# The Brothers Karamazov, Psychology at Full Steam. The Galloping Troika. The End of the Prosecutor's Speech

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c9. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c9.json.


Дойдя до этого момента в своей речи, Ипполит Кириллович, очевидно избравший строго исторический метод изложения, к которому очень любят прибегать все нервные ораторы, ищущие нарочно строго поставленных рамок, чтобы сдерживать собственное нетерпеливое увлечение, — Ипполит Кириллович особенно распространился о «прежнем» и «бесспорном» и высказал на эту тему несколько в своем роде занимательных мыслей.  
Having reached this point in his speech, Ippolit Kirillovitch — who had plainly chosen the strictly historical method of exposition, the one that all nervous orators are so fond of resorting to, deliberately seeking out tightly drawn boundaries in order to rein in their own impatient ardour — Ippolit Kirillovitch dwelt at particular length on the “previous” and the “incontestable,” and aired several thoughts on the subject that were, in their own way, rather diverting.
> Perfective gerund opening the sentence: «Дойдя» is a perfective past gerund («деепричастие») from «дойти» — 'having reached'. It frames a prior, completed action whose subject must be the same as the main clause (Ippolit Kirillovitch), and the whole sentence then hangs off it — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's literary period.
> A chain of participles: The sentence stacks active participles — past «избравший» ('who had chosen', from «избрать»), present «ищущие» ('who seek', from «искать») — plus the passive «поставленных» ('drawn, set'). Each condenses a «который»-clause into a single modifier, the dense participial texture typical of 19th-century bookish prose.
> «чтобы» of purpose: «чтобы» ('in order to') opens a clause of purpose; here it governs an infinitive («сдерживать») because the subject is the same as the main clause. With a different subject it would take a past-form verb in the irrealis.
> «распространиться о» — to dwell at length: Literally 'to spread oneself out', the reflexive «распространиться о чём-либо» idiomatically means to expatiate, to hold forth at length on a topic — exactly the windy orator's manner the narrator is gently mocking.

«Карамазов, ревновавший ко всем до бешенства, вдруг и разом как бы падает и исчезает перед „прежним“ и „бесспорным“.  
“Karamazov, who had been jealous to the point of frenzy of every man alive, all at once and in an instant seems to collapse and vanish before the ‘previous’ and the ‘incontestable.’
> Past active participle as character-sketch: «ревновавший» ('who had been jealous', from imperfective «ревновать») is a past active participle, agreeing with «Карамазов» and standing in for a «который»-clause. The imperfective stem gives an ongoing, habitual jealousy rather than a single fit.
> «до бешенства» — to the point of frenzy: «бешенство» is rabies, fury, raving madness; «ревновать… до бешенства» means jealous to the point of frenzy. The «до» + genitive frame ('to the point of') is a favourite Dostoevskian intensifier for emotional extremes.
> Dative after «к» and «ревновать»: «ревновать к кому-либо» governs the dative of the person one is jealous of; «ко всем» is the dative plural of «весь». The preposition «к» fixes the dative, and the vowel-padded «ко» appears before certain consonant clusters.

И тем более это странно, что прежде он совсем почти и не обращал внимания на эту новую для себя опасность, грядущую в лице неожиданного для него соперника.  
And it is the stranger because before this he had paid almost no attention at all to that new danger to himself, looming in the person of a rival he had never expected.
> Imperfective past for sustained inattention: «обращал» (imperfective past of «обращать») renders an enduring state — he 'had been paying' almost no attention — not a single act. The particle «и» here reinforces 'not even', heightening the negation.
> «грядущий» — a Church-Slavonic participle: «грядущая» is the present active participle of the solemn, archaic «грясти» ('to come, to be coming') — 'looming, impending'. Its Slavonic ring lends the prosecutor's rhetoric a touch of the prophetic ('the danger that cometh').
> «в лице» — in the person of: A fixed prepositional idiom: «в лице кого-либо» means 'in the person of, embodied in'. Here the abstract danger takes concrete shape «в лице… соперника», in the person of the rival.

Но он всё представлял себе, что это еще так далеко, а Карамазов всегда живет лишь настоящею минутой.  
But he kept imagining that it was still a long way off, and a Karamazov lives only in the present minute.
> Reflexive «себе» — to imagine to oneself: «представлять себе» pairs the verb with the dative reflexive pronoun «себе» ('to oneself') to mean 'to imagine, to picture'. The «себе» is the indirect-object reflexive, distinct from the verbal clitic -ся.
> Instrumental of time / means: «настоящею минутой» is instrumental ('lives by the present minute'). The ending «-ою» (for modern «-ой») is the older bookish variant of the feminine instrumental, common in 19th-century prose and verse.
> The contrastive «а»: «а» hinges the two halves with a soft contrast/topic-shift — 'but [as for] a Karamazov, he lives only in the present'. It is the untranslatable pivot that marks a change of subject without true opposition.

