# The Brothers Karamazov, The Prosecutor's Speech. Sketches of Character

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c6. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c6.json.


Начал Ипполит Кириллович свою обвинительную речь, весь сотрясаясь нервною дрожью, с холодным, болезненным потом на лбу и висках, чувствуя озноб и жар во всем теле попеременно.  
Ippolit Kirillovitch began his speech for the prosecution shaking all over with a nervous tremor, a cold, sickly sweat on his brow and temples, feeling chills and fever sweep through his whole body by turns.
> A chain of present gerunds: Dostoevsky frames the whole opening with imperfective present gerunds («деепричастие») in -ясь/-я: «сотрясаясь» (shaking) and «чувствуя» (feeling). They are indeclinable and name actions going on at the same time as the main verb «начал», all sharing its subject — a hallmark of literary narration.
> Verb-first for narrative momentum: The sentence opens with the verb «Начал» before the subject, an inversion that throws weight onto the act of beginning and launches the scene. Russian's case endings make subject and object unmistakable, so word order is free to manage emphasis rather than grammar.
> Chills and fever: «озноб» is a shivering chill, «жар» the answering heat of fever; the pairing «озноб и жар … попеременно» (by turns) is the clinical language of consumption (tuberculosis), quietly foreshadowing the prosecutor's death named in the coming sentences.

Он сам так потом рассказывал.  
He said so himself afterward.
> Imperfective for a reported telling: «рассказывал» is imperfective past, viewing the telling as something he did (more than once, or as a general fact) rather than a single completed report. The intensifier «сам» (himself) underlines that the narrator's source is the prosecutor's own later account.

Он считал эту речь за свой chef-d’œuvre, за chef-d’œuvre всей своей жизни, за лебединую песнь свою.  
He regarded this speech as his chef-d'œuvre, the chef-d'œuvre of his whole life, his swan song.
> «считать за» — to regard as: The construction «считать кого/что за + accusative» means 'to regard X as'. Here «эту речь» and «свой chef-d’œuvre» both stand in the accusative governed by «за»; «свой» is the reflexive possessive, pointing the masterpiece back to the speech's own subject.

Правда, девять месяцев спустя он и помер от злой чахотки, так что действительно, как оказалось, имел бы право сравнить себя с лебедем, поющим свою последнюю песнь, если бы предчувствовал свой конец заранее.  
True, nine months later he did die of a galloping consumption, so that, as it turned out, he would indeed have had the right to compare himself to a swan singing its last song, had he foreseen his end in advance.
> A past counterfactual with «бы … если бы»: This is the irrealis: past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы» in both clauses («имел бы право» — would have had the right; «если бы предчувствовал» — had he foreseen). Russian's single conditional mood collapses 'would have' and 'if … had' into the same past-plus-«бы» pattern.
> A present active participle: «поющим» is the present active participle of «петь» (singing), declined here in the instrumental to agree with «лебедем» (с лебедем, поющим…). It packs a whole который-clause — 'a swan that sings its last song' — into a single modifier, a bookish literary device.
> «помер», «чахотка» — colloquial death, bookish disease: «помер» is a blunt, folksy variant of «умер» (died), while «чахотка» is the 19th-century word for consumption (tuberculosis); «злая» here means 'galloping', virulent. The mix of plain and clinical registers is the narrator's wry, intimate voice.

В эту речь он вложил всё свое сердце и всё сколько было у него ума и неожиданно доказал, что в нем таились и гражданское чувство, и «проклятые» вопросы, по крайней мере поскольку наш бедный Ипполит Кириллович мог их вместить в себе.  
Into this speech he poured his whole heart and all the intelligence he possessed, and he proved unexpectedly that within him there lay hidden both a civic feeling and those "accursed" questions — at least insofar as our poor Ippolit Kirillovitch was able to contain them.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «таились» (lay hidden) carries the clitic «-ся», here giving an intransitive, middle sense — the qualities concealed themselves within him, with no external agent. The subject «чувство … и вопросы» follows the verb, the new information landing last.

Главное, тем взяло его слово, что было искренно: он искренно верил в виновность подсудимого; не на заказ, не по должности только обвинял его и, взывая к «отмщению», действительно сотрясался желанием «спасти общество».  
Above all, his words carried because they were sincere: he sincerely believed in the prisoner's guilt; it was not to order, not merely out of duty that he accused him, and in calling for "retribution" he truly shook with the longing "to save society."
> Correlative «тем … что» — 'by the fact that': «тем … что» links an instrumental correlative «тем» (by that) to a «что»-clause giving the cause: his word took hold 'by the very fact that' it was sincere. The short neuter adjective «искренно» (sincere) is predicative, the bookish form preferred in such statements of quality.
> Negation «не» fronted on phrases: «не» negates not a verb but two adverbial phrases in turn — «не на заказ» (not to order), «не по должности» (not out of duty) — sharpening the contrast that he accused from genuine conviction. Placing «не» directly before each phrase pinpoints exactly what is denied.

Даже дамская наша публика, в конце концов враждебная Ипполиту Кирилловичу, сознавалась, однако, в чрезвычайном вынесенном впечатлении.  
Even our ladies in the audience, hostile to Ippolit Kirillovitch in the end, nonetheless confessed to the extraordinary impression they carried away.
> «сознаваться в + prepositional»: The reflexive verb «сознаваться» (to confess) governs «в» plus the prepositional case: «в … впечатлении» (to the impression). «вынесенном» is a past passive participle ('carried away'), agreeing with «впечатлении».

Начал он надтреснутым, срывающимся голосом, но потом очень скоро голос его окреп и зазвенел на всю залу, и так до конца речи.  
He began in a cracked, faltering voice, but very soon his voice gained strength and rang out across the whole courtroom, and so it stayed to the end of the speech.
> Perfectives that move the action forward: «окреп» (gained strength) and «зазвенел» (rang out) are perfective pasts, each marking a single completed event against the imperfective background. The prefix «за-» on «зазвенел» is inceptive — it captures the very onset of the ringing.
> A cracked, breaking voice: «надтреснутый» literally 'slightly cracked' (as of a bell or cup), and «срывающийся» 'breaking, giving way' — both in the instrumental of manner. The vivid pairing renders a nervous voice that keeps slipping before it steadies.

Но только что кончил ее, то чуть не упал в обморок.  
But the moment he had finished it, he very nearly fainted away.
> «только что … то» and «чуть не»: «только что» here means 'the moment that', with «то» picking up the main clause ('then…'). «чуть не упал» uses «чуть не» (almost, very nearly) with a perfective past «упал» — a fixed idiom for an action that nearly happened but did not.

«Господа присяжные заседатели, — начал обвинитель, — настоящее дело прогремело по всей России.  
"Gentlemen of the jury," the prosecutor began, "this present case has thundered through all of Russia.
> «прогреметь» — to thunder: «прогремело» (perfective, from гром 'thunder') means the case 'thundered'/resounded across Russia. The prefix «про-» conveys sound spreading through and across the whole expanse «по всей России».

Но чему бы, кажется, удивляться, чего так особенно ужасаться?  
But what, one might ask, is there to wonder at, what is there to be so particularly horrified by?
> Case selected by the verb: dative and genitive: Each verb dictates its complement's case: «удивляться» (to wonder at) governs the dative «чему», while «ужасаться» (to be horrified at) governs the genitive «чего». The «бы» softens the rhetorical question into a hypothetical 'what is there, one might ask, to…'.

Нам-то, нам-то особенно?  
We of all people, we especially?
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on the dative «нам» is the topic-emphasizing clitic — 'we, of all people'. Its doubling, and the elided verb, give the broken, insistent rhythm of spoken oratory; this «-то» must not be confused with the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».

Ведь мы такие привычные ко всему этому люди!  
For we are people so accustomed to all of this!
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» opens the sentence appealing to shared knowledge — 'after all, you know, we are…'. It is a modal particle with no real English word, carried instead by intonation; Dostoevsky's oratory leans on it constantly to draw the listener into complicity.

В том и ужас наш, что такие мрачные дела почти перестали для нас быть ужасными!  
That is the very horror of our condition — that such grim affairs have almost ceased to be horrifying to us!
> Predicate instrumental after «быть»: After «быть» the predicate adjective «ужасными» stands in the instrumental plural, not the nominative, agreeing with «дела». The infinitive «быть» governing an instrumental complement is the standard pattern for 'to be (something)' outside the bare present tense.
> Correlative «в том … что»: «В том … что» sets up a prepositional correlative ('in this … that') answered by a «что»-clause spelling out the content. Fronting «В том» before the subject «ужас наш» throws the rhetorical stress onto the demonstrative — 'therein lies our horror'.

Вот чему надо ужасаться, привычке нашей, а не единичному злодеянию того или другого индивидуума.  
That is what we ought to be horrified by — our own habituation — and not the isolated misdeed of this or that individual.
> Dative complement and impersonal «надо»: «надо» is the impersonal modal 'one must', taking an infinitive «ужасаться», which in turn governs the dative «чему … привычке нашей» (be horrified at). No nominative subject appears — the construction names what must be done, not who must do it.
> «злодеяние» — a villainous deed: «злодеяние» (from зло 'evil' + деяние 'deed') is an elevated, bookish word for a heinous crime or villainy, sharper than the neutral «преступление». «единичному» — 'isolated, single' — sets one such deed against the systemic «привычка» the prosecutor really fears.

Где же причины нашего равнодушия, нашего чуть тепленького отношения к таким делам, к таким знамениям времени, пророчествующим нам незавидную будущность?  
Where, then, lie the causes of our indifference, of our barely lukewarm response to such affairs, to such signs of the times, which prophesy for us an unenviable future?
> A present active participle in the dative: «пророчествующим» (prophesying) is a present active participle agreeing in the dative plural with «знамениям» — the signs 'which prophesy'. Such participles condense a relative clause and lend the passage its prophetic, sermon-like density.

В цинизме ли нашем, в раннем ли истощении ума и воображения столь молодого еще нашего общества, но столь безвременно одряхлевшего?  
Is it in our cynicism, in the early exhaustion of the mind and imagination of our society, still so young and yet so prematurely decrepit?
> The interrogative particle «ли» in a disjunction: Repeated «ли» after each fronted phrase («В цинизме ли … в … истощении ли») frames a literary either/or question — 'is it in our cynicism, or in the exhaustion…?'. This enclitic «ли», more formal than mere intonation, builds the cascading rhetorical questions of the speech.
> Antithesis with «столь … но столь»: The bookish «столь» ('so') paired across «но» yokes two participial adjectives of the same society — «молодого» (young) and «одряхлевшего» (grown decrepit), a past active participle. The balanced antithesis is pure 19th-century oratorical style.

В расшатанных ли до основания нравственных началах наших или в том, наконец, что этих нравственных начал, может быть, у нас совсем даже и не имеется?  
Is it in our moral foundations, shaken to their very base — or, finally, in the fact that perhaps we have no such moral foundations at all?
> Genitive of negation with «не имеется»: Under the negated existential «не имеется» (there is no…), the absent subject 'moral foundations' stands in the genitive «этих нравственных начал», not the nominative. This obligatory genitive of negation is the standard way Russian states that something is lacking.
> Past passive participle as modifier: «расшатанных» is a past passive participle ('shaken loose'), declined in the prepositional plural to agree with «началах». It turns the verb 'to shake/loosen' into an attribute — the foundations 'that have been shaken to their base'.

Не разрешаю эти вопросы, тем не менее они мучительны, и всякий гражданин не то что должен, а обязан страдать ими.  
I do not resolve these questions; even so, they are tormenting, and every citizen not only should but is bound to suffer over them.
> Contrastive «не то что … а»: «не то что … а» is a corrective construction — 'not so much X as (rather) Y', here escalating from «должен» (should) to «обязан» (is bound/obliged). The mild adversative «а» marks the upward correction rather than a flat opposition.
> «страдать» + instrumental: «страдать чем» takes the instrumental «ими» (by/over them), a construction meaning to suffer from or be tormented by something. The instrumental here marks the cause of the suffering — 'to suffer over these questions'.

Наша начинающаяся, робкая еще наша пресса оказала уже, однако, обществу некоторые услуги, ибо никогда бы мы без нее не узнали, сколько-нибудь в полноте, про те ужасы разнузданной воли и нравственного падения, которые беспрерывно передает она на своих страницах уже всем, не одним только посещающим залы нового гласного суда, дарованного нам в настоящее царствование.  
Our nascent, still timid press has nonetheless already rendered society some services, for without it we should never have learned, in any measure of fullness, about those horrors of unbridled will and moral degradation which it relays without cease on its pages to everyone now, not only to those who attend the halls of the new public court granted to us under the present reign.
> Counterfactual «бы» with negative concord: The conditional «никогда бы … не узнали» combines «бы» plus past tense for 'we would never have learned'. Note the obligatory negative concord: the «ни»-word «никогда» still requires «не» on the verb — two negatives, one meaning.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «ибо» is an archaic, elevated subordinator meaning 'for, because', at home in scripture, sermon, and 19th-century oratory rather than ordinary speech. It marks the prosecutor consciously raising his register.

И что же мы читаем почти повседневно?  
And what do we read almost daily?
> The insistent particle «же»: «же» after the interrogative «что» intensifies the question — 'and what on earth do we read…?'. It is a modal particle adding urgency and rhetorical pressure, the kind of texture English supplies only through stress.

О, про такие вещи поминутно, пред которыми даже теперешнее дело бледнеет и представляется почти чем-то уже обыкновенным.  
Oh, of such things every minute — things beside which even the present case pales and comes to seem almost something already ordinary.
> Relative «который» governed by «пред»: «которыми» agrees with its antecedent «вещи» (things) in number but takes the instrumental because the preposition «пред» (before, in the face of) governs it. «пред» is the bookish form of «перед». The relative thus reads 'beside which even the present case pales'.
> Reflexive «-ся» + instrumental «чем-то»: «представляется» (seems, presents itself) is a «-ся» verb of appearance, and its complement «чем-то … обыкновенным» stands in the instrumental — 'seems to be something ordinary'. The indefinite «чем-то» (from что + -то) names a specific-but-unnamed thing.

Но важнее всего то, что множество наших русских, национальных наших уголовных дел, свидетельствуют именно о чем-то всеобщем, о какой-то общей беде, прижившейся с нами и с которой, как со всеобщим злом, уже трудно бороться.  
But the most important thing is this: that a multitude of our Russian, our national criminal cases bear witness precisely to something universal, to some common affliction that has settled in among us and which, as with any universal evil, it is already hard to combat.
> Past active participle of a «-ся» verb: «прижившейся» is the past active participle of «прижиться» (to take root, settle in), keeping the «-ся» and declined in the genitive to agree with «беде». It compresses 'an affliction that has settled in among us' into one modifier.
> Indefinite «-то» — something, some: «чем-то» and «какой-то» both carry the indefinite clitic «-то», marking a specific but as-yet-unnamed thing and kind — 'something universal', 'some common affliction'. The vagueness is deliberate rhetoric, gesturing at a malady too large to name.

Вот там молодой блестящий офицер высшего общества, едва начинающий свою жизнь и карьеру, подло, в тиши, безо всякого угрызения совести, зарезывает мелкого чиновника, отчасти бывшего своего благодетеля, и служанку его, чтобы похитить свой долговой документ, а вместе и остальные денежки чиновника: „пригодятся-де для великосветских моих удовольствий и для карьеры моей впереди“.  
Here is a young, brilliant officer of high society, scarcely beginning his life and career, who basely, in stealth, without the slightest pang of conscience, cuts the throat of a petty official, in part his own former benefactor, and of that official's servant-woman, in order to make off with his own promissory note and, along with it, the rest of the official's money: "It will come in handy for my high-society pleasures and for my career ahead."
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы» introduces a purpose clause; because the subject is the same as the main clause, it takes an infinitive «похитить» (to steal) rather than a past form. «свой» — the reflexive possessive — points the promissory note back to the officer himself.
> «зарезать» — to cut the throat of: «зарезать» (here imperfective «зарезывает», a vivid narrative present) means to kill with a blade by cutting the throat — a brutal, concrete verb. «мелкий чиновник» is a 'petty official', low in the Table of Ranks, marking the victim's social smallness.
> The reportive particle «-де»: «-де» is an archaic clitic flagging reported speech — 'he says / supposedly'. Tacked onto «пригодятся» (they'll come in handy), it lets the prosecutor mimic the murderer's own callous words at one ironic remove.

