# The Brothers Karamazov, An Historical Survey

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c7. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c7.json.


«Экспертиза медиков стремилась доказать нам, что подсудимый не в своем уме и маньяк.  
"The medical examination sought to prove to us that the defendant is out of his mind and a maniac.
> "The defendant": «Подсудимый» (literally "the one under judgement," from «суд», court) is a nominalised passive participle now frozen as the legal noun "defendant, the accused." It declines like an adjective and runs as a leitmotif through the prosecutor's whole speech.
> Predicate phrase with no copula: «Подсудимый не в своем уме» — "the defendant is [not] in his right mind" — has no verb at all: present-tense "to be" is simply absent in Russian, and the prepositional phrase «в … уме» (prepositional case after «в») does the predicating directly. «Своем» is the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause's own subject.
> Imperfective "sought" + perfective "to prove": The imperfective past «стремилась» ("was striving, sought") frames the effort as an ongoing attempt, while the perfective infinitive «доказать» names the single intended result — to prove the point through. The aspect pairing quietly tells us the attempt was made but (the prosecutor implies) did not succeed.

Я утверждаю, что он именно в своем уме, но что это-то и всего хуже: был бы не в своем, то оказался бы, может быть, гораздо умнее.  
I maintain that he is precisely in his right mind, and that this is the very worst of it: had he been out of his mind, he might perhaps have turned out far cleverer.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: Both clauses use a past-tense verb plus the particle «бы» to build the irrealis: «был бы … оказался бы» = "had he been … he would have turned out." The «если» ("if") is dropped, as often in vivid speech, leaving the two «бы»-clauses to do the conditional work by themselves.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and superlative «всего хуже»: The hyphenated clitic «-то» pins emphasis on a known topic — "this is the very thing" — sharpening «это» into the crux of the matter. «Всего хуже» is the comparative «хуже» ("worse," suppletive from «плохой») used with genitive «всего» to mean "worse than all," i.e. "the worst of it."

Что же до того, что он маньяк, то с этим я бы и согласился, но именно в одном только пункте — в том самом, на который и экспертиза указывала, именно во взгляде подсудимого на эти три тысячи, будто бы недоплаченные ему отцом.  
As for his being a maniac, on that point I would even agree, but only on one single point — the very one the examination itself singled out, namely the defendant's view of those three thousand roubles supposedly underpaid to him by his father.
> Topicalising frame «что до … то»: «Что [же] до того … то …» is a bookish discourse frame — "as for …, [well] …" — that lifts a topic to the front before the main clause resumes with the correlative «то». The particle «же» adds a touch of insistence; this is a hallmark of formal, rhetorical 19th-century oratory.
> Concessive conditional «бы»: «Я бы … согласился» ("I would even agree") is the conditional/subjunctive: past-form verb plus «бы», here softening the prosecutor's concession. The intervening particle «и» ("even") shows how «бы» floats freely away from the verb toward the stressed word.
> «будто бы» — "supposedly, allegedly": «Будто бы» flags reported, doubted claims — "supposedly, as if" — distancing the speaker from the assertion. It modifies the past passive participle «недоплаченные» ("underpaid"), so the three thousand are only allegedly owed; the prosecutor signals his scepticism in a single particle.

Тем не менее, может быть, можно найти несравненно ближайшую точку зрения, чтоб объяснить это всегдашнее исступление подсудимого по поводу этих денег, чем наклонность его к помешательству.  
Even so, one may perhaps find an incomparably nearer point of view from which to explain the defendant's perpetual frenzy over this money than his alleged leaning toward derangement.
> Impersonal «можно» + purpose «чтоб»: «Можно найти» is a subjectless modal construction — "one may find" — with no nominative subject, the predicate carried by the invariable «можно» plus an infinitive. «Чтоб объяснить» is the purpose clause ("in order to explain"), the colloquial short form of «чтобы».
> «исступление» — frenzy bordering on madness: A high, bookish word for a state of being beside oneself — ecstatic or furious frenzy, near-derangement. Etymologically "a stepping out [of oneself]," it is a key term in this speech, where the prosecutor weighs Mitya's «исступление» against true «помешательство» (clinical madness).

С своей стороны, я вполне согласен с мнением молодого врача, находившего, что подсудимый пользуется и пользовался полными и нормальными умственными способностями, а был лишь раздражен и озлоблен.  
For my own part, I fully concur with the opinion of the young physician, who held that the defendant enjoys and has always enjoyed full and normal mental faculties, and was merely irritated and embittered.
> Past active participle «находившего»: «Находившего» is a past active participle from «находить» ("to find, hold an opinion"), agreeing with «врача» ("physician") in the genitive and compressing a «который»-clause into one word: "the physician who held that…" Such participial economy is the texture of literary Russian.
> Present + past of one imperfective verb: «Пользуется и пользовался» pairs the present and past of the imperfective «пользоваться» ("to enjoy, make use of") to say "enjoys and has always enjoyed." Only an imperfective verb can form this present tense; the doubling stresses continuous, unbroken possession of his faculties.
> Short-form passive participles as predicate: «Раздражен» and «озлоблен» are short-form past passive participles ("irritated," "embittered") joined to «был» to state a resulting condition. The short predicative form, ending in a bare consonant rather than the long «-ный», is markedly bookish and is the engine of the Russian periphrastic passive.

Вот в этом и дело: не в трех тысячах, не в сумме собственно заключался предмет постоянного и исступленного озлобления подсудимого, а в том, что была тут особая причина, возбуждавшая его гнев.  
And here is the crux of it: the object of the defendant's constant and frenzied bitterness lay not in three thousand roubles, not in the sum as such, but in the fact that there was here a particular cause that inflamed his wrath.
> Correlative negation «не … а …»: The frame «не X, а Y» ("not X, but Y") pivots on the contrastive «а», correcting one explanation in favour of another. The prepositional «в трех тысячах … в сумме … в том, что» keeps all three candidates parallel under «заключался … предмет» ("the object lay in…").
> Imperfective past active participle: «Возбуждавшая» is here a past active participle from imperfective «возбуждать» ("to arouse, inflame"), agreeing with feminine «причина» ("cause") and standing in for "a cause that inflamed." Note the bookish word order, with the participle and its object «гнев» following the noun.

Причина эта — ревность!»  
And that cause was — jealousy!"
> Zero copula, postposed demonstrative: A bare nominative-to-nominative equation with no verb: «Причина эта — ревность» = "This cause [is] — jealousy." The dash marks the missing "to be," and the demonstrative «эта» follows its noun ("this cause" → "the cause, this one"), a slightly emphatic, oratorical order.

Здесь Ипполит Кириллович пространно развернул всю картину роковой страсти подсудимого к Грушеньке.  
Here Ippolit Kirillovitch unfolded at length the whole picture of the defendant's fatal passion for Grushenka.
> «роковой» — fateful, doom-laden: «Роковой» (from «рок», fate/doom) means "fated, fatal, doom-bringing" — far heavier than English "fateful." It recurs through the speech («роковой момент», «роковой документ»), tolling the note of inescapable tragedy the prosecutor wants the jury to hear.

Начал он с самого того момента, когда подсудимый отправился к «молодой особе», чтоб «избить ее», выражаясь его собственными словами, пояснил Ипполит Кириллович, «но вместо того, чтоб избить, остался у ног ее — вот начало этой любви.  
He began from the very moment when the defendant set off to call on "the young person" in order "to thrash her," to use his own words, explained Ippolit Kirillovitch, "but instead of thrashing her, he remained at her feet — and there is the beginning of this love.
> Imperfective gerund «выражаясь»: «Выражаясь» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие — an adverbial "-ing" form, "expressing himself / to use his own words" — sharing the subject of the main clause and adding attendant circumstance. The reflexive «-сь» marks it as the middle verb «выражаться» ("to express oneself").
> Perfective motion verb + purpose infinitive: «Отправился» is the prefixed perfective of motion ("set off"), a single completed departure, and «чтоб избить ее» gives its purpose ("in order to thrash her"). The reflexive «-ся» on «отправился» marks the verb as intransitive "set oneself off."
> «особа» — "person," with an edge: «Особа» is a faintly formal, distancing word for a woman — "person, individual" — that here drips with the prosecutor's mock-decorum about Grushenka, which is why it sits in scornful quotation marks. He repeats «эта особа» throughout to keep her at arm's length.