Вероятно, он считал его даже фикцией.  
Most likely he even took the man for a fiction.
> Instrumental predicate after «считать»: «считать кого-либо кем-либо» ('to consider someone [to be] something') puts the predicate noun in the instrumental: «фикцией». This is the same instrumental-of-role pattern as with быть/стать.
> «фикция» — a fiction, a phantom: A bookish Latinate loan ('fiction, fabrication'). Here it means the rival seemed to Mitya a mere figment, something with no real existence — picked up again in s6 («не фантазией и не фикцией»).

Но мигом поняв больным сердцем своим, что, может быть, потому-то эта женщина и скрывала этого нового соперника, потому-то и обманывала его давеча, что этот вновь прилетевший соперник был слишком для нее не фантазией и не фикцией, а составлял для нее всё, всё ее упование в жизни, — мигом поняв это, он смирился.  
But the moment he grasped, with his aching heart, that this was perhaps the very reason the woman had hidden this new rival, the very reason she had deceived him earlier that day — that this rival, alighting out of the blue, was for her no fantasy and no fiction, but made up her whole world, her whole hope in life — the moment he grasped that, he submitted.
> Perfective gerund bracketing a long sentence: «поняв» (perfective gerund of «понять») — 'having grasped' — opens the clause and is then resumed, after a vast interruption, by «мигом поняв это». The construction holds an enormous subordinate span in suspension before delivering the main verb «смирился».
> Instrumental of means + reflexive possessive: «сердцем» is instrumental ('with his heart'), the organ by which he understands; «своим» is the reflexive possessive 'his own', referring back to the clause subject. Russian places «своим» after the noun here for rhythmic, elevated weight.
> Emphatic «-то» on «потому»: The clitic «-то» fastened to «потому» ('for that very reason') underscores the known, pointed cause — 'precisely for this reason'. The doubled «потому-то… потому-то» drives home the prosecutor's insistent logic.
> «давеча» — earlier today, a little while ago: A colloquial, slightly old-fashioned adverb meaning 'a short while ago, earlier the same day'. It belongs to the spoken-narrative register and has a homely, period flavour.
> «упование» — hope, trust (elevated): A solemn, bookish-religious word for hope or trust placed in something, with Church-Slavonic colouring (cf. «уповать на Бога», to trust in God). It raises «всё ее упование в жизни» above ordinary «надежда».

Что же, господа присяжные, я не могу обойти умолчанием эту внезапную черту в душе подсудимого, который бы, казалось, ни за что не способен был проявить ее, высказалась вдруг неумолимая потребность правды, уважения к женщине, признания прав ее сердца, и когда же — в тот момент, когда из-за нее же он обагрил свои руки кровью отца своего!  
Well then, gentlemen of the jury, I cannot pass over in silence this sudden trait in the soul of the accused — a man who, one would have thought, was incapable of showing it for anything in the world — in whom there suddenly spoke an inexorable need for the truth, for respect toward the woman, for the acknowledgment of her heart’s rights, and at what moment, if you please — at the very moment when, because of her, he had stained his own hands with his father’s blood!
> Conditional «бы» inside a relative clause: «который бы… не способен был» uses the particle «бы» with a past-form verb to mark the hypothetical — 'a man who, one would have thought, would for nothing be capable of showing it'. The «бы» leans on the relative pronoun rather than the verb.
> «ни за что» — for nothing, on no account: An emphatic negative idiom, 'for nothing in the world, on no account'. The «ни» intensifies and demands the verb's «не» in negative concord (here «не способен»).
> Instrumental of means; reflexive possessive «свой»: «кровью» is the instrumental of means ('with blood'); «свои руки» and «отца своего» both use «свой» to keep the blood and the father referred to the subject. The elevated «обагрил» ('crimsoned, stained red') and post-posed «своего» heighten the rhetoric.
> «обагрить» — to stain crimson: A literary, elevated verb meaning to dye or stain red, almost always with blood («обагрить руки кровью»). Its bookish solemnity suits the prosecutor's heightened, sermon-like denunciation.

