — the genitive of negation.

Да и показания остальных свидетелей были лишь повторением и подтверждением прежних, хотя все со своими характерными особенностями.  
Besides, the testimony of the remaining witnesses was merely a repetition and confirmation of what had gone before, though each had its own characteristic peculiarities.
> Instrumental predicate after «были»: After past «были», the predicate nouns «повторением и подтверждением» take the instrumental, not the nominative — the standard pattern when быть links to a predicate noun in the past: 'were merely a repetition and confirmation'.
> Concessive «хотя» + «свой»: «хотя» ('although') introduces a concessive afterthought. «со своими… особенностями» — 'each with its own peculiarities' — uses «с» + instrumental for accompaniment and the reflexive possessive «свой» pointing back to each witness's testimony.

Но повторяю, всё сведется в одну точку в речи прокурора, к которой и перейду сейчас.  
But I repeat, all of it will be drawn together into a single point in the prosecutor's speech, to which I now turn.
> Perfective futures «сведется» / «перейду»: Both verbs are perfective presents-as-futures: «сведется» (reflexive, 'will be drawn together') and «перейду» ('I shall now turn to'). «к которой» is a relative clause with «который» in the dative after «к», pointing to the prosecutor's speech.

Все были в возбуждении, все были наэлектризованы последнею катастрофой и со жгучим нетерпением ждали поскорее лишь развязки, речей сторон и приговора.  
Everyone was in a state of agitation, everyone was electrified by the latest catastrophe, and with burning impatience awaited only the swift denouement—the speeches of the two sides and the verdict.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «наэлектризованы» is the short past passive participle ('electrified'), joined to «были» for a stative passive; the cause «последнею катастрофой» stands in the instrumental. Note the older instrumental ending «-ею» on «последнею».
> «развязка» — the denouement: «развязка» (from «развязать», to untie) is the unknotting — the denouement or resolution of a plot, here the verdict the crowd burns to reach. «со жгучим нетерпением» = 'with burning impatience', a vivid expressive collocation.

Фетюкович был видимо потрясен показаниями Катерины Ивановны.  
Fetyukovich was visibly shaken by Katerina Ivanovna's testimony.
> Short passive participle «потрясен»: «потрясен» is the short past passive participle of «потрясти» (to shake, shock), with «был» giving 'was shaken'. Its cause «показаниями» ('by the testimony') is instrumental. «видимо» = 'visibly, evidently'.

Зато торжествовал прокурор.  
The prosecutor, by contrast, was triumphant.
> «зато» and verb-first inversion: «зато» ('on the other hand, in compensation') flags a balancing contrast with the shaken Fetyukovich. Verb-first order — «торжествовал прокурор» — throws the new, weighted information onto the triumphant prosecutor at the clause's head.

Когда кончилось судебное следствие, был объявлен перерыв заседания, продолжавшийся почти час.  
When the judicial inquiry came to an end, a recess in the sitting was announced, lasting nearly an hour.
> Participle «продолжавшийся» + accusative of duration: «продолжавшийся» is a past active participle modifying «перерыв» (recess), 'lasting'. Its complement «почти час» is the bare accusative of duration — the case for 'how long' an action goes on.

Наконец председатель открыл судебные прения.  
At last the presiding judge opened the closing arguments.

Кажется, было ровно восемь часов вечера, когда наш прокурор, Ипполит Кириллович, начал свою обвинительную речь.  
It was, I think, just on eight o'clock in the evening when our prosecutor, Ippolit Kirillovich, began his speech for the prosecution.
> Telling time: «восемь часов»: «восемь часов» — 'eight o'clock' — shows numerals governing case: «восемь» (5 and above) takes the genitive plural «часов». «вечера» ('of the evening', genitive) specifies p.m. «ровно» = 'exactly, just on'.
---

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.