В то же время бросает взгляд на ту же особу и старик, отец подсудимого, — совпадение удивительное и роковое, ибо оба сердца зажглись вдруг, в одно время, хотя прежде и тот и другой знали же и встречали эту особу, — и зажглись эти оба сердца самою безудержною, самою карамазовскою страстью.  
At that same time the old man, the defendant's father, also casts an eye upon this same person — an astonishing and fateful coincidence, for both hearts caught fire at once, at one and the same time, although each of them had known and met this person before — and these two hearts caught fire with the most unbridled, the most Karamazov passion.
> Verb-first historic present, postposed subject: The clause opens with the present-tense verb «бросает» ("casts") and holds the subject «старик» ("the old man") back to the end, a vivid verb-first order that pushes the new information last. The historic present makes a past event feel as if it unfolds before the jury's eyes.
> «ибо» — archaic "for, because": «Ибо» is a bookish, elevated conjunction meaning "for, because," belonging to the 19th-century literary and ecclesiastical register rather than everyday speech. The prosecutor's reach for «ибо» lends his oratory a solemn, almost scriptural cadence.
> Concessive particle «же» with imperfectives: The particle «же» here concedes a point — "each of them had indeed known and met this person" — the texture of spoken insistence preserved inside oratory. Both verbs are imperfective past («знали», «встречали»), expressing prior, repeated acquaintance against the sudden «зажглись» that follows.
> «карамазовскою» — the Karamazov adjective: Dostoevsky coins an adjective from the family name — «карамазовский», "Karamazovian" — to name a specific quality of unbridled, sensual, all-consuming passion. The superlative phrasing «самою безудержною, самою карамазовскою» elevates the family trait into a near-metaphysical force. (The «-ою» ending is the bookish long instrumental for «-ой».)

Тут мы имеем ее собственное признание: „Я, — говорит она, — смеялась над тем и другим“.  
Here we have her own admission: 'I,' she says, 'was laughing at the two of them.'
> Reflexive verb governing «над» + instrumental: «Смеяться над» ("to laugh at, mock") is a reflexive «-ся» verb that takes its object with the preposition «над» plus the instrumental case: «над тем и другим» = "at the two of them." «Смеяться» exists only in the reflexive form. The imperfective past «смеялась» depicts the mockery as ongoing process.
> «тот и другой» — "the one and the other": The fixed pairing «тот и другой» means "both, the two of them," treating the rivals as a matched pair. Here it stands in the instrumental «тем и другим» as the object of «над»; the phrase recurs through the chapter as the prosecutor's shorthand for father and son together.

Да, ей захотелось вдруг посмеяться над тем и другим; прежде не хотелось, а тут вдруг влетело ей в ум это намерение, — и кончилось тем, что оба пали перед ней побежденные.  
Yes, the sudden whim came over her to laugh at the two of them; before, she had had no wish to, but then all at once this intention flew into her head — and it ended with both of them falling at her feet, vanquished.
> Dative experiencer, impersonal desire: «Ей захотелось … влетело ей» — "she felt the urge … it flew into her head" — frames the whim as something that happens to her, with «ей» in the dative as experiencer and no nominative subject of will. The «-ся» on «захотелось» makes the wanting itself impersonal, beyond her control.
> Contrastive «а» pivoting on time: The mild contrastive «а» ("but, whereas") hinges "before, she had no wish" against "but then, suddenly," marking a shift rather than flat opposition. Paired with «прежде … тут вдруг» ("earlier … now all at once"), it stages the abruptness of her impulse.
> «кончилось тем, что» + perfective resolution: «Кончилось тем, что…» ("it ended with the fact that…") is a set frame using a correlative instrumental «тем». The perfective «пали» ("fell," an archaic high form of «пасть») and the short participle «побежденные» ("vanquished") deliver the completed outcome.

Старик, поклонявшийся деньгам, как богу, тотчас же приготовил три тысячи рублей лишь за то только, чтоб она посетила его обитель, но вскоре доведен был и до того, что за счастье почел бы положить к ногам ее свое имя и всё свое состояние, лишь бы согласилась стать законною супругой его.  
The old man, who worshipped money as a god, at once set aside three thousand roubles merely so that she would pay a visit to his dwelling, but before long he had been brought to such a pass that he would have counted it happiness to lay his name and his whole fortune at her feet, if only she would consent to become his lawful wedded wife.
> Past active participle as portrait: «Поклонявшийся» is a past active participle of the reflexive «поклоняться» ("to worship"), agreeing with «старик» and taking its object in the dative («деньгам … богу»), which that verb governs. The participle packs a whole relative clause — "the old man who worshipped money as a god" — into the noun phrase.
> Short-form passive participle + result clause: «Доведен был» joins the short past passive participle «доведен» ("brought, driven") to «был» for a periphrastic passive: "he had been brought." The frame «до того, что…» ("to such a point that…") opens the result clause spelling out how far he was driven.
> «лишь бы» wish-clause + predicate instrumental: «Лишь бы» ("if only, provided that") plus a past-form verb makes a conditional of bare longing — «лишь бы согласилась» = "if only she would consent." The complement «стать … супругой» puts the predicate noun in the instrumental after «стать» ("to become"), as Russian regularly does.

На это мы имеем свидетельства твердые.  
On this we have firm testimony.
> Postposed adjective for weight: «Свидетельства твердые» places the adjective «твердые» ("firm, solid") after its noun, an inversion that throws rhetorical weight onto "firm" — "testimony, and firm testimony at that." Such deliberate ordering is a tool of oratorical emphasis in a case-free language.

Что же до подсудимого, то трагедия его очевидна, она пред нами.  
As for the defendant, his tragedy is plain, it stands before us.
> Zero copula + archaic «пред»: «Она пред нами» — "it [is] before us" — again omits present "to be," the bare pronoun and prepositional phrase predicating directly. «Пред» is the bookish, shortened form of «перед» ("before, in front of"), governing the instrumental «нами» and lending a solemn ring.

Но такова была „игра“ молодой особы.  
But such was the 'game' of the young person.
> Predicative «такова» fronted: «Такова» is the short, predicative form of «такой» ("such"), agreeing with feminine «игра» and fronted for emphasis: "such was the game." Short predicate adjectives like «такова» belong to a heightened, bookish register and place the new information up front.

Несчастному молодому человеку обольстительница не подавала даже и надежды, ибо надежда, настоящая надежда, была ему подана лишь только в самый последний момент, когда он, стоя перед своею мучительницей на коленях, простирал к ней уже обагренные кровью своего отца и соперника руки: в этом именно положении он и был арестован.  
To the unhappy young man the temptress held out not even a hint of hope, for hope, real hope, was granted him only at the very last moment, when, kneeling before his tormentress, he stretched out to her hands already stained with the blood of his father and rival: it was in this very posture that he was arrested.
> Genitive of negation + dative recipient: Under the negated «не подавала» the object slips into the genitive: «надежды» ("[not even a] hope"), the classic genitive of negation. The recipient «несчастному молодому человеку» stands in the dative ("to the unhappy young man"), fronted for pathos.
> Short passive participle, agent in dative-recipient: «Была подана» joins «была» to the short past passive participle «подана» ("was held out / granted"), agreeing with feminine «надежда». The «-я-» grammar contrasts with the active «не подавала» just before: the prosecutor shifts to the passive to make hope arrive on its own, fatefully, only at the last moment.
> Gerund «стоя» framing the main verb: The imperfective gerund «стоя» ("standing / kneeling") sets the simultaneous circumstance for the main imperfective «простирал … руки» ("he was stretching out his hands"), both sharing the subject. The chained participial-gerund construction holds the whole tableau in a single suspended moment.
> Feminine agent nouns in «-ница»: «Обольстительница» ("temptress, seductress") and «мучительница» ("tormentress") are feminine agent nouns in «-ница», from «обольстить» and «мучить». The matched, melodramatic pair casts Grushenka in the rhetorical roles of seducer and torturer at once — pure prosecutorial theatre.

„Меня, меня вместе с ним в каторгу пошлите, я его до того довела, я больше всех виновата!“ — восклицала эта женщина сама, уже в искреннем раскаянии, в минуту его ареста.  
'Send me, send me to penal servitude along with him, it was I who drove him to it, I am the most to blame of all!' — so this woman herself cried out, in genuine remorse now, at the moment of his arrest.
> Imperative «пошлите» + topicalised object: «Пошлите» is the plural/polite imperative of perfective «послать» ("send," with «-те» as the courteous plural ending). The doubled object «Меня, меня» is hurled to the front for desperate emphasis — "Me, me, send to penal servitude" — the order itself enacting Grushenka's frantic self-accusation.
> Short adjective «виновата» + comparative: «Виновата» is the short feminine predicative form of «виноватый» ("guilty, to blame"), the natural way Russian says "I am to blame." «Больше всех» ("more than all") is the comparative used with genitive «всех» to mean "the most of all."