Зарезав обоих, уходит, подложив обоим мертвецам под головы подушки.  
Having cut both their throats, he leaves, having slipped pillows under the heads of the two corpses.
> Perfective past gerunds bracketing the act: «Зарезав» and «подложив» are perfective past gerunds in -в, each naming an action completed before (or framing) the main verb «уходит». The structure — 'having cut … he leaves, having slipped…' — gives the cold, methodical sequence of the killing.

Там молодой герой, обвешанный крестами за храбрость, разбойнически умерщвляет на большой дороге мать своего вождя и благодетеля и, подговаривая своих товарищей, уверяет, что „она любит его как родного сына, и потому последует всем его советам и не примет предосторожностей“.  
There a young hero, hung with crosses for valor, murders like a brigand on the high road the mother of his own commander and benefactor, and, talking his comrades into it, assures them that "she loves him like her own son, and will therefore follow all his advice and take no precautions."
> Passive participle and present gerund together: «обвешанный» is a past passive participle ('hung [with crosses]') modifying «герой», while «подговаривая» is a present gerund of attendant action ('egging on'). The two non-finite forms layer description and circumstance around the single main verb «умерщвляет».
> «умерщвлять» — to put to death: «умерщвлять» is an elevated, bookish verb for 'to kill/put to death', from мёртвый 'dead', loftier than «убивать». The adverb «разбойнически» ('like a brigand/robber') colors the killing as highway banditry — a «разбойник» being a classic Russian outlaw of the open road.

Пусть это изверг, но я теперь, в наше время, не смею уже сказать, что это только единичный изверг.  
Granted he is a monster — but now, in our time, I no longer dare to say that he is merely an isolated monster.
> Concessive «пусть» — 'granted, let it be': «Пусть» here is concessive rather than a command — 'granted that he is a monster', conceding the point before the «но». The same «пусть» drives third-person imperatives elsewhere; its concessive use is a favorite move of debate and oratory.
> «изверг» — a monster of cruelty: «изверг» means a brute or fiend, a person 'cast out' of humanity by their cruelty (from из- 'out' + the root of «извергнуть» 'to expel'). It is stronger and more moral-coloring than «чудовище» (monster), naming a being who has forfeited human kinship.

Другой и не зарежет, но подумает и почувствует точно так же, как он, в душе своей бесчестен точно так же, как он.  
Another would not cut a throat, but he would think and feel exactly as that man did; in his soul he is just as dishonorable as he.
> Perfective futures for a hypothetical 'another': «не зарежет», «подумает», «почувствует» are perfective verbs conjugated for the future — 'another would not cut a throat, but would think and feel'. With no auxiliary, the future sits in the ending; here it carries a gnomic, hypothetical 'such a man would…'.
> Short adjective «бесчестен» as predicate: «бесчестен» is the short (predicative) form of «бесчестный» (dishonorable), used because it states a quality of the subject — 'he is dishonorable'. The short form, more bookish, often carries this sense of an inherent or absolute condition.

В тиши, наедине со своею совестью, может быть, спрашивает себя: „Да что такое честь, и не предрассудок ли кровь?“  
In stillness, alone with his own conscience, he perhaps asks himself: "And what, after all, is honor — and is not blood a prejudice?"
> Reflexive pronoun «себя»: «себя» is the full reflexive pronoun (here accusative), pointing back to the clause's subject — 'he asks himself'. Unlike the verbal clitic «-ся», «себя» is an independent object pronoun and has no nominative form of its own.
> «не … ли» — a leading question: «не … ли» fronts the focused word «предрассудок» (prejudice) before «ли» to ask a rhetorical yes/no question expecting agreement — 'is not blood a prejudice?'. The construction is markedly literary and suits the inner voice the prosecutor is ventriloquizing.

Может быть, крикнут против меня и скажут, что я человек болезненный, истерический, клевещу чудовищно, брежу, преувеличиваю.  
Perhaps they will cry out against me and say that I am a sick man, a hysteric, that I slander monstrously, that I rave and exaggerate.
> Perfective futures, then imperfective presents: The main verbs «крикнут» and «скажут» are perfective futures ('they will cry out and say'), while the reported charges «клевещу, брежу, преувеличиваю» switch to imperfective present — habitual, ongoing accusations: 'that I slander, rave, exaggerate'.
> «истерический», «бредить»: «истерический» (hysterical) and «бредить» (to rave, be delirious) are clinical-psychological terms the prosecutor turns on himself, anticipating his accusers. They fit Dostoevsky's pervasive medical vocabulary of nerves and feverish minds.

Пусть, пусть, — и боже, как бы я был рад тому первый!  
Let them, let them — and, God, how glad I would be of it, the first to rejoice!
> Exclamatory conditional «как бы … был рад»: «бы» plus past «был рад» yields an irrealis 'how glad I would be', here exclamatory rather than truly conditional. The dative «тому» is governed by «рад» (glad of), and «первый» (the first one) is a predicative apposition to «я».
> Repeated «пусть» — 'let them, let it be': Standing alone and doubled, «пусть, пусть» is an emotive concession — 'let them (say it), so be it'. The repetition gives the spoken, agitated cadence of a speaker waving the objection aside.

О, не верьте мне, считайте меня за больного, но все-таки запомните слова мои: ведь если только хоть десятая, хоть двадцатая доля в словах моих правда, то ведь и тогда ужасно!  
Oh, do not believe me, count me a sick man, but all the same remember my words: for if even a tenth, even a twentieth part of what I say is true, then even then it is dreadful!
> Imperatives with the polite/plural «-те»: «верьте» and «считайте» are plural/polite imperatives in «-те», addressing the jury. «не верьте» is a negated command, and «считайте … за больного» again shows «считать за + accusative» — 'count me as a sick man'.
> A pile-up of particles: «ведь», «хоть»: The conditional is wrapped in modal particles: «ведь» twice appeals to the listener ('after all'), «хоть … хоть» means 'even (a tenth, even a twentieth)', and «то … и тогда» answers the «если». The cluster is the unmistakable texture of Dostoevskian spoken rhetoric.

Посмотрите, господа, посмотрите, как у нас застреливаются молодые люди: о, без малейших гамлетовских вопросов о том: „Что будет там?“, без признаков этих вопросов, как будто эта статья о духе нашем и о всем, что ждет нас за гробом, давно похерена в их природе, похоронена и песком засыпана.  
Look, gentlemen, look how our young people shoot themselves: oh, without the least of Hamlet's questions about "what will be there," without a trace of those questions, as though that whole matter of our spirit and of all that awaits us beyond the grave had long ago been blotted out of their nature, buried and strewn over with sand.
> Reflexive «-ся» as a self-directed act: «застреливаются» carries «-ся» in its true reflexive sense — 'shoot themselves'. The imperfective with «как» ('how … keep shooting themselves') views it as a recurring social phenomenon, not a single event, deepening the indictment.
> «похерить» and an alliterative triad: «похерить» colloquially means to cross out, cancel, do away with (originally 'to strike through with an X', the old letter «хер»). It opens a grim alliterative chain of short passive participles — «похерена, похоронена … засыпана» (blotted out, buried, strewn with sand) — vivid in sound and image.

Посмотрите, наконец, на наш разврат, на наших сладострастников.  
Look, finally, at our debauchery, at our sensualists.
> Imperative «посмотрите» + «на» (accusative): «посмотрите на» governs the accusative of what is to be looked at. With animate «сладострастников» the accusative borrows the genitive plural ending (наших сладострастников), the rule of animacy keeping object distinct.
> «сладострастник» — a voluptuary: «сладострастник» (from сладкий 'sweet' + страсть 'passion') is a sensualist or voluptuary given to «сладострастие», carnal lust. It is one of the novel's keywords for the Karamazov vice, and the prosecutor will soon apply it straight to Fyodor Pavlovich.

Федор Павлович, несчастная жертва текущего процесса, есть пред иными из них почти невинный младенец.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch, the hapless victim of the present trial, is before some of them almost an innocent babe.
> The rare overt copula «есть»: Russian normally drops 'to be' in the present, but here Dostoevsky keeps the bookish «есть» ('is') for solemn, almost biblical weight. «пред иными из них» — 'before some of them' — uses the archaic «пред» and a partitive genitive «из них».
> «младенец» — a babe-in-arms: «младенец» is an elevated word for an infant or babe (cf. the Holy Innocents, «избиение младенцев»), more sacral than «ребёнок». Calling the depraved Fyodor «почти невинный младенец» beside worse men is bitter, theatrical irony.

А ведь мы все его знали, „он между нами жил“…  
And yet we all knew him, "he lived among us"…
> «А ведь» — the hinge of dialogue: «А» is the mild contrastive 'and/but' that shifts the topic, and «ведь» appeals to shared memory — together a near-untranslatable hinge, 'and yet, after all, we all knew him'. This pairing is one of the most characteristic gestures of Russian spoken thought.

Да, психологией русского преступления займутся, может быть, когда-нибудь первенствующие умы, и наши и европейские, ибо тема стоит того.  
Yes, the psychology of Russian crime will perhaps one day be taken up by the foremost minds, both ours and Europe's, for the theme is worth it.
> Reflexive future + instrumental object: «займутся» is the perfective future of «заняться» (to take up, occupy oneself with), a «-ся» verb that governs the instrumental «психологией» (the psychology). The subject «первенствующие умы» (foremost minds) follows the verb, holding the new emphasis till the end.
> «первенствующий» — preeminent: «первенствующий» is a bookish present active participle used adjectivally, 'leading, preeminent' (from первенствовать 'to take first place'). Yoked to «умы» (minds) it has a formal, almost ceremonial ring fitting the prosecutor's aspiration to grandeur.

Но это изучение произойдет когда-нибудь после, уже на досуге, и когда вся трагическая безалаберщина нашей настоящей минуты отойдет на более отдаленный план, так что ее уже можно будет рассмотреть и умнее, и беспристрастнее, чем, например, люди, как я, могут сделать.  
But that study will be undertaken sometime later, at leisure, and when the whole tragic muddle of our present moment has receded into a more distant plane, so that it can already be examined more wisely and more dispassionately than men such as I are able to do.
> Comparatives in -ее and impersonal «можно будет»: «умнее» and «беспристрастнее» are predicative comparative adverbs in -ее ('more wisely, more dispassionately'). The impersonal «можно будет» ('it will be possible'), with no nominative subject and a future of «быть», frames the whole as a deferred possibility.
> «безалаберщина» — disorderly muddle: «безалаберщина» is an expressive, faintly contemptuous noun for chaotic disorder, slovenliness, muddle — the -щина suffix lending a collective, dismissive flavor. Pairing it with «трагическая» (tragic) is a deliberately jarring high-low collocation.

Теперь же мы или ужасаемся, или притворяемся, что ужасаемся, а сами, напротив, смакуем зрелище как любители ощущений сильных, эксцентрических, шевелящих нашу цинически-ленивую праздность, или, наконец, как малые дети, отмахиваем от себя руками страшные призраки и прячем голову в подушку, пока пройдет страшное видение, с тем чтобы потом тотчас же забыть его в веселии и играх.  
But for now we either are horrified or pretend to be horrified, while in truth, on the contrary, we relish the spectacle like connoisseurs of strong, eccentric sensations that stir our cynically lazy idleness — or else, finally, like little children, we wave the frightful specters away from us with our hands and hide our heads in the pillow until the frightful vision passes, only to forget it the next instant in mirth and games.
> «или … или» and the contrastive «а сами»: «или … или» (either … or) lists the false reactions, then «а» pivots contrastively to the truth — «а сами … смакуем» ('while we ourselves relish'). The intensive «сами» (ourselves) sharpens the self-accusation under the adversative «а».
> Present active participle, genitive plural: «шевелящих» (stirring) is a present active participle agreeing in the genitive plural with «ощущений» — 'sensations that stir our idleness'. The participle compresses a relative clause into the swelling chain of the sentence.
> «смаковать» — to savor: «смаковать» (from French/German via смак 'relish, taste') means to savor or relish something with sensual lingering. Applied to «зрелище» (a spectacle) it accuses the public of taking gourmandizing pleasure in horror, like «любители ощущений сильных» (connoisseurs of strong sensations).

Но когда-нибудь надо же и нам начать нашу жизнь трезво и вдумчиво, надо же и нам бросить взгляд на себя как на общество, надо же и нам хоть что-нибудь в нашем общественном деле осмыслить или только хоть начать осмысление наше.  
But sometime we too must begin to live our life soberly and thoughtfully; we too must cast a glance at ourselves as a society; we too must make sense of at least something in our public affairs, or at least begin our reckoning of it.
> Impersonal «надо» with dative «нам», thrice: The anaphora «надо же и нам …» ('we too must…') runs the impersonal necessity «надо» plus the dative experiencer «нам» three times. The particle «же» insists, the dative-subject pattern keeps the people as the ones-it-falls-upon rather than nominative agents.
> Non-specific «-нибудь» — 'anything at all': «что-нибудь» carries the clitic «-нибудь», marking a non-specific 'anything at all', weaker than the specific «что-то». With «хоть» ('at least'), it lowers the demand to 'make sense of at least something, anything'.

Великий писатель предшествовавшей эпохи, в финале величайшего из произведений своих, олицетворяя всю Россию в виде скачущей к неведомой цели удалой русской тройки, восклицает: „Ах, тройка, птица тройка, кто тебя выдумал!“ — и в гордом восторге прибавляет, что пред скачущею сломя голову тройкой почтительно сторонятся все народы.  
A great writer of the preceding age, in the finale of the greatest of his works, personifying all of Russia as a dashing Russian troika racing toward an unknown goal, exclaims: "Ah, troika, bird-troika, who dreamed you up!" — and adds in proud rapture that before the troika racing headlong all the nations respectfully step aside.
> Gerund + a present participle in the genitive: «олицетворяя» is a present gerund ('personifying'), and within its object stands «скачущей» — a present active participle in the genitive agreeing with «тройки» ('a troika racing'). One subordinate verb-form nests inside another, the dense participial layering of high literary Russian.
> «удалой» — daring, dashing: «удалой» is a folk-poetic adjective for reckless, dashing valor, the bravado of the open road and the bogatyr — untranslatable to a single English word. It belongs to the heroic-national register Gogol's troika passage made famous.

Так, господа, это пусть, пусть сторонятся, почтительно или нет, но, на мой грешный взгляд, гениальный художник закончил так или в припадке младенчески невинного прекрасномыслия, или просто боясь тогдашней цензуры.  
So be it, gentlemen, let them step aside, respectfully or not; but, to my sinful eye, the writer of genius ended thus either in a fit of childishly innocent fine-feeling, or simply out of fear of the censorship of his day.
> «или … или» joining a phrase and a gerund: The disjunction «или … или» offers two motives, the second carried by the present gerund «боясь» (fearing) — a «-ся» verb that governs the genitive «цензуры». The gerund shares the subject «художник» and adds attendant circumstance: 'ended thus … out of fear'.
> «прекрасномыслие» — fine-feeling: «прекрасномыслие» (прекрасный 'beautiful' + мысль 'thought') is a coinage meaning naive, lofty, 'beautiful-souled' idealism, faintly mocking. The whimsical compound suits the prosecutor's condescension toward Gogol's hopeful ending.