Талантливый молодой человек, взявший на себя описать настоящее дело, — всё тот же господин Ракитин, о котором я уже упоминал, — в нескольких сжатых и характерных фразах определяет характер этой героини: „Раннее разочарование, ранний обман и падение, измена обольстителя-жениха, ее бросившего, затем бедность, проклятие честной семьи и, наконец, покровительство одного богатого старика, которого она, впрочем, сама считает и теперь своим благодетелем.  
A talented young man who has taken it upon himself to describe the present case — that same Mr. Rakitin whom I have already mentioned — defines the character of this heroine in a few terse and telling phrases: 'An early disenchantment, an early deception and fall, the betrayal of a seducer-fiancé who abandoned her, then poverty, the curse of an honest family, and at last the patronage of a certain wealthy old man whom she herself, by the way, still regards even now as her benefactor.
> Past active participle «взявший»: «Взявший» is the past active participle of perfective «взять» ("to take"), agreeing with «молодой человек»; the idiom «взять на себя» means "to take upon oneself, undertake." The reflexive pronoun «себя» (no nominative, any person) points back to the subject who shoulders the task.
> Relative «которого» + predicate instrumental: The relative «которого» agrees with masculine «старика» but takes the accusative its own clause demands. «Считает … благодетелем» shows «считать» ("to regard as") governing a predicate noun in the instrumental — "regards him as her benefactor" — with reflexive «своим» pointing the benefit back to her.
> «жених» and the participle «бросившего»: «Жених» means "fiancé, bridegroom-to-be"; the compound «обольститель-жених» = "seducer-fiancé." The trailing past active participle «бросившего» ("who abandoned [her]") agrees with it in the genitive and governs «ее» — a tight participial coda typical of bookish style.

В молодом сердце, может быть заключавшем в себе много хорошего, затаился гнев еще слишком с ранней поры.  
In a young heart that may have held much that was good, anger had lain hidden from too early an age.
> Past active participle in the prepositional: «Заключавшем» is a past active participle from «заключать» ("to contain, hold within"), agreeing with «сердце» in the prepositional after «в» ("in a young heart that held…"). «Много хорошего» uses the genitive of a substantivised adjective — "much that was good."
> Reflexive «-ся» + verb-first order: «Затаился» is the perfective reflexive of «затаиться» ("to lurk, lie hidden"), the «-ся» giving an intransitive, middle sense — the anger hides itself. The verb stands before its subject «гнев» ("anger"), pushing the new agent to the stressed end of the clause.

Образовался характер расчетливый, копящий капитал.  
There formed a calculating character, one that hoards capital.
> Reflexive «образовался» + present active participle: «Образовался» is the perfective reflexive ("there formed itself, a character took shape"), verb-first with the subject «характер» last. «Копящий» is a present active participle of imperfective «копить» ("to hoard"), describing the ongoing trait — "one that hoards capital."

Образовалась насмешливость и мстительность обществу“.  
There formed a mockery and a vindictiveness toward society.'
> Parallel reflexive opening, dative of relation: The clause echoes the previous one with «образовалась» ("there formed," feminine, agreeing with the abstract nouns). «Мстительность обществу» uses the dative «обществу» to mark the target of the vindictiveness — "toward society" — the dative of the one to whom the feeling is directed.

После этой характеристики понятно, что она могла смеяться над тем и другим единственно для игры, для злобной игры.  
After this character sketch it is understandable that she could laugh at the two of them solely out of sport, out of malicious sport.
> Impersonal «понятно, что» + ability: «Понятно, что…» is an impersonal predicate — "it is understandable that…" — with no nominative subject, the neuter «понятно» carrying it. «Могла смеяться» pairs the past of «мочь» ("could") with the imperfective infinitive, framing the mockery as ongoing, repeatable behaviour.

И вот в этот месяц безнадежной любви, нравственных падений, измены своей невесте, присвоения чужих денег, вверенных его чести, — подсудимый, кроме того, доходит почти до исступления, до бешенства, от беспрерывной ревности, и к кому же, к своему отцу!  
And so, in this month of hopeless love, of moral falls, of betraying his own betrothed, of appropriating another's money entrusted to his honour, the defendant, on top of all this, is driven almost to frenzy, to fury, by ceaseless jealousy — and of whom, of his own father!
> Genitive chain after «в этот месяц»: A long genitive chain — «безнадежной любви, нравственных падений, измены …, присвоения …» — hangs off «в этот месяц» to itemise everything packed into that month. Russian uses the genitive both for these "of"-modifiers and is the natural case for piling up such a catalogue.
> Rhetorical question with «же» and «к» + dative: «И к кому же» — "and of whom, indeed!" — uses the indignant particle «же» with the interrogative «кому» in the dative governed by «к». The reflexive possessive «своему» ("his own") sharpens the outrage: jealous of his own father.
> «исступление» and «бешенство» paired: The prosecutor escalates from «исступление» ("frenzy, being beside oneself") to «бешенство» ("rage, fury," literally rabies/madness, from «бес», demon). The intensifying pair «почти до исступления, до бешенства» drives the rhetoric toward the edge of madness.

И главное, безумный старик сманивает и прельщает предмет его страсти — этими же самыми тремя тысячами, которые сын его считает своими родовыми, наследством матери, в которых укоряет отца.  
And the worst of it: the mad old man is luring and tempting the object of his passion with these very same three thousand, which his son regards as his own patrimony, his mother's inheritance, and for which he reproaches his father.
> Historic present imperfectives: «Сманивает и прельщает» ("is luring and tempting") are imperfective verbs in the historic present, painting the old man's seduction as an ongoing, vivid process before the jury. The doubling of near-synonyms is a hallmark of the prosecutor's heightened style.
> Two relative «который» clauses, two cases: The same antecedent «тремя тысячами» feeds two relative clauses: «которые … считает своими» (accusative object, "which he regards as his own") and «в которых укоряет отца» (prepositional after «в», "for which he reproaches"). Each «который» agrees in number/gender but takes the case its own clause needs.

Да, я согласен, это было тяжело перенести!  
Yes, I agree, this was a hard thing to bear!
> Impersonal «тяжело» + infinitive: «Тяжело перенести» is an impersonal predicate — "it was hard to bear" — built from the neuter/adverbial «тяжело» plus an infinitive, with no nominative subject of the bearing. This experiencer-free framing makes the burden feel general and humanly shared.

Тут могла явиться даже и мания.  
Here a mania might indeed arise.
> Verb-first, perfective potential: «Могла явиться … мания» holds the subject «мания» ("a mania") to the end after «могла явиться» ("could arise"), the perfective infinitive «явиться» naming a single emergence. The particle string «даже и» ("even, indeed") concedes the point the prosecutor is about to qualify.

Не в деньгах было дело, а в том, что этими же деньгами с таким омерзительным цинизмом разбивалось счастье его!»  
It was not a matter of the money, but of the fact that with this very money his happiness was being shattered with such loathsome cynicism!"
> «не в … было дело, а в том, что» idiom: «Дело [было] не в X, а в Y» ("it was not a matter of X, but of Y") is a standard contrastive idiom turning on «а», with both poles in the prepositional after «в». It recurs as a refrain of the speech, insisting the money itself was never the point.
> Imperfective passive in «-ся» + instrumental of means: «Разбивалось счастье» uses the «-ся» verb as an imperfective passive — "his happiness was being shattered" — while «этими деньгами» stands in the instrumental as the means ("with this very money"). The «-ся» passive lets the deed unfold without naming a grammatical agent.

Затем Ипполит Кириллович перешел к тому, как постепенно зарождалась в подсудимом мысль отцеубийства, и проследил ее по фактам.  
Then Ippolit Kirillovitch passed on to how the thought of parricide had gradually taken root in the defendant, and he traced it through the facts.
> Imperfective «зарождалась» of gradual process: The imperfective past «зарождалась» ("was being born, gradually took root") is chosen precisely for its sense of slow, unfinished process, reinforced by «постепенно» ("gradually"). Russian aspect lets one verb-ending carry the whole idea of an idea ripening over time.
> «отцеубийство» — parricide: «Отцеубийство» is a compound — «отец» (father) + «убийство» (killing) — meaning "parricide, the murder of one's father," with «отцеубийца» the murderer. The word names the novel's central crime and ancient horror; it carries far more moral and religious weight than a neutral "murder."

«Сначала мы только кричим по трактирам — весь этот месяц кричим.  
"At first we only shout about the taverns — this whole month we shout.
> The ironic "we": The prosecutor narrates the accused's behaviour in the first-person plural present tense («мы кричим», "we shout"; «мы любим», "we love"). This rhetorical "we" is mocking, not literal: he pretends to speak as Mitya to make his impulsive psychology sound general and self-evident. We keep the first-person "we" in our rendering, rather than flattening it to "he," so the sneer survives.

О, мы любим жить на людях и тотчас же сообщать этим людям все, даже самые инфернальные и опасные наши идеи, мы любим делиться с людьми и, неизвестно почему, тут же, сейчас же и требуем, чтоб эти люди тотчас же отвечали нам полнейшею симпатией, входили во все наши заботы и тревоги, нам поддакивали и нраву нашему не препятствовали.  
Oh, we love to live before an audience and to communicate to those people at once everything, even our most infernal and dangerous ideas; we love to share with people and, for no clear reason, on the spot, that very instant, we demand that these people answer us at once with the fullest sympathy, that they enter into all our cares and anxieties, that they nod along with us and put no obstacle in the way of our temper.
> «чтобы» + past-form chain after a verb of demanding: After «требуем» ("we demand"), the clause runs on «чтоб» with a long chain of past-form verbs ("that they answer … enter … nod … obstruct"), the irrealis demanded when «чтобы» reports a willed, not-yet-real outcome. The piled-up parallel verbs mimic the breathless egotism the prosecutor is caricaturing.
> Genitive of negation + dative object: «Препятствовать» ("to hinder, obstruct") governs the dative — «нраву нашему» = "our temper" — and under negation Russian keeps that case while «не» does its work. The bare possessive following its noun («нраву нашему») gives an old-fashioned, almost incantatory rhythm.
> «поддакивать» — to keep saying "yes": «Поддакивать» is an expressive verb coined from the word «да» ("yes"): "to keep agreeing, nod along, say yes to everything." Its faintly mocking, onomatopoeic flavour fits the prosecutor's portrait of a man who demands constant flattery.

Не то мы озлимся и разнесем весь трактир.  
Otherwise we shall grow angry and wreck the whole tavern.
> «не то» + perfective future of threat: «Не то» means "otherwise, or else," introducing the consequence. The perfective verbs «озлимся» and «разнесем» are present-form but future in meaning — "we shall grow angry and wreck" — the perfective's signature way of naming a single completed future act with no auxiliary.

(Следовал анекдот о штабс-капитане Снегиреве).  
(There followed the anecdote about Captain Snegiryov.)

Видевшие и слышавшие подсудимого в этот месяц почувствовали наконец, что тут уже могут быть не одни крики и угрозы отцу, но что при таком исступлении угрозы, пожалуй, перейдут и в дело.  
Those who saw and heard the defendant during this month felt at last that here there might no longer be merely shouts and threats against his father, but that in such a frenzy the threats might well pass over into the deed itself.
> Substantivised past active participles as subject: «Видевшие и слышавшие» are past active participles («видеть», «слышать») used as a plural noun — "those who saw and heard" — the participle alone serving as the subject. This nominalised participle, replacing «те, кто видел и слышал», is a compact bookish device.
> Perfective future after «что»: Inside the «что»-clause, «перейдут» is the perfective future of «перейти» ("to pass over, cross into"), a single completed transition — "the threats would pass into the deed." The particle «пожалуй» ("perhaps, likely") hedges the foreboding.

(Тут прокурор описал семейную встречу в монастыре, разговоры с Алешей и безобразную сцену насилия в доме отца, когда подсудимый ворвался к нему после обеда).  
(Here the prosecutor described the family meeting at the monastery, the conversations with Alyosha, and the disgraceful scene of violence in his father's house, when the defendant burst in on him after dinner.)
> Perfective «ворвался» + «к» of motion-toward: «Ворвался» is the perfective reflexive of «ворваться» ("to burst in"), a single violent completed entry, with «к нему» ("in on him," «к» + dative) marking motion toward a person. The «-ся» here is part of the verb's lexical form, not a separate reflexive sense.

Не думаю настойчиво утверждать, — продолжал Ипполит Кириллович, — что до этой сцены подсудимый уже обдуманно и преднамеренно положил покончить с отцом своим убийством его.  
I am not inclined to insist, Ippolit Kirillovitch continued, that before this scene the defendant had already deliberately and with premeditation resolved to make an end of his father by murdering him.
> «покончить с» + instrumental of means: «Положил» here means "resolved, determined" (an older sense of «положить»), governing the perfective infinitive «покончить с» ("to make an end of," «с» + instrumental «отцом»). The means then comes in the instrumental again: «убийством его» = "by murdering him."
> The legal language of intent: «Обдуманно» ("deliberately, with forethought") and «преднамеренно» ("premeditatedly," from «пред-» + «намерение», intention) are the technical terms of criminal intent. Their repetition through this section — «преднамеренность», «обдуманность» — builds the legal case for first-degree, premeditated parricide.

Тем не менее идея эта уже несколько раз предстояла ему, и он обдуманно созерцал ее — на это мы имеем факты, свидетелей и собственное сознание его.  
Nevertheless this idea had already presented itself to him several times, and he deliberately contemplated it — for this we have facts, witnesses, and his own confession.
> Dative experiencer + imperfective recurrence: «Предстояла ему» puts the experiencer in the dative — "presented itself to him" — while the imperfective past with «несколько раз» ("several times") names a repeated event. The postposed «идея эта» ("this idea") topicalises the noun in the elevated manner of the speech.
> Postposed «его» for possession: «Сознание его» ("his confession/admission") places the frozen genitive pronoun «его» ("his") after the noun rather than before — a bookish, slightly archaic order. «Его» never declines, unlike «мой/наш», so its position alone carries the stylistic flavour.

Признаюсь, господа присяжные заседатели, — присовокупил Ипполит Кириллович, — я даже до сегодня колебался оставить за подсудимым полное и сознательное преднамерение напрашивавшегося к нему преступления.  
I confess, gentlemen of the jury, added Ippolit Kirillovitch, that until this very day I hesitated to attribute to the defendant a full and conscious premeditation of the crime that was thrusting itself upon him.
> Imperfective of ongoing hesitation: «Колебался» ("hesitated, wavered," imperfective reflexive of «колебаться») depicts a continuing inner state, against which the perfective «оставить за» ("to attribute to, leave to") names the act he hesitated to perform. The aspect contrast stages a long doubt and a decisive step.
> Reflexive past active participle «напрашивавшегося»: «Напрашивавшегося» is a past active participle of the imperfective reflexive «напрашиваться» ("to thrust/force itself upon"), agreeing with «преступления» in the genitive: "the crime that was thrusting itself upon him." The «-ся» gives the crime an eerie agency of its own.

Я твердо был убежден, что душа его уже многократно созерцала роковой момент впереди, но лишь созерцала, представляла его себе лишь в возможности, но еще не определяла ни срока исполнения, ни обстоятельств.  
I was firmly convinced that his soul had already contemplated the fatal moment ahead of him many times over, but only contemplated it, picturing it to himself only as a possibility, without yet fixing either the time of its execution or the circumstances.
> Imperfective for inner, unresolved process: The repeated imperfectives «созерцала … представляла» ("contemplated … pictured") hold the soul's act as ongoing, unfinished — mere contemplation, never crossing into deed. The reflexive pronoun «себе» (dative of «себя») marks "to himself," the picturing turned inward.
> Negative concord «ни … ни» + genitive of negation: «Ни … ни» ("neither … nor") intensifies the negation while the verb still carries «не» — the obligatory negative concord — and both objects fall into the genitive of negation: «ни срока …, ни обстоятельств». Three layers of negation, one meaning: nothing was yet fixed.

Но я колебался лишь до сегодня, до этого рокового документа, представленного сегодня суду госпожою Верховцевой.  
But I hesitated only until today, until this fatal document presented to the court today by Madame Verhovtsev.
> Past passive participle + agent in instrumental: «Представленного» is a past passive participle of «представить» ("to present, submit"), agreeing with «документа» in the genitive. Its agent stands in the instrumental — «госпожою Верховцевой» = "by Madame Verhovtsev" — the regular way Russian names the doer of a passive.

Вы сами слышали, господа, ее восклицание: „Это план, это программа убийства!“ — вот как определяла она несчастное „пьяное“ письмо несчастного подсудимого.  
You yourselves heard, gentlemen, her exclamation: 'This is the plan, this is the programme of the murder!' — that is how she defined the unhappy 'drunken' letter of the unhappy defendant.
> Imperfective «определяла» + inverted subject: «Определяла она» inverts verb before subject for emphasis on the manner («вот как» — "that is how"). The imperfective «определяла» ("defined, was characterising") presents her exclamation as the way she habitually framed the letter, in contrast to a one-off perfective.
> Pathetic repetition of «несчастный»: «Несчастный» means "unhappy, wretched, ill-fated." Its doubling — «несчастное … письмо несчастного подсудимого» — is deliberate prosecutorial pathos, draping both the letter and the man in pity even as he convicts them. The scare-quoted «пьяное» ("drunken") flags Mitya's own excuse.

И действительно, за письмом этим всё значение программы и преднамерения.  
And indeed, behind this letter lies the whole meaning of a programme and of premeditation.
> «за» + instrumental, zero copula: «За письмом этим» ("behind this letter," «за» + instrumental) places the meaning literally "behind" the document, with no verb — present "to be" is again unspoken. The postposed demonstrative «этим» and the fronted prepositional phrase give a weighty, oratorical lift.