Ибо если в его тройку впрячь только его же героев, Собакевичей, Ноздревых и Чичиковых, то кого бы ни посадить ямщиком, ни до чего путного на таких конях не доедешь!  
For if you harness to his troika only his own heroes — the Sobakevitches, the Nozdryovs and the Tchitchikovs — then whomever you set up as driver, you will get nowhere worthwhile on such horses!
> Concessive «кого бы ни» — 'whomever': «кого бы ни …» builds a universal concession, 'whomever you set up', with «бы» plus «ни» plus an infinitive. «ямщиком» is a predicate instrumental after «посадить» ('set up as driver'), and «не доедешь» is a generalized 2nd-person 'you'll get nowhere'.
> «ямщик» — the coachman of old Russia: A «ямщик» was a driver of the post-horses and carriages of the old «ям» relay system — an iconic figure of road, song, and snowstorm in Russian literature. Setting Gogol's swindler-heroes behind such a driver makes the national troika a vehicle going nowhere.

А это только еще прежние кони, которым далеко до теперешних, у нас почище…»  
And those are still only the old horses, far inferior to today's — ours are of a finer breed…"
> Impersonal «далеко до» + dative: «которым далеко до …» is an impersonal idiom: dative «которым» plus «далеко до + genitive» means 'they are far from / no match for' the present horses. There is no nominative subject — the relative pronoun stands as dative experiencer.
> «почище» — comparative with a colloquial bite: «почище» is the comparative of «чистый» softened by «по-» ('a bit finer/cleaner'), used colloquially to mean 'of a higher order, more thoroughgoing'. The tone is sardonic: today's villainous 'horses' are an 'improvement' on Gogol's.

Здесь речь Ипполита Кирилловича была прервана рукоплесканиями.  
Here Ippolit Kirillovitch's speech was interrupted by applause.
> Periphrastic passive with instrumental agent: «была прервана» is the periphrastic passive — «быть» plus the short past passive participle «прервана» (interrupted) — agreeing with «речь». The agent stands in the instrumental: «рукоплесканиями» (by applause).
> «рукоплескания» — applause: «рукоплескание» (рука 'hand' + плескать 'to splash/clap') is a literary, slightly elevated word for applause, the transparent native compound beside the borrowed «аплодисменты». Its formality matches the solemn courtroom scene.

Либерализм изображения русской тройки понравился.  
The liberalism of his depiction of the Russian troika had pleased the room.
> Stacked genitives and dropped dative: A chain of genitives — «изображения русской тройки» ('of the depiction of the Russian troika') — modifies «либерализм»; «понравился» (pleased) normally takes a dative experiencer, here left implicit ('it pleased [the room]'). The heavy genitive string is typical of compressed reportorial Russian.

Правда, сорвалось лишь два-три клака, так что председатель не нашел даже нужным обратиться к публике с угрозою «очистить залу» и лишь строго поглядел в сторону клакеров.  
True, only two or three claps broke out, so that the presiding judge did not even find it necessary to address the public with a threat to "clear the hall" and merely glanced sternly in the direction of the clappers.
> Genitive singular after «два-три»: After the numerals «два-три» the counted noun takes the genitive singular «клака» (a clap), per the rule that 2–4 govern genitive singular. The verb «сорвалось» (broke out, escaped) is neuter, the default for such quantified, impersonal subjects.
> «клака», «клакёр» — the hired clappers: A «клака» (from French claque) is organized paid applause, and «клакёры» the hirelings who produce it. The presiding judge's stern glance at the «клакеры» implies someone is staging the courtroom's enthusiasm — a worldly theatrical detail.

Но Ипполит Кириллович был ободрен: никогда-то ему до сих пор не аплодировали!  
But Ippolit Kirillovitch was heartened: never until now had he been applauded!
> Negative concord with impersonal «не аплодировали»: «никогда … не аплодировали» shows obligatory negative concord — the «ни»-word «никогда» keeps «не» on the verb. The subjectless 3rd-plural «аплодировали» is impersonal ('no one had applauded'), with the dative «ему» as the one applauded-to. The emphatic «-то» laments his long obscurity.

Человека столько лет не хотели слушать и вдруг возможность на всю Россию высказаться!  
Here was a man no one had cared to listen to for so many years, and suddenly the chance to speak out before all of Russia!
> Genitive of negation: «Человека … не хотели слушать»: Under the negated «не хотели слушать» the object 'man' shifts to the genitive «Человека» (the animate genitive doubling as accusative reinforces it). The subjectless 3rd-plural «не хотели» reads impersonally — 'no one cared to listen to the man'.
> «столько» + genitive plural «лет»: The quantifier «столько» ('so many') governs the genitive plural; «лет» is the suppletive genitive plural of «год» (year), borrowed from «лето». 'So many years' uses this irregular form rather than *годов.

«В самом деле, — продолжал он, — что такое это семейство Карамазовых, заслужившее вдруг такую печальную известность по всей даже России?  
"Indeed," he went on, "what is this Karamazov family that has suddenly earned such mournful renown throughout all of Russia?
> Past active participle agreeing with «семейство»: «заслужившее» is the past active participle of «заслужить» (to earn, deserve), in the neuter to agree with «семейство» — 'the family that has earned'. «Карамазовых» is the genitive plural of the surname, naming the family collectively.
> «печальная известность» — sad notoriety: «известность» is renown or fame; qualified by «печальная» ('sad, mournful') it becomes notoriety, ill fame. The genteel litotes — naming infamy as 'mournful renown' — suits the prosecutor's polished, ceremonious diction.

Может быть, я слишком преувеличиваю, но мне кажется, что в картине этой семейки как бы мелькают некоторые общие основные элементы нашего современного интеллигентного общества — о, не все элементы, да и мелькнуло лишь в микроскопическом виде, „как солнце в малой капле вод“, но всё же нечто отразилось, всё же нечто сказалось.  
Perhaps I exaggerate too much, but it seems to me that in the picture of this little family there flicker, as it were, certain general, fundamental elements of our contemporary educated society — oh, not all the elements, and they flickered only in microscopic form, "like the sun in a small drop of water," but still something was reflected, something made itself known.
> "Like the sun in a drop of water": An archaic, poetic phrase: «вод» is the old genitive plural of «вода» (water), where modern Russian would say «капле воды». The image (a whole sun mirrored in one tiny droplet) is a literary commonplace meaning the whole is reflected in a small part; here the prosecutor uses it to say the Karamazov family mirrors all of Russian society.
> Aspect pair «мелькать / мелькнуть»: The same root appears in both aspects: imperfective «мелькают» (flicker, keep flashing) for the ongoing image, then perfective «мелькнуло» (flashed once) for the single momentary glint. The pair lets the prosecutor have it both ways — a recurring shimmer and a fleeting flash. «как бы» hedges it all as 'as it were'.
> «семейка» — the belittling diminutive: «семейка» is the diminutive of «семья/семейство», but here pejorative rather than affectionate — 'this little (wretched) family'. The -ка suffix can shrink with contempt, coloring the prosecutor's view of the Karamazovs as a sorry clan.

Посмотрите на этого несчастного, разнузданного и развратного старика, этого „отца семейства“, столь печально покончившего свое существование.  
Look at this unhappy, unbridled and debauched old man, this "father of a family," who brought his existence to so mournful a close.
> Past active participle, animate accusative: «покончившего» (past active participle of «покончить», to make an end of) agrees with the animate accusative «старика», hence the genitive-shaped ending. It compresses 'who brought his existence to so mournful a close' into a single modifier closing a long descriptive run.
> «разнузданный», «развратный»: «разнузданный» is literally 'unbridled' (from узда 'bridle') — given over to unchecked appetite — and «развратный» 'debauched, dissolute'. The alliterative раз-/раз- pair piles vice on vice, the prosecutor's portrait of Fyodor Pavlovich in full rhetorical flow.

Родовой дворянин, начавший карьеру бедненьким приживальщиком, чрез нечаянную и неожиданную женитьбу схвативший в приданое небольшой капитальчик, вначале мелкий плут и льстивый шут, с зародышем умственных способностей, довольно, впрочем, неслабых, и прежде всего ростовщик.  
A nobleman by birth, who began his career as a poor little hanger-on, who through a chance and unlooked-for marriage seized a small bit of capital as a dowry, at first a petty cheat and fawning buffoon with the germ of mental abilities — fairly capable ones, by the way — and above all a usurer.
> A verbless portrait built on past participles: This whole 'sentence' has no finite verb: it is an appositive sketch hung on past active participles — «начавший» (who began), «схвативший» (who seized) — plus bare nominative nouns («плут … шут … ростовщик»). Russian's zero-copula present lets a chain of participles and predicate nouns stand as a complete characterization.
> «приживальщик» — the hanger-on: A «приживальщик» is a poor dependent who lives in a wealthier household, a tolerated hanger-on or sponger (from приживаться 'to settle in on'). It names a recognizable social type of the period and marks Fyodor's humble, parasitic start.

С годами, то есть с нарастанием капитальчика, он ободряется.  
With the years — that is, as his little capital grew — he took heart.
> Instrumental of attendant circumstance with «с»: «С годами» and «с нарастанием» use «с» plus the instrumental to mean 'with / as (the years, the growth)' — time and cause moving together. «ободряется» is a «-ся» verb in the narrative present ('takes heart').
> «капитальчик» — the diminutive of capital: «капитальчик» is the diminutive of «капитал», 'his little capital' — here faintly derisive, shrinking Fyodor's fortune to something petty and scraped-together. Repeated through the passage, the suffix keeps needling his small-time greed.

Приниженность и заискивание исчезают, остается лишь насмешливый и злой циник и сладострастник.  
The cringing and the toadying fell away, and there remained only a mocking, malicious cynic and sensualist.
> Number agreement: plural subject, then singular: The compound subject «Приниженность и заискивание» takes plural «исчезают» (disappear), but the next clause has singular «остается» agreeing with what survives — «циник и сладострастник», felt as a single residue. Both verbs are imperfective presents painting a process.
> «приниженность», «заискивание»: «приниженность» is cringing self-abasement (from принизить 'to humble/lower'), «заискивание» the fawning, ingratiating effort to curry favor. The abstract -ость and -ание nouns name the servile manner Fyodor sheds once his money lets him drop the act.

Духовная сторона вся похерена, а жажда жизни чрезвычайная.  
The spiritual side was wholly blotted out, while his thirst for life was extraordinary.
> Verbless antithesis on the hinge «а»: Two predicates with no copula, balanced across the contrastive «а»: «сторона … похерена» (a short passive participle, 'blotted out') versus «жажда … чрезвычайная» (an adjective). The zero-copula present and the topic-shifting «а» set spiritual death against animal vitality in one taut line.

Свелось на то, что, кроме сладострастных наслаждений, он ничего в жизни и не видит, так учит и детей своих.  
It came down to this: that apart from voluptuous pleasures he saw nothing at all in life — and so he taught his children too.
> «кроме» + genitive and negative concord: «кроме» (except, besides) governs the genitive «наслаждений», and the clause runs negative concord — «ничего … не видит» ('sees nothing'). The particle «и» before «не видит» adds 'not even', tightening the indictment: apart from lust he sees nothing at all.
> Impersonal «свелось на то, что»: «Свелось на то, что …» is an impersonal, subjectless idiom — 'it came down to this, that…' — with the «-ся» verb «свестись» (to be reduced to) and the correlative «то» pointing forward to the «что»-clause.

Отеческих духовных каких-нибудь обязанностей — никаких.  
Of any fatherly, spiritual duties — none whatever.
> Genitive of negation with an elided verb: The whole noun phrase stands in the genitive plural — «обязанностей … никаких» — because a negated existential is understood ('of … duties — none'). The verb «не было/нет» is dropped, leaving the bare genitive of negation to do the work, a terse, hammering effect.

Он над ними смеется, он воспитывает своих маленьких детей на заднем дворе и рад, что их от него увозят.  
He laughs at them; he brings up his little children in the back yard and is glad when they are taken off his hands.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural for the passive sense: «увозят» is an impersonal 3rd-person plural ('they take [them] away'), the common Russian way to say something is done without naming the doer — English reaches for a passive, 'they are taken off his hands'. «их» (them) is the object, «от него» the source.

Забывает об них даже вовсе.  
He even forgets about them altogether.
> «забывать о» + prepositional, with «об них»: «забывать» governs «о» plus the prepositional — «об них» (about them), with the archaic/colloquial «об них» where modern standard prefers «о них». «даже вовсе» ('even altogether') drives the negligence to its extreme in a clipped final sentence.

Все нравственные правила старика — après moi le déluge.  
The whole of the old man's moral code is — après moi le déluge.
> Zero copula and the dash: There is no verb "to be" in the present: the subject «Все нравственные правила старика» (all the old man's moral rules) is simply equated with the French tag, and the dash stands in for the missing «есть». Russian routinely drops the present-tense copula, letting punctuation carry the link.

Всё, что есть обратного понятию о гражданине, полнейшее, даже враждебное отъединение от общества: „Гори хоть весь свет огнем, было бы одному мне хорошо“.  
Everything that is the opposite of the idea of a citizen, a complete and even hostile severing of himself from society: "Let the whole world burn in flames, so long as I myself am all right."
> Dative governed by «обратный»: The adjective «обратный» (opposite, contrary) governs a dative complement: «обратного понятию» = "the opposite of the notion." The thing one is contrary *to* stands in the dative «понятию», a pattern that quietly steers many Russian adjectives and verbs.
> «отъединение» — a severing-off: A bookish abstract noun in «-ение» from «отъединить» (to detach, cut off), here "severing oneself from society." The «от-» prefix stresses separation; the formation is the kind of weighty Latinate-feeling abstraction the prosecutor reaches for to sound learned.
> Imperative of concession with «хоть»: «Гори» is a 2nd-person imperative («гореть», to burn) used not as a command but as a concession: "let the whole world burn." Paired with «хоть» ("even, if it must") it forms the vivid "let it all burn" construction; «огнем» is an instrumental of manner, "with fire / in flames."
> Dative experiencer with «бы»: An impersonal construction: no nominative subject, the experiencer «мне» (to me) in the dative, predicate adverb «хорошо» (well/all right). The «было бы» adds the irrealis particle «бы», making it a wished-for condition — "so long as *I* were all right." «одному» (alone, just) agrees with «мне» in the dative.

И ему хорошо, он вполне доволен, он жаждет прожить так еще двадцать тридцать лет.  
And he is all right, he is perfectly content, he thirsts to go on living like this for another twenty or thirty years.
> Dative of the contented man: Again the dative-experiencer frame: «ему хорошо» = "he is fine / all is well with him," literally "to-him [it is] well," with no subject and no verb. The repeated «ему хорошо ... мне хорошо» of these lines drives home how Russian seats well-being in the dative.
> «жаждать» — to thirst / crave: An elevated, near-biblical verb meaning "to thirst" both literally and figuratively (cf. «жажда», thirst). Applied to a greedy old man's appetite for twenty or thirty more years, it lends a deliberately lofty, ironic tone to base craving.

Он обсчитывает родного сына и на его же деньги, на наследство матери его, которые не хочет отдать ему, отбивает у него, у сына же своего, любовницу.  
He cheats his own son, and with that very son's money — the inheritance from his mother, which he refuses to hand over — he wrests away from him, from his own son, his mistress.
> «обсчитывать» — to cheat in reckoning: From «считать» (to count) with «об-»: to short-change someone, to cheat them in the accounting. The imperfective present «обсчитывает» frames it as Fyodor's habitual practice — he is forever cheating his own son.
> Emphatic particle «же»: The particle «же» here is intensive — "with that *very* son's own money." It pins emphasis onto «его» (his), sharpening the outrage. «же» is one of the small modal particles that English can only render with stress.
> «отбивать у кого» + reflexive «своего»: «отбивать у него» uses «у» + genitive to mark the person *from whom* something is wrested away — "he steals the mistress from him." «своего» is the reflexive possessive: "his own son," referring back to the subject (Fyodor), heightening the perversity that the victim is his own child.

Нет, я не хочу уступать защиту подсудимого высокоталантливому защитнику, прибывшему из Петербурга.  
No, I have no wish to yield the prisoner's defense to the highly gifted defense counsel who has come from Petersburg.
> Past active participle in the dative: «прибывшему» is a past active participle of «прибыть» (to arrive), "who has arrived," declined to agree with «защитнику» in the dative. It compresses a «который»-clause ("the counsel who came from Petersburg") into one word — a hallmark of dense literary syntax.

Я и сам скажу правду, я и сам понимаю ту сумму негодования, которую он накопил в сердце своего сына.  
I will speak the truth myself, I myself understand that sum of indignation which the father has heaped up in his son's heart.
> Emphatic «и сам» — "I myself, too": The intensifier «сам» (oneself) with «и» means "I too, for my own part, will say." «скажу» is a perfective future («сказать»), conjugated like a present but pointing to a single completed act of telling.
> Correlative «ту ... которую»: The demonstrative «ту» (that) sets up the relative «которую», which agrees with its antecedent «сумму» in gender and number but takes the accusative for its own role as object of «накопил». The pairing is the standard way Russian frames "that X which..."
> Reflexive «своего» for the absent agent: «своего сына» (his own son's) refers back to the implied subject of the heaping-up — the father, "his [the father's] own son." Choosing «своего» over «его» keeps the possession anchored to the clause's actor.

Но довольно, довольно об этом несчастном старике, он получил свою мзду.  
But enough, enough of this unhappy old man; he has received his due.
> «довольно» + genitive / «об» + prepositional: «довольно» ("enough") here governs the topic with «об» + prepositional: «об этом несчастном старике» = "enough about this unhappy old man." «об» is the form of «о» used before a vowel, and the whole phrase declines in the prepositional of topic.
> «мзда» — recompense, his deserts: An archaic, bookish word for payment or requital, often with a faintly biblical or pejorative ring (also "a bribe"). «получил свою мзду» = "he has received his due" — a solemn, almost scriptural way to say the old man got what was coming to him.

Вспомним, однако, что это отец, и один из современных отцов.  
Let us remember, however, that he is a father, and one of our contemporary fathers.
> First-person plural exhortation: «Вспомним» is the 1st-person-plural form of perfective «вспомнить» used as a "let us remember" exhortation — Russian's way of making a hortative simply by using the «мы» future form without a pronoun.
> Adversative «однако»: «однако» (however, yet) is a bookish coordinating conjunction marking a turn against the preceding thought — here pivoting from dismissing the old man to insisting we still see him as a father. It is weightier and more written than a plain «но».

Обижу ли я общество, сказав, что это один даже из многих современных отцов?  
Shall I give offense to society if I say that he is even one among many contemporary fathers?
> Yes/no question with «ли»: The particle «ли» turns the statement into a question by fronting the focused verb «обижу» (perfective future, "shall I offend") and following it with «ли»: "Shall I offend society...?" This is more formal and literary than rising intonation alone.
> Perfective gerund «сказав»: «сказав» is the past (perfective) adverbial participle of «сказать»: "by saying / if I say." The indeclinable «-в» gerund expresses the action of the same subject and folds a whole "if I say that..." clause into a single word.

Увы, столь многие из современных отцов лишь не высказываются столь цинически, как этот, ибо лучше воспитаны, лучше образованы, а в сущности — почти такой же, как и он, философии.  
Alas, so many of our contemporary fathers simply do not express themselves as cynically as he did, for they are better bred, better educated — yet in essence they hold almost the very same philosophy as he.
> Bookish intensifier «столь»: «столь» ("so, to such a degree") is an elevated, literary alternative to «так»: «столь многие» = "so many," «столь цинически» = "so cynically." Its repetition lends the sentence a deliberately rhetorical, period-formal cadence.
> Reflexive «-ся» middle voice: «высказываться» (to express oneself, speak one's mind) is a «-ся» verb: the clitic turns «высказывать» (to utter) into an intransitive, self-directed action. Here «не высказываются столь цинически» = "do not express themselves so cynically."
> Archaic causal «ибо»: «ибо» means "for, because," but it is markedly bookish and old-fashioned — a Church-Slavonic-flavored conjunction beloved of 19th-century prose and Scripture. A speaker today would say «потому что»; «ибо» raises the register.
> Genitive of quality: «почти такой же ... философии» — "of almost the very same philosophy" — uses the genitive «философии» to describe a quality or characteristic belonging to a person, a standard Russian genitive of attribution. «такой же» = "the same kind of," with «же» reinforcing identity.

Но пусть я пессимист, пусть.  
But suppose I am a pessimist — suppose I am.
> Concessive «пусть» — "let it be that...": «пусть» ("let, suppose") concedes a point: «пусть я пессимист» = "suppose I am a pessimist." Trailing «пусть» on its own — "so be it" — is an emphatic shrug of concession. Note the zero copula: «я пессимист», no "am."

Мы уж условились, что вы меня прощаете.  
We have already agreed that you will forgive me.
> Reflexive «условиться» + reported «что»-clause: «условиться» (to agree, settle on) is a «-ся» verb of mutual arrangement. «что вы меня прощаете» is a reported-fact clause introduced by «что» (that), with the imperfective present «прощаете» reading as a settled understanding. «уж» is a colloquial reduction of «уже» (already).

Уговоримся заранее: вы мне не верьте, не верьте, я буду говорить, а вы не верьте.  
Let us settle it in advance: do not believe me, do not believe me; I shall speak, and you are not to believe me.
> Negated imperative «не верьте»: «верьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «верить» (to believe), here negated: "do not believe me." Negated imperatives in Russian strongly favor the imperfective (warning against an action in general), as «верить» is here. «мне» is the dative complement: one believes *to* someone.
> Compound imperfective future + contrastive «а»: «буду говорить» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive): "I shall be speaking," ongoing. The «а» that follows is the mild contrastive "and/while" — it sets the speaker's act against the listeners' non-belief: "I shall speak, while you are not to believe."

Но все-таки дайте мне высказаться, все-таки кое-что из моих слов не забудьте.  
But all the same let me speak my piece, and all the same do not forget a few of my words.
> Imperative + reflexive infinitive of permission: «дайте» (give, here "let / allow") plus the «-ся» infinitive «высказаться» (to have one's full say) is the idiomatic "let me speak my piece." The perfective «высказаться» views the speaking as one complete act, getting it all out.
> Indefinite «кое-что» + partitive «из»: «кое-что» means "a little something, a few bits"; «из моих слов» ("of my words") is a partitive «из» + genitive marking the whole from which the part is taken. «не забудьте» is a negated polite imperative, "do not forget."

Но вот, однако, дети этого старика, этого отца семейства: один пред нами на скамье подсудимых, об нем вся речь впереди; про других скажу лишь вскользь.  
But here, then, are the children of this old man, this father of a family: one stands before us in the prisoner's dock, and the whole speech ahead concerns him; of the others I will speak only in passing.
> «про» + accusative; topic-fronting: «про» governs the accusative «других» and means "about, concerning" — more colloquial than «о». Fronting «про других» (about the others) ahead of the verb makes it the topic: "as for the others, I'll speak only in passing." «вскользь» = in passing, glancingly.

Из этих других, старший — есть один из современных молодых людей с блестящим образованием, с умом довольно сильным, уже ни во что, однако, не верующим, многое, слишком уже многое в жизни отвергшим и похерившим, точь-в-точь как и родитель его.  
Of these others, the elder is one of those contemporary young men with a brilliant education, with a fairly powerful mind, who already believes in nothing, however, who has rejected and blotted out much, all too much in life — the very image of his parent.
> Negative concord + present active participle: «ни во что не верующим» = "believing in nothing": «ни во что» (not in anything) pairs obligatorily with the negator «не» before the verb — negative concord. «верующим» is a present active participle of «верить» in the instrumental, agreeing with «умом» / «молодым человеком», compressing "who believes in nothing."
> Past active participles in the instrumental: «отвергшим» (having rejected, from «отвергнуть») and «похерившим» (having struck out/blotted out) are perfective past active participles, both in the instrumental to agree with the young man being described. The chain of participles is the dense, bookish way Dostoevsky packs a whole biography into one noun phrase.
> «похерить» — to cross out, scrap: A colorful, slightly low verb meaning "to strike through, cancel" — originally to cross something out with the X-shaped old letter «херъ» (the name of the Cyrillic letter Х). It carries a dismissive, almost crude flavor: Ivan has not merely doubted but "X-ed out" much of life.
> «точь-в-точь» — exactly, the spitting image: An emphatic reduplicated idiom meaning "precisely, to a T," here "the very image of his parent (точь-в-точь как и родитель его)." Its folksy doubling adds a colloquial punch to the prosecutor's otherwise lofty diction.

Мы все его слышали, он в нашем обществе был принят дружелюбно.  
We have all heard him; he was received cordially in our society.
> Short passive participle + «был»: «был принят» is the periphrastic passive: «принят» is the short-form past passive participle of «принять» (to receive) joined to «был» — "was received." The short participle agrees in gender/number (here masc. sg.), and «дружелюбно» (cordially) is the adverb of manner.

Мнений своих он не скрывал, даже напротив, совсем напротив, что и дает мне смелость говорить теперь о нем несколько откровенно, конечно не как о частном лице, а лишь как о члене семьи Карамазовых.  
He did not conceal his opinions — quite the contrary, the very opposite — which is what gives me the boldness to speak now of him somewhat candidly, not, of course, as of a private person, but only as a member of the Karamazov family.
> Genitive of negation + fronted object: Under negation the object «мнения» (opinions) shifts to genitive «мнений»: «не скрывал мнений» = "did not conceal his opinions." Fronting «Мнений своих» before the subject topicalizes it. «своих» is again the reflexive possessive, "his own."
> Corrective «не ... а» with «о» + prepositional: The «не X, а Y» frame corrects one term with another: "not as of a private person, but only as of a member of the family." Both objects sit in the prepositional after «о» (о лице, о члене), the case of topic. «а» here is the corrective "but rather."

Здесь умер вчера, самоубийством, на краю города, один болезненный идиот, сильно привлеченный к настоящему делу, бывший слуга и, может быть, побочный сын Федора Павловича, Смердяков.  
Here yesterday, by suicide, on the edge of town, died a certain sickly idiot deeply implicated in the present case, the former servant and, it may be, the natural son of Fyodor Pavlovitch — Smerdyakov.
> Verb-first word order for new information: The subject «один ... идиот» is held back to the end, after «Здесь умер вчера, самоубийством, на краю города» — the scene-setting adverbials come first and the newly introduced person lands last, in the comment slot. This topic-comment ordering is how Russian's free word order stages a revelation.
> «побочный сын» — natural (illegitimate) son: «побочный» literally means "side, lateral"; «побочный сын» is the standard genteel term for an illegitimate child born outside marriage — "a son on the side." The phrase delicately raises the scandalous possibility that Smerdyakov is Fyodor's own bastard.

Он с истерическими слезами рассказывал мне на предварительном следствии, как этот молодой Карамазов, Иван Федорович, ужаснул его своим духовном безудержем.  
With hysterical tears he told me at the preliminary inquiry how this young Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovitch, had appalled him with his spiritual unrestraint.
> «безудержье» — unbridled excess: «безудержье» (the text's «безудержем» is the instrumental) means "lack of restraint, unbridledness," from «без» + «удержать» (to hold back). «ужаснул ... своим духовным безудержем» = "appalled him with his spiritual unrestraint" — Ivan's terrifying refusal of all moral brakes. The instrumental marks the means of the appalling.

„Всё, дескать, по-ихнему, позволено, что ни есть в мире, и ничего впредь не должно быть запрещено, — вот они чему меня всё учили“.  
"Everything, he says, is permitted according to them, whatever there is in the world, and nothing henceforth must be forbidden — that's the whole of what they kept teaching me."
> «дескать» — "he says, supposedly": A reportive particle flagging that the words are someone else's, often with a skeptical or distancing tinge — roughly "so he says / as it were." It marks Smerdyakov ventriloquizing Ivan's doctrine; the speaker quotes without vouching for it.
> «по-ихнему» — substandard "their way": «по-ихнему» ("in their way, according to them") is a colloquial, non-standard form built on the vulgar possessive «ихний» (for «их»). It instantly marks Smerdyakov's untutored, lower-class speech against the prosecutor's polished diction.
> Negative concord with «ничего»: «ничего ... не должно быть запрещено» stacks the negative pronoun «ничего» with the negator «не» — "nothing must be forbidden" — Russian's obligatory double negation. «запрещено» is a short passive participle ("forbidden"). The whole echoes the novel's notorious "all is permitted."

Кажется, идиот на этом тезисе, которому обучили его, и сошел с ума окончательно, хотя, конечно, повлияли на умственное расстройство его и падучая болезнь, и вся эта страшная, разразившаяся в их доме катастрофа.  
It seems the idiot lost his mind for good over this thesis they had drummed into him, though of course his mental breakdown was also brought on by his falling sickness and by the whole frightful catastrophe that broke out in their house.
> Idiom «сойти с ума» (perfective past): «сошел с ума» is the perfective past of the idiom «сходить/сойти с ума» — literally "to come down off one's mind," i.e. to go mad. The perfective marks it as a completed event; «окончательно» (finally, for good) stresses the irreversibility.
> «падучая» — the falling sickness: «падучая (болезнь)» is the old folk-medical name for epilepsy, from «падать» (to fall) — the "falling sickness." Smerdyakov's epilepsy is central to the plot, and the homely older term (rather than clinical «эпилепсия») fits the prosecutor's colloquial moment.
> Past active participle as modifier: «разразившаяся» is a perfective past active participle of «разразиться» (to break out, erupt), agreeing with «катастрофа» in the nominative feminine — "the catastrophe that broke out in their house." The «-ся» reflexive verb yields a «-вшаяся» participle; the modifier wraps the location «в их доме» inside it.

Но у этого идиота промелькнуло одно весьма и весьма любопытное замечание, сделавшее бы честь и поумнее его наблюдателю, вот почему даже я об этом и заговорил: „Если есть, — сказал он мне, — который из сыновей более похожий на Федора Павловича по характеру, так это он, Иван Федорович!“  
But this idiot let slip one remark, a most remarkable one, that would have done credit to a far cleverer observer — which is the very reason I have brought it up: "If there is," he said to me, "any of the sons who most resembles Fyodor Pavlovitch in character, then it is he, Ivan Fyodorovitch!"
> Participle + «бы»: a conditional participle: «сделавшее бы честь» combines the past active participle «сделавшее» (which would have done) with the irrealis particle «бы» — a rare participial conditional: "a remark that would have done credit to...". «честь» is here an idiom, «сделать честь» = to do credit; «наблюдателю» is the dative of the one honored.
> Comparative «поумнее» + genitive of comparison: «поумнее» is the comparative of «умный» (clever) with the softening prefix «по-» — "somewhat cleverer." The thing compared against stands in the genitive «его» (than he): «поумнее его» = "cleverer than he." This genitive-of-comparison is an alternative to «чем».
> Substandard «который ... похожий»: Smerdyakov's quoted speech is ungrammatical by literary norms: «который из сыновей более похожий» uses «который» loosely for "whichever one" and the long-form adjective «похожий» where the standard would prefer the short «похож». Dostoevsky lets the syntax stumble to mark the speaker as half-educated.

На этом замечании я прерываю начатую характеристику, не считая деликатным продолжать далее.  
On that remark I break off the sketch I had begun, not considering it delicate to carry it any further.
> Imperfective gerund «не считая»: «не считая» is the present (imperfective) adverbial participle of «считать» (to consider), "not considering [it]." It attaches the speaker's reasoning to the main verb «прерываю»: "I break off, not considering it delicate to continue." «деликатным» is an instrumental predicate after «считать кого/что каким».
> Short vs. long passive participle as modifier: «начатую» is the past passive participle of «начать» (to begin) in its long, declinable form, agreeing with «характеристику» in the accusative feminine — "the sketch [I had] begun." The long form here works attributively, modifying the noun, where its short form «начата» would predicate.