Оно написано за двое суток до преступления, и, таким образом, нам твердо теперь известно, что за двое суток до исполнения своего страшного замысла подсудимый с клятвою объявлял, что если не достанет завтра денег, то убьет отца, с тем чтобы взять у него деньги из-под подушки „в пакете с красною ленточкой, только бы уехал Иван“.  
It was written two days before the crime, and thus we now know for certain that two days before carrying out his dreadful design the defendant declared on oath that, if he did not get hold of money tomorrow, he would kill his father in order to take the money from him from under his pillow 'in the envelope with the red ribbon, the moment Ivan was gone.'
> Real conditional with perfective futures: «Если … то …» ("if … then …") frames a real, open condition, both verbs perfective futures: «(не) достанет» ("if he does not get hold of") and «убьет» ("he will kill"). Unlike the «бы»-counterfactuals elsewhere, this is a plain future condition — the chilling content of the oath.
> Purpose «с тем чтобы»: «С тем чтобы» is an emphatic purpose conjunction — "in order to, with the aim that" — heavier than plain «чтобы» and here taking an infinitive «взять» ("to take"). It spells out the robbery as the deliberate object of the killing.

Слышите: „только бы уехал Иван“, — тут, стало быть, уже всё обдумано, обстоятельства взвешены — и что же: всё потом и исполнено как по писаному!  
Listen: 'the moment Ivan was gone' — here, then, everything is already thought out, the circumstances weighed — and what of it: afterward everything was carried out exactly as written!
> «только бы» wish + perfective past: «Только бы уехал» ("if only Ivan would leave / the moment Ivan was gone") is a «бы» wish-clause built on the perfective past «уехал». It expresses the one condition Mitya was waiting on — the irrealis «бы» making it a yearned-for precondition rather than a statement of fact.
> Short passive participles + «стало быть»: «Обдумано … взвешены … исполнено» are short past passive participles stating results — "everything is thought out, weighed, carried out." «Стало быть» ("so, therefore, it follows") is a colloquial inferential connector driving the prosecutor's deduction home.

Преднамеренность и обдуманность несомненны, преступление должно было совершиться с целью грабежа, это прямо объявлено, это написано и подписано.  
The premeditation and deliberation are beyond doubt; the crime was to be committed for the sake of robbery, this is plainly declared, this is written and signed.
> «должно было» + perfective reflexive infinitive: «Должно было совершиться» = "was to be committed," the neuter «должно было» ("had to, was bound to") plus the perfective reflexive infinitive «совершиться» ("to be accomplished"). The «-ся» supplies an intransitive/passive sense — the crime "was to come to pass."
> «с целью» + genitive of purpose: «С целью грабежа» ("for the purpose of robbery") uses «цель» ("aim, goal") with a following genitive «грабежа» to express deliberate intent — the legal formula "with intent to rob." The genitive of the dependent noun is its standard 'of'-relation.

Подсудимый от своей подписи не отрицается.  
The defendant does not disown his signature.
> Reflexive «отрицаться» + «от» + genitive: «Отрицается от» ("disowns, denies") is a reflexive «-ся» verb governing «от» plus the genitive «своей подписи» ("his own signature"). The reflexive possessive «своей» points the signature back to the subject; the «от»-construction is an older, formal turn for refusing to acknowledge something.

Скажут: это писал пьяный.  
It will be said: a drunken man wrote this.
> Subjectless «скажут» — "it will be said": «Скажут» is a third-person plural perfective future used impersonally — "they will say / it will be said" — with no expressed subject, a common Russian way to voice an anticipated objection. The prosecutor uses it three times here to raise and then demolish the defence's points.

Но это ничего не уменьшает и тем важнее: в пьяном виде написал то, что задумал в трезвом.  
But this diminishes nothing, and is all the more important: drunk, he wrote down what he had conceived sober.
> Negative concord «ничего … не»: «Ничего … не уменьшает» = "diminishes nothing," with the «ни»-pronoun «ничего» and the verbal «не» both required at once — Russian negative concord, where two negatives still make a single negation. «Ничего» sits in the genitive form typical of these pronouns.
> Perfective aspect framing a result: Both verbs are perfective past — «написал» ("wrote down," completed) and «задумал» ("conceived," completed) — pinning two finished acts: writing drunk what was planned sober. «В пьяном виде / в трезвом [виде]» is the idiom "in a drunken / sober state."

Не было бы задумано в трезвом, не написалось бы в пьяном.  
Had it not been conceived sober, it would not have been written drunk.
> Counterfactual «бы» without «если»: Two «бы»-clauses with short passive participle and reflexive — «не было бы задумано … не написалось бы» — form an «если»-less counterfactual: "had it not been conceived …, it would not have got itself written." The reflexive «-сь» on «написалось» gives a self-acting nuance: it would not have written itself.

Скажут, пожалуй: к чему он кричал о своем намерении по трактирам?  
It will perhaps be said: why did he shout about his intention around the taverns?
> «к чему» — "to what end?" + «о» + prepositional: «К чему» ("to what purpose, why") is an interrogative using «к» + dative «чему» to ask the point of an action. «О своем намерении» ("about his intention") shows «о» governing the prepositional — the case of the topic spoken about — with reflexive «своем».

Кто на такое дело решается преднамеренно, тот молчит и таит про себя.  
A man who resolves on such a deed with premeditation keeps silent and hides it within himself.
> Correlative «кто … тот»: «Кто … тот …» is the generalising correlative — "whoever …, that one …" — where «кто» (always masculine-singular agreement) opens the condition and «тот» resumes it as subject of the main clause. The imperfective presents «решается … молчит … таит» state a timeless general truth.
> Reflexive «себя» after «про»: «Про себя» ("to oneself, within oneself") uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» after «про» (+ accusative), referring back to whoever is the clause's subject. Paired with «молчит», it deepens the image of a true planner who keeps his counsel hidden.

Правда, но кричал он тогда, когда еще не было планов и преднамерения, а лишь стояло одно желание, созревало лишь стремление.  
True, but he was shouting at a time when there were as yet no plans and no premeditation, when there stood only a single desire, when only a craving was ripening.
> Imperfective past, verb-first, for inner ripening: The imperfectives «стояло … созревало» ("there stood … was ripening") with subjects «желание» and «стремление» held to the end depict slow inner process, not event. The verb-first order keeps the focus on the new nouns — a single desire, a craving — emerging at the clause's end.

Потом он об этом уже меньше кричит.  
Later he already shouts about it less.
> Historic present imperfective + comparative «меньше»: «Кричит» is the historic present of imperfective «кричать» ("to shout"), and «меньше» is the suppletive comparative of «мало» ("less"). The pairing «уже меньше кричит» ("already shouts less") marks a falling-off in the recurring shouting motif.

В тот вечер, когда было написано это письмо, напившись в трактире „Столичный город“, он, против обыкновения, был молчалив, не играл на биллиарде, сидел в стороне, ни с кем не говорил и лишь согнал с места одного здешнего купеческого приказчика, но это уже почти бессознательно, по привычке к ссоре, без которой, войдя в трактир, он уже не мог обойтись.  
On the evening when this letter was written, having got drunk at the tavern 'The Metropolis,' he was, contrary to his custom, taciturn, did not play billiards, sat off to one side, spoke to no one, and only drove a local shopman's clerk from his seat, but this was already almost unconsciously, out of the habit of quarrelling, without which, once he had entered a tavern, he could no longer do.
> Perfective gerund «напившись»: «Напившись» is a perfective past деепричастие of the reflexive «напиться» ("to get drunk"), the «-вшись» ending naming a completed prior act — "having got drunk" — that sets the scene for the main clause. It shares the subject «он» and condenses a whole subordinate event into one word.
> Imperfective backdrop, single perfective event: A string of imperfective pasts paints the standing scene ("was taciturn, did not play, sat, spoke to no one"), against which the lone perfective «согнал» ("drove off") marks the one completed act of the evening. This is aspect's classic division of labour: background versus foreground event.

Правда, вместе с окончательным решением подсудимому должно же было прийти в голову опасение, что он слишком много накричал по городу предварительно и что это может весьма послужить к его уличению и его обвинению, когда он исполнит задуманное.  
True, along with the final resolve there must have come into the defendant's head the apprehension that he had shouted far too much around the town beforehand and that this might serve greatly to convict and accuse him once he had carried out what he had planned.
> Impersonal «прийти в голову» + dative: «Прийти в голову» ("to come into [one's] head") is an impersonal idiom whose subject is what occurs — here «опасение» ("the apprehension") — and whose experiencer goes in the dative, «подсудимому». The particle «же» insists: "there surely must have come."
> Perfective future + substantivised participle: «Исполнит» is the perfective future of «исполнить» ("to carry out"), and «задуманное» is a past passive participle used as a neuter noun — "what he had planned, the thing conceived." Together: "once he had carried out what he had planned."

Но уж что же делать, факт огласки был совершен, его не воротишь, и, наконец, вывозила же прежде кривая, вывезет и теперь.  
But what was to be done now — the fact of the publicity was an accomplished thing, you can't take it back, and after all, the crooked mare had hauled him through before, it would haul him through now.
> "You can't take it back" — generalised 2nd person: «Его не воротишь» uses the 2nd-person singular perfective future «воротишь» ("you [would] turn back") impersonally, for a general "you / one" — "you can't take it back." «Воротить» is a colloquial/folk variant of «возвратить». The genitive «его» under negation continues the genitive-of-negation pattern.
> "The crooked one will pull through": «Кривая вывезет» is a fatalistic idiom: literally "the crooked (mare) will haul you out," i.e. somehow things will work out, luck will save me. Here «вывозила же прежде кривая, вывезет и теперь» — which we render "the crooked mare had hauled him through before, it would haul him through now" — keeps the horse-and-cart image of trusting blind luck.
> Imperfective past vs perfective future: The idiom is doubled across aspect: imperfective «вывозила» (past, "used to haul through") then perfective «вывезет» (future, "will haul through, this once"). The shift mirrors "it always pulled me through, and it will pull me through now" — habit becoming a single hoped-for rescue.

Мы на звезду свою надеялись, господа!  
We were trusting in our lucky star, gentlemen!
> Reflexive «надеяться на» + ironic "we": «Надеяться на» ("to hope in, trust to") is a reflexive «-ся» verb governing «на» + accusative, «на звезду свою» ("in our star"). The ironic first-person plural «мы … надеялись» continues the prosecutor's mock-Mitya voice; «звезда свою» (one's lucky star) is the gambler's fatalism in a nutshell.

Я должен к тому же признаться, что он много сделал, чтоб обойти роковую минуту, что он употребил весьма много усилий, чтоб избежать кровавого исхода.  
I must also confess that he did much to circumvent the fatal moment, that he expended a great deal of effort to avoid a bloody outcome.
> Parallel purpose clauses «чтоб + infinitive»: Two perfective acts each take a purpose clause: «сделал … чтоб обойти» ("did much to circumvent") and «употребил … чтоб избежать» ("expended … to avoid"). «Избежать» governs the genitive «кровавого исхода» ("a bloody outcome"), as verbs of avoidance regularly do.

„Буду завтра просить три тысячи у всех людей, — как пишет он своим своеобразным языком, — а не дадут люди, то прольется кровь“.  
'Tomorrow I shall beg three thousand from everyone,' as he writes in his own peculiar language, 'and if people won't give it, then blood will be spilled.'
> Compound future, then perfective conditional: «Буду просить» is the compound (imperfective) future — «буду» + imperfective infinitive — for the ongoing act of begging. The condition then swings to perfective futures: «не дадут» ("if they won't give," 3rd plural impersonal) and the reflexive «прольется» ("blood will be spilled"), a single dread result.
> «своеобразный» — "peculiar, idiosyncratic": «Своеобразный» ("distinctive, idiosyncratic," literally "of one's own kind," from «свой» + «образ») here gently mocks Mitya's wild, ungrammatical letter as written in his "own peculiar language." The instrumental «языком» marks the means of writing.

Опять-таки в пьяном виде написано и опять-таки в трезвом виде как по писаному исполнено!»  
Once again written while drunk, and once again, while sober, carried out exactly as written!"
> Short passive participles as refrain: The clause closes on two short past passive participles — «написано» ("written") and «исполнено» ("carried out") — stating bare results with no agent, the periphrastic passive at its most compressed. Repeated from earlier («как по писаному исполнено!»), they hammer home the prosecutor's case as a closing refrain.
> «как по писаному» — "exactly as written": «Как по писаному» is an idiom — literally "as if by the written [text]" — meaning "smoothly, exactly to plan, by the book." «Писаному» is the dative of a substantivised passive participle. The prosecutor's grim pun: the murder unfolded precisely as Mitya's letter foretold.

Тут Ипполит Кириллович приступил к подробному описанию всех стараний Мити добыть себе деньги, чтоб избежать преступления.  
Here Ippolit Kirillovitch proceeded to a detailed description of all Mitya's efforts to procure money for himself in order to avoid the crime.
> Dative after «приступить к»: «Приступить к» (to set about, proceed to) governs the dative: «к… описанию». The verb is perfective, marking the single decisive moment when the prosecutor launches into his survey.
> Purpose with «чтоб» + infinitive: Two stacked infinitive purposes: «добыть… чтоб избежать» (to procure… in order to avoid). When the subject of the purpose clause matches the main one, «чтобы» (here the colloquial short «чтоб») simply takes an infinitive rather than a past-form verb.
> «Избежать» takes the genitive: «Избежать» (to avoid, escape) governs the genitive of what is avoided: «преступления». A small class of verbs of avoidance, fear, and deprivation regularly take a genitive object.

Он описал его похождения у Самсонова, путешествие к Лягавому — всё по документам.  
He described his doings at Samsonov's, his journey to Lyagavy — all of it from the documents.
> «Похождения» — adventures, escapades: A faintly ironic, bookish plural meaning escapades or doings, with a whiff of the picaresque (think «Похождения Чичикова», the subtitle of Gogol's Dead Souls). The prosecutor's word choice quietly belittles Mitya's frantic errands.
> «По» + dative: 'according to': «По документам» = on the basis of / according to the documents. The preposition «по» governs the dative, here in its 'in conformity with' sense — the prosecutor stressing his reliance on the case file.

«Измученный, осмеянный, голодный, продавший часы на это путешествие (имея, однако, на себе полторы тысячи рублей — и будто, о, будто!), мучаясь ревностью по оставленному в городе предмету любви, подозревая, что она без него уйдет к Федору Павловичу, он возвращается наконец в город.  
"Worn out, mocked, hungry, having sold his watch to make this journey (yet carrying, all the while, fifteen hundred roubles on his person — or so they would have it, oh, so they would have it!), tormented by jealousy over the object of his love left behind in town, suspecting that in his absence she would go off to Fyodor Pavlovitch, he returns at last to town.
> A chain of participles fronting the sentence: Four agreeing modifiers stack up before the subject: two past passive participles «измученный» (worn out), «осмеянный» (mocked), a plain adjective «голодный» (hungry), and a past active participle «продавший» (having sold). This dense participial pile-up is a signature of 19th-century literary rhythm.
> Imperfective gerunds of attendant circumstance: Three present gerunds («деепричастия») — «имея» (having), «мучаясь» (tormenting himself), «подозревая» (suspecting) — set the simultaneous backdrop to the main verb «возвращается». Indeclinable and sharing the subject, they layer Mitya's state onto his single act of returning.
> Historic present for vividness: The prosecutor narrates the past in the present tense — «возвращается» (he returns), and shortly «провожает», «стремится». This «настоящее историческое» pulls the jury into the scene as if it were unfolding now; the imperfective «возвращаться» also keeps the action in motion.
> Past passive participle as modifier + «по» of cause: «Оставленному» (left behind) is a past passive participle agreeing in dative with «предмету», governed by «ревновать по» — jealousy 'over' someone. «Предмет любви» (object of love) is the prosecutor's coolly clinical phrase for Grushenka.
> Sarcastic «будто» — 'supposedly!': «Будто» means 'as if / supposedly', and the prosecutor's repeated, exclamatory «о, будто!» drips sarcasm: the defence claims Mitya still had the fifteen hundred roubles on him — 'or so they would have it!' The interjected «о» heightens the rhetorical scorn.

Слава богу!  
Thank God!

Она у Федора Павловича не была.  
She had not been at Fyodor Pavlovitch's.
> «У» + genitive for 'at someone's place'; negated past: «У Федора Павловича» = at Fyodor Pavlovitch's (place), the «у» + genitive construction. «Не была» is the negated imperfective past 'she had not been (there)'.

Он же сам ее и провожает к ее покровителю Самсонову.  
He himself even escorts her to her protector Samsonov.
> Particle «же» + intensifier «сам» + «и»: A pile-up of emphasis: «же» insists ('why, he himself…'), «сам» intensifies ('he himself'), and the focusing «и» before the verb means 'even / actually'. Together they underline the irony — the jealous man personally escorts his beloved away.
> «К» + dative of destination: «Провожать к» (to escort to) takes «к» + dative: «к… покровителю». The historic present «провожает» continues the vivid present-tense narration.

(Странное дело, к Самсонову мы не ревнивы, и это весьма характерная психологическая особенность в этом деле!)  
(A strange thing, of Samsonov we are not jealous, and this is a most characteristic psychological peculiarity in this case!)
> Rhetorical 'we' and fronted complement: The prosecutor speaks for Mitya in a knowing first-person plural «мы» — a rhetorical device that recurs through the speech. The complement «к Самсонову» is fronted for emphasis ahead of «мы не ревнивы», bending the neutral word order toward focus.
> «Весьма» — bookish 'very': «Весьма» is an elevated, literary synonym for «очень» (very). Its use marks the prosecutor's polished, oratorical register — he says «весьма» where ordinary speech says «очень».