О, я не хочу выводить дальнейших заключений и, как ворон, каркать молодой судьбе одну только гибель.  
Oh, I have no wish to draw any further conclusions and, like a raven, to croak nothing but ruin over a young man's fate.
> Dative recipient of the croaking: «каркать» (to croak/caw) takes the dative «молодой судьбе» — "to croak ruin *to/over* a young fate." The dative marks the party at whom the ominous cry is directed, an extension of its core "to/for whom" function.

Мы видели еще сегодня здесь, в этой зале, что непосредственная сила правды еще живет в его молодом сердце, что еще чувства семейной привязанности не заглушены в нем безверием и нравственным цинизмом, приобретенным больше по наследству, чем истинным страданием мысли.  
We saw only today, here in this very hall, that the direct force of truth still lives in his young heart, that the feelings of family attachment have not yet been stifled in him by unbelief and a moral cynicism acquired more by inheritance than by any genuine suffering of thought.
> Short passive participle in negation: «не заглушены» is the short past passive participle of «заглушить» (to stifle, smother) — "have not been stifled," agreeing in plural with «чувства». The short form predicates a resulting state; «в нем» (in him) localizes it. The construction states what has *not* been done to him.
> Instrumental of agent + past passive participle: The stifling, if it happened, would be "by" «безверием и цинизмом» — instrumental of the agent/means with a passive. «приобретенным» is a past passive participle ("acquired") in the instrumental, agreeing with «цинизмом», and «больше ... чем» frames the comparison "more by inheritance than by suffering."

Затем другой сын, — о, это еще юноша, благочестивый и смиренный, в противоположность мрачному растлевающему мировоззрению его брата, ищущий прилепиться, так сказать, к „народным началам“, или к тому, что у нас называют этим мудреным словечком в иных теоретических углах мыслящей интеллигенции нашей.  
Then the other son — oh, he is still a youth, pious and humble, who, in contrast to his brother's gloomy, corrupting world-view, seeks to cleave, so to speak, to the "native principles," or to what is called by that knowing little word in certain theoretical corners of our thinking intelligentsia.
> Present active participle + «к» + dative: «ищущий» is a present active participle of «искать» (to seek), "who seeks," modifying «юноша». Its complement «прилепиться к народным началам» uses «к» + dative for the thing one cleaves *to*. The participle compresses a «который ищет...» clause into one bookish modifier.
> «словечко» — the knowing little word: «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» (word), here not literally "small" but dismissive and ironic — "that cute little buzzword." The expressive suffix «-ечко» lets the prosecutor sneer at the intelligentsia's pet term while pretending to handle it gently.

Он, видите ли, прилепился к монастырю; он чуть было сам не постригся в монахи.  
He has cleaved, you see, to the monastery; he very nearly took monastic vows himself.
> «чуть было не» — "all but did": «чуть было не» plus a perfective past verb means "very nearly did, all but did (and didn't)": «чуть было не постригся» = "he very nearly took vows." The «было» is a frozen relic marking the averted action; the «не» is part of the idiom, not a true negation.

В нем, кажется мне, как бы бессознательно, и так рано, выразилось то робкое отчаяние, с которым столь многие теперь в нашем бедном обществе, убоясь цинизма и разврата его и ошибочно приписывая всё зло европейскому просвещению, бросаются, как говорят они, к „родной почве“, так сказать, в материнские объятия родной земли, как дети, напуганные призраками, и у иссохшей груди расслабленной матери жаждут хотя бы только спокойно заснуть и даже всю жизнь проспать, лишь бы не видеть их пугающих ужасов.  
In him, it seems to me, there found expression, as if unconsciously and so early, that timid despair with which so many now in our poor society — taking fright at its cynicism and debauchery, and mistakenly ascribing all the evil to European enlightenment — fling themselves, as they put it, toward the "native soil," so to speak, into the maternal embrace of their native land, like children frightened by specters, and at the withered breast of their enfeebled mother they thirst at least to fall peacefully asleep, even to sleep their whole life away, only so as not to see the horrors that frighten them.
> Reflexive «-ся» + hedging «как бы»: «выразилось» is the «-ся» middle of «выразить» (to express): "there found expression / there expressed itself." The subject is «то робкое отчаяние», held to the end. «как бы» ("as it were, sort of") is the prosecutor's constant rhetorical hedge, softening his claims.
> Archaic gerund «убоясь» + genitive object: «убоясь» is an old perfective gerund of «убояться» (to take fright) — "having taken fright at" — a bookish «-сь» form. The verb «бояться» governs the genitive, so its objects «цинизма и разврата» (cynicism and debauchery) stand in the genitive of the thing feared.
> Imperfective gerund of accompanying action: «приписывая» is a present (imperfective) gerund of «приписывать» (to ascribe), "ascribing," running parallel to the main verb «бросаются» (fling themselves) — both share the subject «многие». The gerund stacks a simultaneous attitude onto the main action, a signature of dense literary narration.
> «лишь бы» — "if only / so long as not": «лишь бы» ("if only, just so that") with the irrealis «бы» introduces a desperate sole condition: «лишь бы не видеть их пугающих ужасов» = "only so as not to see the horrors that frighten them." It marks the minimal thing wished for above all else.

С моей стороны я желаю доброму и даровитому юноше всего лучшего, желаю, чтоб его юное прекраснодушие и стремление к народным началам не обратилось впоследствии, как столь часто оно случается, со стороны нравственной в мрачный мистицизм, а со стороны гражданской в тупой шовинизм — два качества, грозящие, может быть, еще большим злом нации, чем даже раннее растление от ложно понятого и даром добытого европейского просвещения, каким страдает старший брат его».  
For my part, I wish this kind and gifted youth all the best; I wish that his youthful fine-feeling and his striving toward the native principles may not later turn — as so often happens — on the moral side into a gloomy mysticism, and on the civic side into a dull chauvinism, two qualities that threaten the nation with perhaps an even greater evil than even the early corruption born of a falsely understood and cheaply acquired European enlightenment from which his elder brother suffers."
> «чтоб(ы)» + past-form irrealis of wish: After «желаю» (I wish), the clause takes «чтоб(ы)» plus a past-tense verb «не обратилось» — the willed/hypothetical mood. «чтобы» fuses «что» + «бы»; the past form here is not past time but irrealis: "that it might not turn." «обратиться в» + accusative = to turn into.
> «прекраснодушие» — high-flown sentimentality: A compound of «прекрасная душа» (beautiful soul), calquing the German Schöne Seele, it names a noble but naive, impractical idealism — "fine-feeling" with an edge of mockery. The prosecutor grants Alyosha the trait while gently warning it may curdle.
> Present active participle + instrumental of «грозить»: «грозящие» is a present active participle of «грозить» (to threaten), agreeing with «два качества». The verb «грозить» governs the instrumental of the threatened evil: «грозящие ... большим злом нации» = "threatening the nation with a greater evil," with «нации» in the dative as the one threatened.

За шовинизм и мистицизм опять раздались было два-три клака.  
At "chauvinism" and "mysticism" two or three claps broke out again.
> The frustrative «было»: The particle «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun but checked or undone: «раздались было ... клака» = "two or three claps started up (but then died away)." This "frustrative" «было» is a fine 19th-century touch signaling an action that didn't take hold.
> «клака» — claque: A French borrowing («claque») for a hired or partisan group of clappers, and by extension the bursts of applause they produce. The faintly foreign, theatrical word casts the courtroom audience as a performance crowd reacting to the prosecutor's rhetoric.

И уж конечно, Ипполит Кириллович увлекся, да и всё это мало подходило к настоящему делу, не говоря уже о том, что вышло довольно неясно, но уж слишком захотелось высказаться чахоточному и озлобленному человеку хоть раз в своей жизни.  
And of course Ippolit Kirillovitch had let himself be carried away, and all this had little bearing on the case at hand, not to mention that it came out rather obscurely; but the consumptive, embittered man wanted all too much to speak his mind at least once in his life.
> Reflexive «увлечься» — got carried away: «увлекся» is the perfective past of the «-ся» verb «увлечься» (to be carried away, get caught up). The reflexive marks a change of inner state happening *to* the subject — the prosecutor lost himself in his own eloquence. «уж» (= «уже») here is intensifying, "and of course indeed."
> Impersonal «захотелось» + dative experiencer: «захотелось» is an impersonal reflexive: there is no nominative subject, and the one who wants stands in the dative — «чахоточному и озлобленному человеку» = "the consumptive, embittered man." Literally "to the man there came a wanting to speak out." This dative-experiencer frame seats desire as something that befalls one.
> «чахоточный» — consumptive: From «чахотка», the old word for tuberculosis ("the wasting"), «чахоточный» means consumptive. Ippolit Kirillovitch is dying of TB — a fact that lends his "speak out at least once in his life" a poignant, mortal urgency the prosecutor's bluster conceals.

У нас потом говорили, что в характеристике Ивана Федоровича он руководился чувством даже неделикатным, потому что тот раз или два публично осадил его в спорах, и Ипполит Кириллович, помня это, захотел теперь отомстить.  
It was said among us afterward that in his sketch of Ivan Fyodorovitch he was guided by a feeling that was even indelicate, because the latter had once or twice publicly worsted him in disputes, and Ippolit Kirillovitch, remembering it, had now wanted to take his revenge.
> Impersonal «говорили» — "it was said": The subjectless 3rd-plural «говорили» ("they said / it was said") is Russian's standard way to report rumor without naming a source. «У нас» ("among us, in our town") localizes the gossip. The «что»-clause then reports the content of what was said.
> Instrumental after «руководиться»: «руководиться» (to be guided by) governs the instrumental: «руководился чувством ... неделикатным» = "was guided by an ... indelicate feeling." The adjective «неделикатным» agrees with «чувством» in the instrumental — the instrumental of the guiding motive.
> «осадить» — to take down a peg: «осадить» literally "to rein in / make settle" (as a horse), figuratively to rebuff or put someone firmly in their place. «тот раз или два публично осадил его» = Ivan had publicly "worsted" / put down the prosecutor in disputes — the wound behind the alleged grudge.

Но не знаю, можно ли было так заключить.  
But I do not know whether one could draw such a conclusion.
> Embedded «ли» — "whether": After «не знаю» (I don't know), «ли» introduces an indirect yes/no question meaning "whether": «можно ли было так заключить» = "whether one could draw such a conclusion." «можно было» is the impersonal "it was possible"; the whole is a subjectless modal clause.

Во всяком случае, всё это было только введением, затем речь пошла прямее и ближе к делу.  
In any event, all this was merely a preamble; thereafter the speech proceeded more directly and closer to the matter.
> Comparatives «прямее», «ближе»: «прямее» (more directly, from «прямой») and «ближе» (closer, suppletive-style from «близкий») are predicative comparatives in «-ее/-е», invariable. «пошла прямее» = "went on more directly"; the perfective «пошла» ("set off, proceeded") marks the speech's turn toward the substance.

«Но вот третий сын отца современного семейства, — продолжал Ипполит Кириллович, — он на скамье подсудимых, он перед нами.  
"But here is the third son of a contemporary father of a family," Ippolit Kirillovitch went on. "He is in the prisoner's dock, he stands before us.
> Zero copula + emphatic repetition: Two verbless present-tense equations: «он на скамье подсудимых» (he [is] in the dock), «он перед нами» (he [is] before us). Russian needs no "is"; the bare locative phrases predicate directly, and the anaphoric «он ... он» drives the rhetoric.

Перед нами и его подвиги, его жизнь и дела его: пришел срок, и всё развернулось, всё обнаружилось.  
Before us, too, are his exploits, his life and his deeds: the hour came, and everything unfolded, everything was laid bare.
> Chain of perfectives moving the narrative: Three perfective past verbs fire in sequence — «пришел» (came), «развернулось» (unfolded), «обнаружилось» (was laid bare) — each a single completed event advancing the story. The last two are «-ся» middles: things that "unfolded/revealed themselves." The staccato perfectives give the climax its momentum.

В противоположность „европеизму“ и „народным началам“ братьев своих, он как бы изображает собою Россию непосредственную — о, не всю, не всю, и боже сохрани, если бы всю!  
In contrast to the "Europeanism" and the "native principles" of his brothers, he, as it were, embodies in himself the direct, elemental Russia — oh, not all of it, not all of it, and God forbid it were all!
> «изображать собою» + reflexive «собою»: «изображать собою» means "to embody / represent in one's own person," with the instrumental reflexive «собою» (= «собой», "by oneself"). «он как бы изображает собою Россию непосредственную» = "he, as it were, embodies in himself the elemental Russia." «собою» is the bookish variant ending.
> Vocative «боже» + conditional «если бы»: «боже» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «бог» (God), surviving in the exclamation «боже сохрани!» (God forbid!). The trailing «если бы всю» is an elliptical counterfactual with «бы»: "if [it were] all of it" — God forbid the *whole* of Russia were like Mitya.
> «непосредственный» — direct, spontaneous, elemental: «непосредственный» literally "un-mediated," hence direct, spontaneous, unreflecting. Applied to Russia and to Mitya, it names a raw, unfiltered vitality — feeling without intellectual mediation. The postposed adjective «Россию непосредственную» lends it weight, almost a title: "Russia-the-elemental."

И, однако же, тут она, наша Россеюшка, пахнет ею, слышится она, матушка!  
And yet here she is, our dear little Russia, the scent of her, the sound of her — our little mother!
> Affectionate diminutives: «Россеюшка» is a tender diminutive of «Россия» (Russia), and «матушка» is an endearing form of «мать» (mother). Russian forms such suffixes («-юшка», «-ушка») to add warmth and intimacy; here they make the prosecutor's patriotic outburst sound folksy and heartfelt. The diminutives have no neat English equivalent — we reach for "our dear little Russia" and "our little mother" to carry the same affectionate, homespun ring.
> Impersonal «пахнет» + reflexive «слышится»: «пахнет ею» is impersonal — no subject — with the source of the smell in the instrumental «ею» ("there is a scent of her"). «слышится она» uses the «-ся» middle of «слышать»: "she is heard / makes herself heard." Both frame Russia as a presence sensed rather than an object acted upon.

О, мы непосредственны, мы зло и добро в удивительнейшем смешении, мы любители просвещения и Шиллера и в то же время мы бушуем по трактирам и вырываем у пьянчужек, собутыльников наших, бороденки.  
Oh, we are elemental; we are evil and good in the most astonishing blend; we are lovers of enlightenment and of Schiller, and at the very same time we brawl in the taverns and tear out the little beards of the drunkards, our boon companions.
> Superlative suffix «-ейш-»: «удивительнейшем» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «удивительный» (astonishing), formed with «-ейш-»: "in the most astonishing blend." This suffix superlative is more literary than the everyday «самый удивительный»; it declines and agrees like an adjective (here prepositional).
> Contemptuous diminutives «пьянчужка», «бороденка»: Both nouns carry belittling expressive suffixes: «пьянчужка» (a pathetic little drunk, from «пьяница») and «бороденка» (a scraggly little beard, from «борода»). The pejorative «-ужк-»/«-ёнк-» suffixes drip with contempt, painting the tavern scene as squalid even as the prosecutor savors it.

О, и мы бываем хороши и прекрасны, но только тогда, когда нам самим хорошо и прекрасно.  
Oh, we too can be fine and splendid, but only then, when we ourselves are doing fine and splendidly.
> Dative experiencer «нам самим»: «нам самим хорошо» = "when *we ourselves* are doing well," the impersonal well-being construction again: dative «нам» plus the intensifier «самим» (also dative) plus predicate adverb «хорошо», no subject. The whole sentence pivots on this dative-seated contentment.