Затем стремится на наблюдательный пост „на задах“ и там — и там узнает, что Смердяков в падучей, что другой слуга болен, — поле чисто, а „знаки“ в руках его — какой соблазн!  
Then he hurries to his observation post 'at the back,' and there — and there he learns that Smerdyakov is in a fit of the falling sickness, that the other servant is ill — the field is clear, and the 'signals' are in his hands — what a temptation!
> «На задах» — round the back: «Зады» (plural) are the back parts of a property — the yards and kitchen-gardens behind the houses. «На задах» = out at the back, the vantage point from which Mitya spies on his father's garden. The prosecutor quotes the phrase in scare-quotes.
> «Падучая» — the falling sickness: «Падучая (болезнь)» is the old folk-and-medical name for epilepsy — literally the 'falling' sickness. «Смердяков в падучей» means Smerdyakov is in (the grip of) an epileptic fit, the crucial detail that seems to leave the field clear.
> «Поле чисто» — the coast is clear: A short-adjective idiom: «чисто» (clean, clear) in the predicative neuter short form, 'the field is clear' — no obstacles, no witnesses. The phrase tolls like a refrain through the prosecutor's reconstruction (it returns in s79).
> «Соблазн» — temptation: «Соблазн» (temptation, enticement) carries a moral-religious weight in Dostoevsky — the lure to sin. The exclamatory «какой соблазн!» ('what a temptation!') dramatizes the moment the path to murder opens before Mitya.

Тем не менее он все-таки сопротивляется; он идет к высокоуважаемой всеми нами временной здешней жительнице госпоже Хохлаковой.  
Nevertheless he still resists; he goes to that temporary resident here, so highly esteemed by us all, Madame Hohlakov.
> «Тем не менее» — nevertheless: A fixed bookish connective, literally 'by that no less', meaning 'nevertheless, all the same'. It marks the prosecutor's grudging concession that Mitya did, for a while, resist temptation.
> A long agreeing modifier stack in the dative: Everything piled before «жительнице» (resident) agrees with it in feminine dative singular: «высокоуважаемой» (highly esteemed), the pronominal phrase «всеми нами» (весь + мы, by us all, instrumental of agent — the agent of the participle «высокоуважаемой»), «временной» (temporary), «здешней» (local). Russian comfortably front-loads such a column of modifiers onto one noun.

Давно уже сострадающая его судьбе, эта дама предлагает ему благоразумнейший из советов: бросить весь этот кутеж, эту безобразную любовь, эти праздношатания по трактирам, бесплодную трату молодых сил и отправиться в Сибирь на золотые прииски: „Там исход вашим бушующим силам, вашему романическому характеру, жаждущему приключений“».  
Long since sympathizing with his fate, this lady offers him the most sensible of counsels: to give up all this carousing, this disgraceful love, this idle loafing about the taverns, this fruitless squandering of youthful strength, and to set off for Siberia to the gold mines: 'There is the outlet for your seething energies, for your romantic character that thirsts for adventure.'"
> Present active participle as a fronted clause: «Сострадающая» is a present active participle ('who [had] long been sympathizing'), agreeing feminine nominative with «дама». It condenses a whole «которая…» clause into a single front-loaded modifier; «сострадать» governs the dative «его судьбе» (his fate).
> Bookish superlative in «-ейший»: «Благоразумнейший» is the synthetic, elevated superlative ('the most prudent/sensible'), formed with the suffix «-ейший» rather than periphrastic «самый». «Из советов» (of the counsels) is the partitive genitive after the superlative.
> «Праздношатания» — idle loafing: A vivid compound noun from «праздный» (idle) + «шататься» (to roam about), meaning aimless loafing. Stacked with «кутеж» (carousing) and «безобразную любовь» (disgraceful love), it builds the prosecutor's catalogue of Mitya's dissipation.
> Participle governing the genitive: «Жаждущему» (thirsting for), a present active participle agreeing in dative with «характеру», keeps the rection of the verb «жаждать», which takes a genitive object: «приключений» (for adventures).

Описав исход беседы и тот момент, когда подсудимый вдруг получил известие о том, что Грушенька совсем не была у Самсонова, описав мгновенное исступление несчастного, измученного нервами ревнивого человека при мысли, что она именно обманула его и теперь у него, Федора Павловича, Ипполит Кириллович заключил, обращая внимание на роковое значение случая: «успей ему сказать служанка, что возлюбленная его в Мокром, с „прежним“ и „бесспорным“ — ничего бы и не было.  
Having described the outcome of the conversation and the moment when the defendant suddenly received the news that Grushenka had not been at Samsonov's at all, having described the instantaneous frenzy of the unhappy man, his nerves worn ragged by jealousy, at the thought that she had after all deceived him and was now with him, with Fyodor Pavlovitch, Ippolit Kirillovitch concluded, drawing attention to the fateful significance of chance: "had the servant managed to tell him that his beloved was at Mokroe, with her 'former' and 'rightful' one — nothing would have happened.
> Perfective past gerund «описав» framing the sentence: Twice the prosecutor's narration is launched by «описав» (having described) — a perfective past gerund in «-в» marking a completed prior action before the main verb «заключил». The repetition builds a long periodic sentence in high oratorical style.
> Imperfective gerund of simultaneous action: «Обращая внимание» (drawing attention to), a present gerund in «-я», runs alongside the main verb «заключил»: he concluded while drawing attention. It shares the subject Ippolit Kirillovitch and shades the manner of his concluding.
> Imperative form as a conditional: «Успей» looks like an imperative but here means 'had (she) managed to' — a vivid colloquial conditional using the imperative for an unreal past condition. The apodosis «ничего бы и не было» (nothing would have happened) uses past + «бы» for the contrary-to-fact result.
> «Исступление» — frenzy, transport: A strong, bookish word for a state of frenzy or ecstatic loss of self-control. Dostoevsky's psychology lives in such words; the prosecutor reaches for «исступление» to paint Mitya's nerve-shattered rage at the decisive instant.

Но она опешила от страха, заклялась-забожилась, и если подсудимый не убил ее тут же, то это потому, что сломя голову пустился за своей изменницей.  
But she was struck dumb with fright, swore and vowed up and down, and if the defendant did not kill her then and there, it was because he rushed off headlong after his faithless one.
> «Опешить» — to be dumbfounded: A colloquial perfective meaning to be struck dumb, taken aback, frozen by surprise. «Она опешила от страха» — she was dumbfounded with fright; «от страха» gives the genitive of cause after «от».
> «Заклялась-забожилась» — a doubled folk verb: A paired, almost rhyming compound: «заклясться» (to swear an oath) + «забожиться» (to swear by God). The doubling is a folk-speech device conveying frantic, repeated vowing — she swore up and down. The «-ся/-сь» makes both verbs reflexive in form.
> «Если… то…» correlative reasoning: Not a real conditional but a logical frame: «если не убил, то это потому, что…» ('if he didn't kill her, that is because…'). The correlative «если… то» pairs a premise with its explanation, a favourite move of the prosecutor's argument.
> «Сломя голову» — headlong: A frozen idiom built on an old gerund «сломя» (lit. 'having broken [one's] head'), meaning recklessly fast, headlong, breakneck. «Изменница» (s72) — the faithless woman, feminine of «изменник» (traitor) — is the object of his headlong pursuit.

Но заметьте: как ни был он вне себя, а захватил-таки с собою медный пестик.  
But note this: however beside himself he was, he nonetheless snatched up the brass pestle with him.
> Concessive «как ни» — 'however much': «Как ни был он вне себя» = however beside himself he was. The «как ни» (and «сколько ни», «что ни») pattern uses «ни» to build a concessive 'no matter how…' clause; «ни» here intensifies rather than negates.
> The particle «-таки» — 'after all': The clitic «-таки» hung on the verb means 'all the same, after all, nonetheless', registering the speaker's pointed insistence: he did snatch it up despite everything. It is a hallmark of lively, argumentative speech.
> «Пестик» — the brass pestle: «Пестик» is a pestle (the rod for crushing in a mortar), here «медный» — of copper/brass. This «роковой пестик» (fatal pestle, s78) is the murder weapon at the centre of the trial, and the prosecutor lingers on why Mitya seized precisely it.

Зачем именно пестик, зачем не другое какое оружие?  
Why precisely a pestle, why not some other weapon?
> Rhetorical parallelism with «именно»: The focusing particle «именно» ('precisely, exactly') pins the question on the pestle, and the parallel «зачем… зачем не…» frames a rhetorical contrast. The inverted «другое какое» (for «какое другое») is a colloquial reordering for emphasis.