Напротив, мы даже обуреваемы — именно обуреваемы — благороднейшими идеалами, но только с тем условием, чтоб они достигались сами собою, упадали бы к нам на стол с неба и, главное, чтобы даром, даром, чтобы за них ничего не платить.  
On the contrary, we are even seized — yes, positively seized — by the noblest ideals, but only on the condition that they be attained of themselves, that they drop onto our table from heaven, and, above all, for free, for free, so that we need pay nothing for them.
> Present passive «обуреваемы» + instrumental agent: «обуреваемы» is the short form of a rare present passive participle of «обуревать» (to seize, overwhelm) — "we are [being] seized." The agent stands in the instrumental: «благороднейшими идеалами» (by the noblest ideals), itself a «-ейш-» superlative. This present passive in «-ем-» is markedly bookish.
> «чтоб(ы)» purpose with past/«бы» forms: The condition runs through «чтоб» + irrealis: «достигались» (past of the «-ся» passive "be attained") and «упадали бы ... с неба» (would drop from the sky) both express the willed, hypothetical outcome. «сами собою» = "of themselves, on their own," the reflexive «собою» reinforcing self-action.

Платить мы ужасно не любим, зато получать очень любим, и это во всем.  
Paying we dreadfully dislike, whereas receiving we very much like, and so it is in everything.
> Fronted infinitives + contrastive «зато»: The infinitives «платить» (to pay) and «получать» (to receive) are fronted as topics: "Paying we dislike, whereas receiving we love." «зато» is the compensatory "but on the other hand, to make up for it," balancing the two halves. The word order stages the antithesis.

О, дайте, дайте нам всевозможные блага жизни (именно всевозможные, дешевле не помиримся) и особенно не препятствуйте нашему нраву ни в чем, и тогда и мы докажем, что можем быть хороши и прекрасны.  
Oh, give us, give us every possible good thing in life (precisely every possible one — for less we will not be reconciled) and above all do not thwart our temperament in anything, and then we too shall prove that we can be fine and splendid.
> Imperative «дайте» + dative recipient: «дайте» is the polite/plural imperative of «дать» (to give); the recipient «нам» (to us) is dative and the gift «всевозможные блага» (every possible good) accusative — the classic give-someone-something frame. The doubling «дайте, дайте» is rhetorical insistence.
> «препятствовать» + dative; negative concord: «препятствовать» (to hinder) governs the dative «нашему нраву» (our temperament) — one hinders *to* something. The negated imperative pulls in «ни в чем» ("in nothing"), which by negative concord needs the «не» on the verb: "do not thwart ... in anything."

Мы не жадны, нет, но, однако же, подавайте нам денег, больше, больше, как можно больше денег, и вы увидите, как великодушно, с каким презрением к презренному металлу мы разбросаем их в одну ночь в безудержном кутеже.  
We are not greedy — no — but all the same, hand us money, more, more, as much money as can be, and you shall see how magnanimously, with what contempt for that contemptible metal, we will scatter it all in a single night in unbridled revelry.
> Imperative «подавайте» + partitive genitive: «подавайте» (imperative of «подавать», hand over/serve up) takes the partitive genitive «денег» (some money) rather than accusative — the genitive of indefinite quantity, "hand us *of* money." «больше» is the comparative "more." The serving-up verb adds a faintly imperious, tavern-order flavor.
> «презренный металл» — "filthy lucre": «презренный металл» ("the contemptible/despised metal") is a stock ironic euphemism for money, much like English "filthy lucre." The pun «с ... презрением к презренному металлу» ("with contempt for the contemptible metal") plays «презрение» against «презренный» — a deliberate verbal flourish.

А не дадут нам денег, так мы покажем, как мы их сумеем достать, когда нам очень того захочется.  
And if they do not give us money, then we will show how we can get hold of it when we very much want to.
> Conditional-by-juxtaposition + genitive of negation: A bare "if...then" formed by juxtaposition: «не дадут ... так покажем» = "[if] they don't give ... then we'll show." «так» here is the resumptive "then." Under negation the object goes genitive: «не дадут денег» (won't give [any] money). «дадут» / «покажем» are perfective futures.
> Impersonal «захочется» in a «когда»-clause: «сумеем достать» (perfective future, "will manage to get") sets up the threat; the «когда»-clause uses the impersonal «нам ... захочется» — dative experiencer «нам», intensified by «очень того» (genitive "of that") — "when we very much come to want it." Desire again falls on the dative.

Но об этом после, будем следить по порядку.  
But of that later; let us follow things in order.
> Imperfective compound future as exhortation: «будем следить» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive «следить», to follow/track), used hortatively: "let us follow [things]." The imperfective fits an ongoing, step-by-step proceeding; «по порядку» = "in order, in sequence."

Прежде всего пред нами бедный заброшенный мальчик, „на заднем дворе без сапожек“, как выразился давеча наш почтенный и уважаемый согражданин, увы, происхождения иностранного!  
First of all, before us is a poor, neglected boy, "in the back yard without boots," as our worthy and esteemed fellow citizen — of foreign extraction, alas — put it a short while ago.
> Diminutive «сапожки» — "little boots": «сапожки» is the diminutive of «сапоги» (boots); «на заднем дворе без сапожек» = "in the back yard without [his little] boots." The tender suffix evokes the pathos of the small, neglected child — defenseless and shoeless — that the defense's earlier speech invoked.
> Reflexive «выразиться» + archaic «давеча»: «выразиться» (the «-ся» verb, to express oneself, put it) introduces the quotation: "as our fellow citizen put it." «давеча» is a colloquial-archaic adverb for "a little while ago, earlier today" — a homely period word that dates the diction.
> «происхождения иностранного» — of foreign extraction: The postposed adjective in «происхождения иностранного» (genitive of quality, "of foreign origin") points to Dr. Herzenstube, the elderly German town doctor who testified earlier and originated the "back yard without boots" image of the neglected boy Mitya. The genitive-of-attribution and the inverted, weighty word order give the aside its barbed, formal sting.

Еще раз повторю — никому не уступлю защиту подсудимого!  
Once more I repeat — I will yield the prisoner's defense to no one!
> Negative concord with dative «никому»: «никому ... не уступлю» = "I will yield to no one": the negative dative pronoun «никому» (to nobody) obligatorily co-occurs with «не» on the verb — Russian double negation. «уступлю» is a perfective future ("I shall [not] yield"), and «защиту» its accusative object.

Я обвинитель, я и защитник.  
I am the prosecutor, and I am the defender too.
> Zero copula + emphatic «и»: Two verbless equations: «Я обвинитель» (I [am] the prosecutor), «я и защитник» (I [am] the defender too). With no copula, the predicate nouns stand in the nominative. The «и» before «защитник» means "also, as well" — "I am the defender too."

Да-с, и мы люди, и мы человеки, и мы сумеем взвесить то, как могут повлиять на характер первые впечатления детства и родного гнездышка.  
Yes indeed, we too are human beings, we too are men, and we too can weigh how the first impressions of childhood and of the native nest may shape a character.
> The deferential particle «-с»: «Да-с» is «да» plus the enclitic «-с», a contraction of «сударь» (sir) once appended for politeness or, by Dostoevsky's day, ironic deference and unctuousness. The prosecutor's «Да-с» strikes a mock-humble, buttonholing tone. «человеки» is an archaic/elevated plural of «человек» (alongside the usual «люди»).
> Perfective future + diminutive «гнездышко»: «сумеем взвесить» = "we will be able to weigh" (perfective future). The object «первые впечатления детства и родного гнездышка» ends on the diminutive «гнездышко» (little nest), from «гнездо» — the cozy "native nest" of childhood, its tender suffix coloring the whole image with warmth.

Но вот мальчик уже юноша, уже молодой человек, офицер, за буйные поступки и за вызов на поединок ссылают его в один из отдаленных пограничных городков нашей благодатной России.  
But here now the boy is a youth already, already a young man, an officer; for riotous conduct and for issuing a challenge to a duel he is exiled to one of the remote frontier towns of our bounteous Russia.
> Impersonal 3rd-plural «ссылают»: «ссылают его» is the subjectless 3rd-person-plural "they exile him" — an impersonal agentless construction, English passive "he is exiled." The grounds take «за» + accusative: «за буйные поступки и за вызов на поединок» (for riotous conduct and for a challenge to a duel).
> «благодатный» — bounteous, grace-filled: «благодатный» (from «благодать», divine grace/bounty) means abundant, blessed, grace-bestowing — a word with religious overtones applied to Russia's vastness. «нашей благодатной России» = "our bounteous Russia," patriotic and faintly ironic given that this blessed land is a place of exile.

Там он служит, там и кутит, и конечно — большому кораблю большое и плавание.  
There he serves, there too he carouses — and of course, a big ship needs deep waters.
> "A big ship needs deep waters": A Russian proverb, literally "to a big ship, a big voyage," meaning a person of great ability or grand appetites needs a correspondingly wide scope. The prosecutor uses it ironically about Mitya's extravagance. There is no fixed English equivalent that keeps the ship image, so we render it as "a big ship needs deep waters" to preserve both the picture and the ironic grandeur.
> Dative of the recipient in the proverb: The proverb's grammar is pure dative: «большому кораблю» (to a big ship) is the dative recipient, «большое плавание» the nominative thing apportioned to it, with no verb — "to a big ship, a big voyage." The case alone carries the "belongs to / is due to" relation.

Нам надо средств-с, средств прежде всего, и вот, после долгих споров, порешено у него с отцом на последних шести тысячах рублях, и их ему высылают.  
We must have means, sir, means first of all; and so, after long disputes, matters are settled between him and his father over a last six thousand roubles, and the money is sent to him.
> Dative of necessity + genitive object: «надо» is the impersonal predicate of need, taking a dative experiencer «нам» ("we must / we need") and no nominative subject. Its object «средств» (means) stands in the genitive — the partitive/genitive-with-need pattern. The «-с» on «средств-с» is again the obsequious deferential clitic.
> Impersonal short passive «порешено»: «порешено» is a short past passive participle used impersonally — "it was settled / decided," with no subject. The parties appear as «у него с отцом» ("between him and his father," «у» + genitive plus «с» + instrumental). «на ... тысячах рублях» fixes the amount agreed.

Заметьте, он выдал документ, и существует письмо его, в котором он от остального почти отрекается и этими шестью тысячами препирание с отцом по наследству оканчивает.  
Note that he gave a document, and there exists a letter of his in which he all but renounces the remainder and, with these six thousand, makes an end of his wrangling with his father over the inheritance.
> Imperative «заметьте» — "note that": «Заметьте» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «заметить» (to notice), used as a discourse marker steering the listeners: "Note that..." The perfective frames it as a single act of attention the jury is to perform now.
> Reflexive «отрекаться» + «от» + genitive: «отрекаться» (to renounce, disown) is a «-ся» verb governing «от» + genitive: «от остального ... отрекается» = "renounces the rest." The «-ся» here is lexical (the verb exists only with it); «от остального» (of the remainder) is the genitive demanded by «от».
> «препирание» — wrangling, squabbling: A bookish verbal noun from «препираться» (to bicker, wrangle), meaning a petty, drawn-out quarrel. «препирание с отцом по наследству» = "the wrangling with his father over the inheritance" — the «по» + dative «наследству» marks the matter quarreled about.

Тут происходит его встреча с молодою, высокого характера и развития девушкой.  
Here occurs his meeting with a young girl of lofty character and breeding.
> Narrative present + reflexive «происходить»: «происходит» (the «-ся»-less but middle-meaning verb «происходить», to occur/take place) is in the historic present, giving the courtroom narration vividness. «встреча с ... девушкой» uses «с» + instrumental for the person met. The fronted «Тут» ("here, at this point") anchors the scene.
> Genitive of quality: «высокого характера и развития» is a genitive of quality describing «девушкой»: "a girl of lofty character and breeding." Russian frequently characterizes a noun with a bare genitive phrase like this, where English needs "of." «развитие» here means cultivation, refinement.

О, я не смею повторять подробностей, вы их только что слышали: тут честь, тут самоотвержение, и я умолкаю.  
Oh, I do not dare repeat the details — you have only just heard them: here was honor, here was self-sacrifice, and I fall silent.
> «не сметь» + genitive of negation: «не смею» (I dare not) takes the imperfective infinitive «повторять» (to repeat), whose object shifts to genitive under the overarching negation: «не ... повторять подробностей» (not repeat the details). The genitive of negation reaches down to the infinitive's object.
> Verbless existential «тут» + reflexive «умолкаю»: «тут честь, тут самоотвержение» are verbless existential statements — "here [was] honor, here [was] self-sacrifice" — the bare nominatives needing no copula. «умолкаю» (I fall silent) is from «умолкнуть»; «само-отвержение» is the compound "self-renunciation."

Образ молодого человека, легкомысленного и развратного, но склонившегося пред истинным благородством, пред высшею идеей, мелькнул перед нами чрезвычайно симпатично.  
The image of a young man, frivolous and debauched, yet bowing before true nobility, before a higher idea, flashed before us most sympathetically.
> Past active participle + archaic «пред»: «склонившегося» is a perfective past active participle of the «-ся» verb «склониться» (to bow down), in the genitive to agree with «человека» — "who had bowed before." «пред» is the bookish/archaic form of «перед» (before), governing the instrumental «истинным благородством». The chain compresses Mitya's moral gesture into a modifier.
> Perfective «мелькнул» — a single flash: «мелькнул» is the perfective past of «мелькнуть» (to flash, flit by) — a one-time, momentary action: the image "flashed before us." The «-ну-» suffix marks a single instantaneous event, contrasting with the imperfective «мелькать» (to keep flickering).

Но вдруг после того, в этой же самой зале суда последовала совсем неожиданно и оборотная сторона медали.  
But suddenly, after that, in this very same courtroom, came, quite unexpectedly, the reverse side of the medal as well.
> Inverted word order for the new turn: The verb «последовала» (followed, ensued) precedes its subject «оборотная сторона медали» (the reverse side of the medal), which lands last as the new, surprising information — "there came ... the reverse side." Adverbials «вдруг ... совсем неожиданно» (suddenly, quite unexpectedly) pile up in front, staging the reversal.
> «оборотная сторона медали» — the other side of the coin: A set idiom, "the reverse side of the medal," i.e. the hidden, less flattering aspect of something — English "the other side of the coin." The prosecutor uses it to swivel from Mitya's noble image to his damning one.

Опять-таки не смею пускаться в догадки и удержусь анализировать — почему так последовало.  
Once again I dare not venture into conjectures and will refrain from analyzing why it came to pass so.
> Reflexive verbs «пускаться» / «удержусь»: Both verbs are «-ся» forms: «пускаться в догадки» (to launch into conjectures, «в» + accusative) and «удержусь» (perfective future of «удержаться», to refrain, hold oneself back). The reflexive marks the action turned back on the subject — the speaker reins himself in.
> Emphatic «-таки» — "all the same": «опять-таки» joins «опять» (again) with the emphatic particle «-таки» ("after all, even so, nonetheless"), yielding "once again, yet again." «-таки» adds a note of insistence or concession, a small but characteristic coloring particle of spoken Russian.

Но, однако, были же причины — почему так последовало.  
And yet there were reasons—reasons why it all turned out as it did.
> Insistent «же» and emphatic word order: The particle «же» here is not contrastive but insistent — «there were after all reasons». The verb «были» is fronted before its subject «причины», throwing the existence itself into focus, a favourite rhetorical move of the prosecutor.
> Impersonal «последовало»: «Последовало» (it followed, it came about) is a neuter past with no personal subject — an impersonal turn that keeps the cause vague: things simply «turned out» this way. The neuter -о agrees with nothing, the signature of the subjectless construction.

Эта же самая особа, вся в слезах негодования, долго таившегося, объявляет нам, что он же, он же первый и презирал ее за ее неосторожный, безудержный, может быть, порыв, но всё же возвышенный, всё же великодушный.  
This very same person, all in tears of an indignation she had nursed for a long while, declares to us that he—he above all—was the very first to despise her for her rash, perhaps unrestrained, yet for all that lofty, for all that magnanimous impulse.
> Past active participle: «which had long been hidden»: «Таившегося» is the past active participle of «таиться» (to lurk, be concealed), in the genitive singular agreeing with «негодования». It compresses a whole который-clause — «an indignation that had long been festering» — into one bookish word.
> Hammering repetition with «же»: The doubled «он же, он же» drives the accusation home — «he, he of all people». «Же» fastens onto the repeated pronoun to mark it as the emphatic, almost incredulous focus, a rhythm the prosecutor exploits throughout.
> Concessive «всё же» and short-form rhetoric: «Всё же» means «for all that, still». Paired with the adjectives «возвышенный… великодушный» it concedes the impulse its nobility even while condemning it — the balanced, qualifying syntax of forensic oratory.
> «Негодование» — righteous indignation: A bookish, elevated noun for moral outrage, stronger and more dignified than ordinary anger («гнев»). It frames Katerina Ivanovna's tears as the wrath of wounded virtue, exactly the reading the prosecutor wants the jury to weigh.
> «Безудержный» — unrestrained: Literally «un-hold-back-able», from «удержать» (to hold back). A key Karamazov word: the prosecutor returns to «разнузданным, безудержным натурам» later — the boundless, ungovernable temperament he diagnoses in the whole family.

У него же, у жениха этой девушки, и промелькнула прежде всех та насмешливая улыбка, которую она лишь от него одного не могла снести.  
And it was on his face, the face of this girl's betrothed, that there flickered before anyone else's that mocking smile which she could endure from him, and from him alone, less than from anyone.
> Fronted «у него» with insistent «же»: «У + genitive» normally marks a possessor («at his»); here it locates the smile «on his face». Fronting the phrase and tagging it with «же» makes him the emphatic culprit before the verb «промелькнула» even arrives.
> «Промелькнуть» — to flash by: A perfective verb meaning to flit or flicker past in an instant, from «мелькать» (to flash). The prefix «про-» gives the momentary, completed sense — the smile «flickered» and was gone, caught only for a heartbeat.
> Relative «которую» in the accusative: «Которую» is feminine accusative, agreeing in gender and number with «улыбка» but taking the case its own clause demands — the object of «не могла снести» (could not bear). «От него одного» («from him alone») isolates the unbearable source.

Зная, что он уже изменил ей (изменил в убеждении, что она уже всё должна вперед сносить от него, даже измену его), зная это, она нарочно предлагает ему три тысячи рублей и ясно, слишком ясно дает ему при этом понять, что предлагает ему деньги на измену ей же: „Что ж, примешь или нет, будешь ли столь циничен“, — говорит она ему молча своим судящим и испытующим взглядом.  
Knowing that he had already betrayed her (betrayed her in the conviction that she was now bound to bear everything from him in advance, even his unfaithfulness)—knowing this, she deliberately offers him three thousand rubles and lets him understand, all too clearly, that what she is offering is money for his betrayal of her: "Well then, will you take it or not, will you prove so cynical?"—she says to him in silence, with her judging, probing gaze.
> Present gerund «зная» framing the action: «Зная» (knowing) is the imperfective present gerund of «знать» — an indeclinable verb-adverb sharing the subject «она». It sets the simultaneous background — «knowing this…» — under which she then «deliberately offers». The repetition «зная это» after the parenthesis resumes the thread.
> «Изменить» + dative: to be unfaithful to: «Изменить» in the sense «to betray, be unfaithful» governs the dative («ей» — to her), unlike its other sense «to change something» (accusative). The dative names the wronged party. The deverbal noun «измену» (betrayal) recurs in the same sentence.
> Case after numerals: «три тысячи рублей»: «Три» takes the genitive singular «тысячи», and «тысячи» in turn governs the genitive plural «рублей» — Russian's layered numeral agreement. These three thousand roubles are the fixed idea around which the whole speech turns.
> «Испытующий» — searching, testing: The present active participle of «испытывать» (to test, to put to the proof), used as an adjective: a «testing, probing» gaze. Paired with «судящим» (judging) it turns her silent look into an interrogation — she is putting him on trial with her eyes.
> Perfective future and the question particle «ли»: «Примешь» is the simple (perfective) future of «принять» — «will you take it». «Будешь ли» fronts the verb with the literary yes/no particle «ли» («will you be so cynical?»). «Столь» is the bookish «so», and «циничен» a short-form predicate adjective.

Он глядит на нее, понимает ее мысли совершенно (он ведь сам сознался здесь при вас, что он всё понимал) и безусловно присвояет себе эти три тысячи и прокучивает их в два дня с своею новою возлюбленной!  
He looks at her, he understands her thoughts perfectly (he confessed it himself, here, in your presence, that he understood everything), and without the slightest scruple he takes those three thousand for his own and squanders them in two days with his new beloved!
> Appeal-to-shared-knowledge «ведь»: «Ведь» invites the jury to recall what they already witnessed — «he did, after all, confess it himself, here, before you». It is the prosecutor leaning on common ground rather than asserting anew. «Сам» (himself) underscores that the admission was his own.
> «Присвоять/присвоить» — to appropriate: To take for oneself, to appropriate (often wrongfully) — a legally loaded verb. The form «присвояет» is an older imperfective beside the modern «присваивает»; the prosecutor uses the bookish variant to brand the act as misappropriation.
> «Прокутить» — to blow on carousing: To squander money in drinking and revelry, from «кутить» (to carouse) with the prefix «про-» of using-up. A vivid, colloquial word that recurs across the passage («прокутил», «прокучу») and paints Mitya's two-day spree in lurid colour.
> Reflexive «себе»: takes for himself: The dative reflexive «себе» («to/for himself») points back to the subject — he appropriates the money to his own use. It is the full reflexive pronoun, distinct from the verbal clitic -ся, and sharpens the selfishness of the act.

Чему же верить?  
What, then, are we to believe?
> Dative object of «верить» + rhetorical «же»: «Верить» (to believe, to trust) governs the dative, so «чему» (what) appears in the dative «чему». The bare infinitive with no subject forms a deliberative question — «what is one to believe?» — and «же» gives it the exasperated, rhetorical edge.

Первой ли легенде — порыву ли высокого благородства, отдающего последние средства для жизни и преклоняющегося пред добродетелью, или оборотной стороне медали, столь отвратительной?  
The first legend—an impulse of lofty nobility, surrendering its last means of subsistence and bowing before virtue—or the reverse side of the medal, a side so loathsome?
> Disjunctive questions with «ли»: Repeated «ли» strings the alternatives into a forensic either/or: «the first legend… or the reverse side?» Both nouns stand in the dative («легенде», «порыву») as objects of the implied «верить» from the previous line.
> Chained present active participles: Two present active participles in the genitive — «отдающего» (giving away) and «преклоняющегося» (bowing down) — both modify «порыву», stacking a relative-clause's worth of description into the noun phrase. This participial layering is the hallmark of high literary style.
> «Оборотная сторона медали» — the other side of the coin: Literally «the reverse side of the medal», an idiom for the hidden, uglier aspect of a thing. The prosecutor sets the noble «legend» against this «отвратительной» (loathsome) flip side — the rhetorical antithesis on which the whole passage is built.

Обыкновенно в жизни бывает так, что при двух противоположностях правду надо искать посередине; в настоящем случае это буквально не так.  
In life it usually happens that, given two opposites, the truth is to be sought somewhere in the middle; in the present case that is literally not so.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо искать» is a subjectless construction of necessity — «one must seek». There is no nominative subject; the invariable «надо» plus the infinitive carries «it is necessary to». «Правду» is the accusative object of «искать».
> Imperfective «бывает» for the general rule: «Бывает» (it happens, tends to be) is the iterative imperfective of «быть», naming what usually occurs as a general fact. The prosecutor states the rule in the habitual imperfective, then sets «в настоящем случае» (in the present case) against it.

Вероятнее всего, что в первом случае он был искренно благороден, а во втором случае так же искренно низок.  
Most likely, in the first case he was sincerely noble, and in the second just as sincerely base.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «Благороден» and «низок» are short-form adjectives, used predicatively after «был» to state his condition — noble in the one case, base in the other. The short form lends the antithesis its crisp, almost aphoristic balance.
> Contrastive «а» balancing the two cases: «А» is the mild contrastive conjunction that pivots between parallel halves — «in the first case noble, and in the second base». Not strong opposition but a topic-shift, the untranslatable hinge that lets Russian set two pictures side by side.

Почему?  
Why?

А вот именно потому, что мы натуры широкие, карамазовские, — я ведь к тому и веду, — способные вмещать всевозможные противоположности и разом созерцать обе бездны, бездну над нами, бездну высших идеалов, и бездну под нами, бездну самого низшего и зловонного падения.  
For the very reason that we are broad natures, Karamazov natures—and this is precisely what I am driving at—capable of containing every imaginable contradiction and of contemplating both abysses at once: the abyss above us, the abyss of the highest ideals, and the abyss beneath us, the abyss of the lowest and most fetid degradation.
> «Ведь» and the idiom «к тому и веду»: «Ведь» again appeals to the listener — «that, after all, is just what I am driving at». «К тому веду» («I'm leading up to that») is an idiomatic aside; «и» here intensifies («precisely that»). The parenthesis is the orator stepping out to flag his own argument.
> Long-form adjective governing two infinitives: «Способные» (capable, plural, agreeing with «натуры») takes two infinitives — «вмещать» (to contain) and «созерцать» (to contemplate) — spelling out the capacity. The bookish «созерцать» (to contemplate, behold) lifts the register toward the metaphysical.
> «Зловонный» — foul-smelling: A compound of «зло-» (evil/ill) and «вонь» (stench) — «evil-smelling, fetid». Yoked to «падения» (a fall, degradation), it makes the lower abyss not merely sinful but physically reeking, the prosecutor reaching for sensory disgust.

Вспомните блестящую мысль, высказанную давеча молодым наблюдателем, глубоко и близко созерцавшим всю семью Карамазовых, господином Ракитиным: „Ощущение низости падения так же необходимо этим разнузданным, безудержным натурам, как и ощущение высшего благородства“, — и это правда: именно им нужна эта неестественная смесь постоянно и беспрерывно.  
Recall the brilliant thought voiced a short while ago by that young observer who has watched the whole Karamazov family deeply and at close range, Mr. Rakitin: "The sense of the baseness of their fall is as necessary to these unbridled, unrestrained natures as the sense of the highest nobility"—and it is the truth: it is precisely this unnatural mixture that they need, constantly and without cease.
> Passive and active participles stacked together: «Высказанную» is a past passive participle (accusative, agreeing with «мысль») — «the thought voiced». «Созерцавшим» is a past active participle (instrumental, agreeing with «наблюдателем») — «who had contemplated». Two participle types govern the same sentence, a dense study-edition specimen.
> «Давеча» — a short while ago: A colloquial, slightly old-fashioned adverb meaning «just now, a little while back». It places Rakitin's remark earlier in the same trial and gives the prosecutor's speech a spoken, conversational warmth amid the formal register.
> Dative of need: «им нужна»: «Нужна» (needed) agrees with the feminine «смесь», and the one who needs stands in the dative — «им» (to them). This is the experiencer-dative pattern: not «they need» but «to them is needed», so different from English. «Именно» fronts it for emphasis.
> «Разнузданный» — unbridled: Literally «un-bridled», from «узда» (a bridle): a horse with the bit slipped. Applied to «натурам», it brands the temperament as having thrown off all restraint — paired here with «безудержным» to redouble the image of ungoverned passion.

Две бездны, две бездны, господа, в один и тот же момент — без того мы несчастны и неудовлетворены, существование наше неполно.  
Two abysses, two abysses, gentlemen, in one and the same moment—without that we are wretched and unsatisfied, our existence incomplete.
> Short-form predicates and the conditional «без того»: «Несчастны», «неудовлетворены», «неполно» are all short-form adjectives stating a condition — «we are wretched… incomplete». «Без того» («without that») compresses a whole conditional clause into a phrase: without the two abysses, the state described follows.

Мы широки, широки, как вся наша матушка Россия, мы всё вместим и со всем уживемся!  
We are broad, broad, as broad as our whole Mother Russia; we will take everything in and make our peace with everything!
> Perfective futures of boast: «Вместим» (we will take in) and «уживемся» (we will get along with) are both perfective simple futures — single, complete acts projected forward. The reflexive «уживёмся» (from «ужиться», to coexist, make one's peace) governs «со всем» (with everything) in the instrumental.

Кстати, господа присяжные заседатели, мы коснулись теперь этих трех тысяч рублей, и я позволю себе несколько забежать вперед.  
Incidentally, gentlemen of the jury, we have now touched upon these three thousand rubles, and I shall permit myself to run a little ahead.
> Reflexive «позволю себе» + idiom «забежать вперёд»: «Позволю себе» («I shall permit myself») uses the dative reflexive «себе» — a polite, formal self-licensing turn. «Забежать вперёд» («to run ahead») is the idiom for getting ahead of one's argument; «несколько» softens it to «a little».

Вообразите только, что он, этот характер, получив тогда эти деньги, да еще таким образом, чрез такой стыд, чрез такой позор, чрез последней степени унижение, — вообразите только, что он в тот же день возмог будто бы отделить из них половину, зашить в ладонку и целый месяц потом иметь твердость носить их у себя на шее, несмотря на все соблазны и чрезвычайные нужды!  
Only picture it: that he, this character, having received that money at the time, and in such a fashion besides—through such shame, through such disgrace, through humiliation of the last degree—picture only that he was somehow able, that very same day, to set aside half of it, sew it into a little amulet, and then for a whole month have the firmness to carry it about on his neck, in spite of every temptation and the most extraordinary needs!
> Imperative «вообразите» framing the picture: «Вообразите» is the polite/plural imperative of «вообразить» (to imagine), -те marking the address to the jury. Repeated twice around the long parenthesis, it is the orator commanding his audience to visualise — a staple of forensic performance.
> Past gerund «получив» — «having received»: «Получив» is the perfective past gerund of «получить» (to receive) — «having received the money». It marks a completed prior action sharing the subject «он», setting the stage for what he was then «able» to do. The classic narrative gerund.
> Archaic «чрез» for «через»: «Чрез» is the bookish, Church-Slavonic-flavoured form of the preposition «через» (through), governing the accusative. The threefold anaphora «чрез… чрез… чрез…» drums the humiliation home with elevated, sermon-like rhythm.
> «Ладонка/ладанка» — a little amulet: A «ладанка» is a small cloth pouch worn on a cord round the neck, originally holding incense («ладан») or a relic, charm, or — as here — sewn-in money. The diminutive object becomes the speech's central symbol; Dostoevsky also calls it a «талисман».
> Archaic «возмог» and sceptical «будто бы»: «Возмог» is an elevated, archaic perfective «was able» (beside ordinary «смог»). «Будто бы» («supposedly, as if») injects the prosecutor's open doubt — he relays the claim while signalling he disbelieves it.

Ни в пьяном кутеже по трактирам, ни тогда, когда ему пришлось лететь из города доставать бог знает у кого деньги, необходимейшие ему, чтоб увезть свою возлюбленную от соблазнов соперника, отца своего, — он не осмеливается притронуться к этой ладонке.  
Neither in drunken carousing through the taverns, nor at the moment when he had to fly out of town to get money, God knows from whom, money he urgently needed in order to carry his beloved away from the temptations of his rival, his own father—he does not dare to touch that little amulet.
> Negative concord with «ни… ни»: The paired «ни… ни» («neither… nor») requires the verb still to take its negation — «он не осмеливается». This is Russian negative concord: the «ни» phrases intensify a negation that the verb must independently carry.
> Dative «ему» + «пришлось»: he had to: «Пришлось» (it fell to one, one had to) is an impersonal perfective whose experiencer goes in the dative — «ему» (to him). Not «he had to» but «to him it befell to»: the subjectless necessity construction so common in Dostoevsky's inner lives.
> Verbs of motion: «лететь» and «увезть»: «Лететь» (to fly, the unidirectional motion verb) is used figuratively for rushing off. «Увезть» (to carry away, by vehicle) is a prefixed perfective of motion — «у-» giving the sense of taking her off and away. «Доставать» (imperfective, to obtain) names the ongoing errand.
> «Необходимейший» — most indispensable: A bookish superlative in -ейш- built on «необходимый» (necessary): «the most utterly indispensable». The synthetic superlative belongs to the elevated register and heightens the urgency of the money he nonetheless will not touch.