Но, если мы уже целый месяц созерцали эту картину и к ней приготовлялись, то чуть мелькнуло нам что-то в виде оружия, мы и схватываем его как оружие.  
But if we have already spent a whole month contemplating this picture and preparing ourselves for it, then the instant something in the shape of a weapon flashes before us, we seize it as a weapon.
> Conditional frame with the 'rhetorical we': Another «если… то…» structure, sustaining the collective «мы» through which the prosecutor ventriloquizes the murderer's mind. «Созерцали… приготовлялись» are imperfective pasts of drawn-out process; «схватываем» is the historic present of the resulting seizing.
> «Чуть» + «и» — 'the instant… we promptly': «Чуть… мы и схватываем» means 'the moment something flashes, we straight off seize it' — «чуть» marks 'as soon as / hardly', and the resumptive «и» before the verb means 'promptly, sure enough'. «Что-то» is the specific-but-unknown indefinite ('something').
> «Созерцать» — to contemplate: An elevated, almost contemplative verb (to gaze upon, contemplate), often used of mystical or aesthetic beholding. Applied to a murderer 'contemplating this picture' for a month, it lends the prosecutor's analysis a deliberately lofty, ironic colour.

А о том, что какой-нибудь предмет в этом роде может послужить оружием, — это мы уже целый месяц представляли себе.  
And that some object of this kind might serve as a weapon — this we had already been picturing to ourselves for a whole month.
> Cataphoric «о том, что…» and resumptive «это»: «О том, что…» sets up a clause as the topic ('as for the fact that…'), then «это» resumes it as the object of «представляли». «О том» is «о» + prepositional; «представлять себе» (to picture to oneself) uses the dative reflexive «себе».
> Non-specific «-нибудь» — 'some… or other': «Какой-нибудь предмет» = some object or other, any of its kind — the «-нибудь» series marks a non-specific, hypothetical referent, contrasting with the specific «что-то» of the previous segment.

Потому-то так мгновенно и бесспорно и признали его за оружие!  
That is why we recognized it as a weapon so instantly and so unmistakably!
> «Потому-то… и» — 'that is precisely why': «Потому-то… и» is an emphatic causal frame: the «-то» clitic stresses the cause ('that is just why') and the «и» reinforces it before the verb. The doubled adverbs «мгновенно и бесспорно» (instantly and unmistakably) drive the rhetorical force.
> «Признать за» — to recognize as: «Признать за» + accusative means 'to take/recognize (something) as' — «признали его за оружие», recognized it as a weapon. The «за» + accusative 'as / in the capacity of' construction is the prosecutor's careful legal phrasing.

А потому всё же не бессознательно, всё же не невольно схватил он этот роковой пестик.  
And therefore it was not unconsciously after all, not involuntarily after all, that he snatched up this fatal pestle.
> Emphatic «всё же» + adverbial double negation: «Всё же» ('all the same, nonetheless') frames the insistent denial, and the parallel «не бессознательно… не невольно» (not unconsciously… not involuntarily) negates two adverbs in turn — the prosecutor hammering that the act was deliberate.
> Inversion for rhetorical weight: The verb «схватил» is pulled ahead of its subject «он» («схватил он»), an inversion that throws stress onto the deliberateness of the act. Such marked word order is a tool of oratorical emphasis rather than a change of meaning.

И вот он в отцовском саду — поле чисто, свидетелей нет, глубокая ночь, мрак и ревность.  
And here he is in his father's garden — the field is clear, there are no witnesses, deep night, darkness and jealousy.
> Nominal sentences and genitive of negation: A staccato run of verbless clauses paints the scene. «Свидетелей нет» — 'there are no witnesses' — uses «нет» with the obligatory genitive «свидетелей» (genitive of negation for an absent subject); the rest are bare nominatives flashed up like stage directions.
> «Мрак» — darkness, gloom: A bookish, weighty word for darkness with strong moral and spiritual overtones (gloom, murk, the dark of the soul) — heavier than the plain «темнота». Paired with «ревность» (jealousy), it sets the murderous mood of the father's garden.

Подозрение, что она здесь, с ним, с соперником его, в его объятиях и, может быть, смеется над ним в эту минуту, — захватывает ему дух.  
The suspicion that she is here, with him, with his rival, in his embraces and perhaps laughing at him at this very moment — takes his breath away.
> «С» + instrumental of accompaniment: The piled phrases «с ним, с соперником его» use «с» + instrumental ('with him, with his rival'). «Соперником» is the predicate's accompaniment; «его объятиях» is «в» + prepositional of location ('in his embraces').
> Dative experiencer 'takes his breath away': «Захватывает ему дух» — literally 'it seizes the breath to him', with «ему» in the dative as the one to whom it happens. This dative-experiencer framing, where the person undergoes the event rather than acting, pervades Dostoevsky's rendering of inner states.

Да и не подозрение только — какие уж теперь подозрения, обман явен, очевиден: она тут, вот в этой комнате, откуда свет, она у него там, за ширмами, — и вот несчастный подкрадывается к окну, почтительно в него заглядывает, благонравно смиряется и благоразумно уходит, поскорее вон от беды, чтобы чего не произошло, опасного и безнравственного, — и нас в этом хотят уверить, нас, знающих характер подсудимого, понимающих, в каком он был состоянии духа, в состоянии, нам известном по фактам, а главное, обладая знаками, которыми тотчас же мог отпереть дом и войти!»  
And not only suspicion — what suspicion can there be now, the deception is manifest, evident: she is here, right in this room, where the light is, she is with him there, behind the screen — and so the unhappy man creeps up to the window, respectfully peers into it, meekly resigns himself and prudently withdraws, hurrying away from trouble, lest something should happen, something dangerous and immoral — and we are to be assured of this, we who know the defendant's character, who understand what state of mind he was in, a state known to us from the facts, and above all, possessed of the signals with which he could at once unlock the house and enter!"
> Particle «уж» + rhetorical exclamation: «Какие уж теперь подозрения» = 'what suspicions could there be now!' — the dismissive «уж» (a reduced «уже», here purely a modal intensifier) brushes the idea aside. The verbless exclamation expects the answer 'none'.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «Явен, очевиден» are short-form adjectives ('is manifest, is evident') predicating of «обман». The bookish short form, used only predicatively, gives a clipped, absolute, almost forensic ring suited to the prosecutor's assertion.
> A chain of ironic historic-present verbs: Four imperfective present-tense verbs march the defence's improbable picture across the stage: he 'creeps up, peers in, meekly resigns himself, prudently withdraws'. The adverbs «почтительно, благонравно, благоразумно» drip with sarcasm at the supposed gentleness of a murderer.
> «Чтобы… не» of apprehension + genitive of negation: «Чтобы… не произошло» expresses fear that something might happen ('lest something happen'), with «чтобы» + past-form irrealis. The negated indefinite subject goes genitive: «чего… опасного и безнравственного» (anything dangerous and immoral).
> Participles agreeing vs gerund: «Знающих… понимающих» are present active participles agreeing in genitive with «нас» ('us who know… who understand'), each condensing a relative clause; but «обладая» is a gerund — and «обладать» governs the instrumental, «знаками» (the signals).

Здесь по поводу «знаков» Ипполит Кириллович оставил на время свое обвинение и нашел необходимым распространиться о Смердякове, с тем чтоб уж совершенно исчерпать весь этот вводный эпизод о подозрении Смердякова в убийстве и покончить с этою мыслию раз навсегда.  
Here, apropos of the 'signals,' Ippolit Kirillovitch left off his accusation for a time and found it necessary to expatiate on Smerdyakov, in order to dispose entirely of this whole interpolated episode of the suspicion of Smerdyakov in the murder and to be done with this notion once and for all.
> «По поводу» — apropos of, concerning: «По поводу» + genitive means 'on the occasion of, with regard to, apropos of' («знаков», the signals). A fixed prepositional phrase of the bookish narrative register.
> Purpose with «с тем, чтобы»: «С тем, чтобы» + infinitive is an emphatic purpose conjunction ('with the aim of, in order to') governing the two perfective infinitives «исчерпать» and «покончить» — to exhaust and to finish off. The perfectives stress a clean, total disposal of the topic.
> «Распространиться о» — to expatiate: In its reflexive form «распространиться о» means to dwell at length, expatiate on a subject — not its literal 'to spread'. The prosecutor finds it necessary «распространиться о Смердякове», to hold forth about Smerdyakov.
> Archaic instrumental «мыслию»: «Покончить с этою мыслию» uses the older instrumental ending «-ию» for «мысль» (modern «мыслью») and the bookish demonstrative «этою» (for «этой»). Both are period-elevated forms that flavour Dostoevsky's narrative prose.

Сделал он это весьма обстоятельно, и все поняли, что, несмотря на всё выказываемое им презрение к этому предположению, он все-таки считал его весьма важным.  
He did this very thoroughly, and everyone understood that, despite all the contempt he displayed for this supposition, he nonetheless considered it very important.
> Present passive participle + instrumental agent: «Выказываемое» is a present passive participle in «-ем-» ('being displayed'), agreeing with «презрение», and «им» is the instrumental of the agent — 'the contempt displayed by him'. «Несмотря на» + accusative gives the concessive 'despite'.
> «Считать» + instrumental of the predicate: «Считать кого/что кем/чем» (to consider someone/something to be…) puts the predicate in the instrumental: «считал его… важным» — considered it important. «Все-таки» ('all the same') concedes the gap between his shown contempt and his real estimation.
---

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.