Да хоть именно для того только, чтобы не оставлять свою возлюбленную на соблазны старика, к которому он так ревновал, он должен бы был распечатать свою ладонку и остаться дома неотступным сторожем своей возлюбленной, ожидая той минуты, когда она скажет ему наконец: „Я твоя“, чтоб лететь с нею куда-нибудь подальше из теперешней роковой обстановки.  
Why, if only for that very purpose—so as not to leave his beloved exposed to the temptations of the old man of whom he was so jealous—he ought to have unsealed his amulet and stayed at home as the unrelenting guardian of his beloved, waiting for the moment when she would say to him at last, "I am yours," so as to fly off with her somewhere farther away from the present, fatal situation.
> Conditional «должен бы был» — he ought to have: «Должен бы был» joins the modal «должен» to «был» plus the irrealis particle «бы», yielding the counterfactual «he ought to have». «Бы» turns the past into the hypothetical: this is what he should, but did not, do. The infinitives «распечатать… остаться» complete the obligation.
> Purpose «чтобы» and the gerund «ожидая»: «Чтобы + infinitive» states purpose — «in order not to leave». «Ожидая» is a present gerund («waiting»), an attendant circumstance running alongside «остаться сторожем». Note «той минуты» in the genitive, governed by «ожидать» (to await).
> «Неотступный сторож» — unrelenting guardian: «Сторож» is a watchman or guard; «неотступный» (from «отступать», to step back/retreat) means «never stepping away, relentless». Both nouns take the instrumental after «остаться» (to remain as) — the predicate-instrumental of an assumed role.

Но нет, он не касается своего талисмана, и под каким же предлогом?  
But no, he does not touch his talisman, and under what pretext?
> Rhetorical «же» in the question: «Же» sharpens the interrogative to incredulity — «and under what pretext, pray?» «Под… предлогом» takes the instrumental after «под». The terse «Но нет» (but no) before it stages a mock self-correction, the orator answering his own implied objection.
> «Талисман» — talisman: A learned, French-derived synonym for the «ладанка» of the previous lines. The prosecutor's switch from the homely Russian «ладонка» to the exotic «талисман» is faintly ironic, mocking the near-magical significance Mitya attaches to the pouch.

Первоначальный предлог, мы сказали, был именно тот, что когда ему скажут: „Я твоя, вези меня куда хочешь“, то было бы на что увезти.  
The original pretext, we have said, was precisely this: that when she should say to him, "I am yours, take me wherever you like," there would be something to take her away with.
> Conditional «было бы» with «бы»: «Было бы на что увезти» («there would be something to take her away with») is the irrealis «было» + «бы», a counterfactual provision. «На что» is the idiomatic «(the means) with which». «Скажут» is an impersonal 3rd-plural — «when one says / she should say».

Но этот первый предлог, по собственным словам подсудимого, побледнел перед вторым.  
But this first pretext, by the defendant's own words, paled before the second.
> «Побледнеть» — to pale before: Literally «to grow pale» (from «бледный», pale), used figuratively: the first pretext «paled» beside the second. «Перед» (before) governs the instrumental «вторым». A quietly vivid metaphor woven into the legal prose.

Поколь, дескать, я ношу на себе эти деньги — „я подлец, но не вор“, ибо всегда могу пойти к оскорбленной мною невесте и, выложив пред нею эту половину всей обманно присвоенной от нее суммы, всегда могу ей сказать: „Видишь, я прокутил половину твоих денег и доказал тем, что я слабый и безнравственный человек и, если хочешь, подлец (я выражаюсь языком самого подсудимого), но хоть и подлец, а не вор, ибо если бы был вором, то не принес бы тебе этой половины оставшихся денег, а присвоил бы и ее, как и первую половину“.  
So long, he claims, as I carry this money on me—"I am a scoundrel, but not a thief"—for I can always go to the bride I have wronged and, laying out before her this half of the whole sum I have fraudulently taken from her, I can always say to her: "You see, I have squandered half of your money and thereby proved that I am a weak and unprincipled man and, if you like, a scoundrel (I borrow the defendant's own language), but though a scoundrel, still not a thief, for had I been a thief I would not have brought you back this half of the money that remained, but would have taken it for my own, as I did the first half."
> Archaic «поколь» and reportative «дескать»: «Поколь» is a folksy, archaic «as long as» (modern «пока, поколе»). «Дескать» is a reportative particle flagging quoted or second-hand speech — «he claims, so he says» — distancing the prosecutor from the words he ventriloquises in Mitya's voice.
> «Подлец» vs «вор» — scoundrel, not thief: «Подлец» is a strong moral epithet — a base, contemptible scoundrel — while «вор» is the legal «thief». Mitya's whole self-justification hinges on this distinction: morally vile, yet not a criminal. The refrain recurs almost verbatim across the next paragraphs.
> Archaic «ибо» and the conditional with «бы»: «Ибо» is the bookish/Slavonic «for, because». The contrary-to-fact conditional «если бы был… то не принёс бы» uses «бы» in both clauses — «had I been a thief, I would not have brought». Note «вором» in the predicate instrumental after «был».
> Past gerund «выложив» + archaic «пред»: «Выложив» (having laid out) is a perfective past gerund of attendant prior action. «Пред» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед» (before), governing the instrumental «нею». Both touches lift the imagined speech into a loftier, more self-dramatising register.

Удивительное объяснение факта!  
An astonishing explanation of the fact!
> Ironic exclamation: «Удивительное» (astonishing, remarkable) is used with heavy irony — the prosecutor marvels sarcastically at the defence's reasoning. The clipped exclamatory noun-phrase, verbless, lands as a sneering rhetorical jab.

Этот самый бешеный, но слабый человек, не могший отказаться от соблазна принять три тысячи рублей при таком позоре, — этот самый человек ощущает вдруг в себе такую стоическую твердость и носит на своей шее тысячи рублей, не смея до них дотронуться!  
This very man, so frenzied yet so weak, who could not refuse the temptation of accepting three thousand rubles amid such disgrace—this very same man suddenly feels within himself a stoic firmness and carries thousands of rubles on his neck without daring to touch them!
> Past active participle «не могший»: «Могший» is the (rather rare and bookish) past active participle of «мочь» (to be able) — «who was not able». Negated and modifying «человек», it folds a relative clause into the noun phrase: «this man, who could not refuse the temptation».
> Emphatic «этот самый» repeated: «Этот самый» («this very same») is the demonstrative «этот» reinforced by «самый» for pointed identity. Its repetition around the dash drives the antithesis — the same weak man, suddenly «стоической» — that is the rhetorical core of the line.
> Negated gerund «не смея»: «Не смея» (not daring) is a negated present gerund of «сметь», an attendant circumstance to «носит» — «carries… without daring to touch». «Дотронуться до + genitive» (to touch) governs «них». The gerund neatly subordinates one action to the main verb.

Сообразно ли это хоть сколько-нибудь с разбираемым нами характером?  
Is this consistent in the least with the character we have been examining?
> Question particle «ли» + present passive participle: «Ли» forms the rhetorical yes/no question — «is this at all consistent?» «Разбираемым» is a present passive participle of «разбирать» (to examine), instrumental, agreeing with «характером»: «the character being examined by us». The instrumental «нами» names the agent.

Нет, и я позволю себе вам рассказать, как бы поступил в таком случае настоящий Дмитрий Карамазов, если бы даже и в самом деле решился зашить свои деньги в ладонку.  
No, and I shall permit myself to tell you how the real Dmitri Karamazov, the one we know, would have acted in such a case, even supposing he had in fact resolved to sew his money into an amulet.
> Double conditional with «бы»: Both the main clause «как бы поступил» (how he would have acted) and the «если бы… решился» clause carry «бы» — the full counterfactual: «how he would have acted, even had he in fact resolved». The reflexive «решился» (made up his mind) governs the infinitive «зашить».

При первом же соблазне — ну хоть чтоб опять чем потешить ту же новую возлюбленную, с которой уже прокутил первую половину этих же денег, — он бы расшил свою ладонку и отделил от нее, ну, положим, на первый случай хоть только сто рублей, ибо к чему-де непременно относить половину, то есть полторы тысячи, довольно и тысячи четырехсот рублей — ведь всё то же выйдет: „подлец, дескать, а не вор, потому что всё же хоть тысячу четыреста рублей да принес назад, а вор бы все взял и ничего не принес“.  
At the very first temptation—well, say, to amuse once again that same new beloved with whom he had already squandered the first half of this very money—he would have unstitched his amulet and detached from it, well, let us say, for the first occasion, just a hundred rubles, for why on earth must one return exactly half, that is, fifteen hundred—a thousand four hundred will do well enough, for it comes to the same thing in the end: "a scoundrel, you see, but not a thief, because for all that I did at least bring back a thousand four hundred rubles, whereas a thief would have taken everything and brought nothing back."
> Conditional narration with «бы»: The whole imagined sequence runs in the conditional — «он бы расшил… отделил» (he would have unstitched… detached). One «бы» can serve a chain of perfective past verbs. «Свою ладонку» uses the reflexive possessive «свою» — his own pouch.
> Reportative «-де», causal «ибо», folksy «да»: «-Де» is a reportative clitic like «дескать», flagging quoted self-talk. «Ибо» is the bookish «for/because». «Да принёс» uses «да» as an emphatic «did at least bring». The cluster mimics Mitya's own rambling, self-justifying inner voice.
> Compound numeral and case: «Тысячу четыреста рублей»: the round «тысячу» (accusative) plus «четыреста», with the noun in the genitive plural «рублей» governed by the hundreds. The prosecutor's mock-arithmetic — 1,500 versus 1,400 — parodies Mitya's penny-counting logic.

Затем еще через несколько времени опять расшил бы ладонку и опять вынул уже вторую сотню, затем третью, затем четвертую, и не далее как к концу месяца вынул бы наконец предпоследнюю сотню: дескать, и одну сотню принесу назад, всё то же ведь выйдет: „подлец, а не вор. Двадцать девять сотен прокутил, а всё же одну возвратил, вор бы и ту не возвратил“.  
Then, after a little more time, he would have unstitched the amulet again and again drawn out, now, a second hundred, then a third, then a fourth, and no later than the end of the month would have drawn out at last the next-to-last hundred—telling himself: well, I shall bring back even a single hundred, for it comes to the same thing anyway: "a scoundrel, but not a thief. Twenty-nine hundreds I squandered, yet one I returned all the same; a thief would not have returned even that one."
> Iterated conditional perfectives: The conditional continues, «бы» once again covering a string of perfective pasts — «would have unstitched… drawn out». The serial «затем третью, затем четвертую» (then a third, then a fourth) enacts the slow, inevitable slide the prosecutor predicts.
> Ordinal-style «предпоследнюю» and feminine «сотню»: «Предпоследнюю» («next-to-last», pred- + «последний») agrees as a long-form adjective with the accusative feminine «сотню» (a hundred, used as a count-noun for hundred-rouble units). «Сотня» is the colloquial counter the prosecutor adopts for vividness.
> Conditional «бы» with negation and «и… ту»: «Вор бы и ту не возвратил» — «a thief would not have returned even that one». «Бы» makes it hypothetical, «не» negates, and «и ту» («even that») is the emphatic «и» plus the far demonstrative «та». The imagined thief is the foil to Mitya's self-flattery.

И, наконец, уже прокутив эту предпоследнюю сотню, посмотрел бы на последнюю и сказал бы себе: „А ведь и впрямь не стоит относить одну сотню — давай и ту прокучу!“  
And at last, having squandered this next-to-last hundred, he would have looked at the final one and said to himself: "Why, in truth it isn't worth bringing back a single hundred—come, let me squander that one too!"
> Past gerund into the final conditional: «Прокутив» (having squandered) is a perfective past gerund leading into the conditional verbs «посмотрел бы… сказал бы» (would have looked… would have said). The gerund supplies the completed prior act; «бы» keeps the whole scene hypothetical.
> Hortative «давай» + «и ту»: «Давай… прокучу» («come, let me squander it») uses «давай» plus a perfective future for a first-person exhortation — the inner self egging itself on. «И ту» («that one too») marks the last hundred as the final surrender. «А ведь» opens with the appealing «ведь».

Вот как бы поступил настоящий Дмитрий Карамазов, какого мы знаем!  
That is how the real Dmitri Karamazov, the one we know, would have acted!
> Summative conditional + relative «какого»: «Вот как бы поступил» («that is how he would have acted») closes the hypothetical with the deictic «вот». «Какого мы знаем» («the one we know») is the relative «какой» in the animate accusative (= genitive), echoing the same tag from s146 for rhetorical bookending.

Легенда же об ладонке — это такое противоречие с действительностью, какого более и представить нельзя.  
But the legend of the amulet—that is a contradiction with reality of so flagrant a kind that none greater can even be imagined.
> Topic-marking «же» and archaic «об» before consonant: «Же» here marks a shift of topic — «as for the legend of the amulet». «Об ладонке» uses «об» before a consonant (modern usage prefers «о ладанке»), a 19th-century/Dostoevskian variant. The whole noun phrase is fronted as the new topic.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + genitive «какого»: «Нельзя представить» is the impersonal «one cannot imagine» — invariable «нельзя» plus infinitive, no subject. «Какого» (of which kind) is genitive, governed by the comparative «более» (a greater [contradiction] of which). A dense superlative-by-negation.

Можно предположить всё, а не это.  
One may suppose anything at all, but not this.
> Impersonal «можно» and contrastive «а не»: «Можно предположить» — impersonal «one may suppose», invariable «можно» plus infinitive. «А не это» («but not this») uses the contrastive «а» to carve the single exception out of «всё» (everything). Terse, antithetical, epigrammatic.

Но мы к этому еще вернемся».  
But we shall return to this yet."
> Perfective future «вернёмся» with «ещё»: «Вернёмся» is the perfective simple future of the reflexive «вернуться» (to return), governing «к этому» (to this) in the dative. «Ещё» («yet, still») promises a later return. The closing guillemet here marks the end of this stretch of the quoted speech.

Обозначив в порядке всё, что известно было судебному следствию об имущественных спорах и семейных отношениях отца с сыном, и еще, и еще раз выведя заключение, что, по известным данным, нет ни малейшей возможности определить в этом вопросе о дележе наследства, кто кого обсчитал или кто на кого насчитал, Ипполит Кириллович по поводу этих трех тысяч рублей, засевших в уме Мити как неподвижная идея, упомянул об медицинской экспертизе.  
Having set out in order everything that the judicial inquiry had established about the property disputes and the family relations of the father and son, and having once more, and yet again, drawn the conclusion that, on the known evidence, there is not the slightest possibility of determining, in this question of the division of the inheritance, who had shortchanged whom or who had overcharged whom, Ippolit Kirillovich, in connection with these three thousand rubles lodged in Mitya's mind like a fixed idea, made mention of the medical examination.
> Twin past gerunds opening the narration: «Обозначив» (having set out) and «выведя» (having drawn) are two perfective past gerunds opening the narrator's resumption, both sharing the subject «Ипполит Кириллович». They pack the whole survey into a subordinate prelude before the main verb «упомянул».
> Genitive of negation after «нет»: «Нет… возможности» forces the genitive: «there is no possibility». «Ни малейшей» («not the slightest», ни + genitive of «малейший», the superlative of «малый») intensifies the absence. A textbook genitive-of-negation under existential «нет».
> Past active participle «засевших»: «Засевших» is the past active participle of «засесть» (to lodge, become fixed), genitive plural agreeing with «рублей»: «the three thousand roubles lodged in Mitya's mind». «Митя» is the affectionate diminutive of Дмитрий, and even in the genitive «Мити» it keeps that intimate colouring.
---

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.