Правда и то, что и пролитая кровь уже закричала в эту минуту об отмщении, ибо он, погубивший душу свою и всю земную судьбу свою, он невольно должен был почувствовать и спросить себя в то мгновение: „Что значит он и что может он значить ''теперь'' для нее, для этого любимого им больше души своей существа, в сравнении с этим „прежним“ и „бесспорным“, покаявшимся и воротившимся к этой когда-то погубленной им женщине с новой любовью, с предложениями честными, с обетом возрожденной и уже счастливой жизни.  
True it is, too, that the blood already spilt was crying out at that minute for vengeance, for he — having ruined his own soul and his whole earthly fate — must have felt, in spite of himself, and asked himself in that instant: ‘What am I, and what can I mean to her ''now'', to this creature I love more than my own soul, set beside that “previous” and “incontestable” one — the man who has repented and come back to this woman I once ruined, come back with a new love, with honourable proposals, with the vow of a life reborn and already happy.
> «ибо» plus a past active participle: «ибо» is the archaic, bookish conjunction 'for, because', loftier than «потому что». It is followed by «погубивший» ('having ruined', past active participle of «погубить»), the participial apposition piling clause upon clause in high oratorical style.
> «должен был» — past of obligation: The short adjective «должен» ('obliged, bound to') plus the past «был» forms past necessity: 'he must have felt / was bound to feel'. With «невольно» ('involuntarily') it reads as psychological inevitability.
> Passive participle + instrumental agent: «любимого» is the rare present passive participle ('beloved', from «любить»); the agent stands in the instrumental, «им» ('by him'). The whole bookish phrase 'this creature loved by him more than his own soul' modifies «существа».
> «обет» — solemn vow: «обет» is a solemn, almost religious vow or pledge (cf. monastic «обеты», vows). «с обетом возрожденной… жизни» casts the rival's promise in near-sacramental terms — a vow of a life reborn.

А он, несчастный, что даст он ей ''теперь'', что ей предложит?“  
And I, the wretch, what can I give her ''now'', what can I offer her?’
> Perfective future in self-interrogation: «даст» and «предложит» are perfective verbs conjugated to express the simple future — 'what will he give', 'what will he offer'. Their single-completed-act force makes the despairing question sharper than an imperfective would.
> Substantivized adjective «несчастный»: «несчастный» ('the unhappy/wretched one') is an adjective used as a noun in apposition to «он» — 'and he, wretch that he is'. Russian freely turns adjectives into nouns this way; here it voices Mitya's self-pity in the prosecutor's ventriloquism.

Карамазов всё это понял, понял, что преступление его заперло ему все дороги и что он лишь приговоренный к казни преступник, а не человек, которому жить!  
Karamazov understood all this; he understood that his crime had barred every road to him, and that he was nothing but a criminal sentenced to death — not a man with a life to live!
> Dative of disadvantage «ему»: «заперло ему все дороги» — 'barred every road to/for him'. The dative «ему» marks the person affected by the action (the so-called ethical or disadvantage dative), where English needs 'to him'.
> Dative subject + infinitive 'a man with a life to live': «которому жить» is a dative-plus-infinitive impersonal: literally 'to whom [it is] to live', i.e. a man who is meant to / has a life to live. The dative names the one for whom living is in store — a compact Russian modal idiom.
> «приговорённый к казни» — sentenced to death: «приговорить к казни» is the legal formula 'to sentence to execution'; «приговорённый» is its past passive participle, here used as a noun-like modifier ('a criminal sentenced to death'). «казнь» is capital punishment, execution.

Эта мысль его раздавила и уничтожила.  
This thought crushed him and annihilated him.
> Twinned perfectives for a crushing blow: Both verbs are perfective past ('crushed', 'annihilated'), viewing the thought's effect as a single completed devastation. The doubling — synonyms in escalation — is a rhetorical intensifier typical of the prosecutor's style.

И вот он мгновенно останавливается на одном исступленном плане, который, при характере Карамазова, не мог не представиться ему как единственным и фатальным исходом из страшного его положения.  
And so in an instant he fastens upon one frenzied plan, which, given Karamazov’s character, could not but present itself to him as the sole and fatal way out of his terrible situation.
> Historic present in narration: «останавливается» is imperfective present used as a vivid 'historic present' to narrate a past event as if unfolding now — a device the prosecutor uses throughout to dramatise Mitya's mind. The reflexive «-ся» here gives the intransitive 'comes to a halt / fastens upon'.
> Double negative «не мог не» — could not but: «не мог не представиться» stacks two negations to mean 'could not but present itself / was bound to present itself'. This emphatic litotes is common in Russian and renders inevitability.
> «исступлённый» — frenzied, frantic: «исступление» is a state of frenzy, ecstasy, or raving — a key Dostoevskian word for the soul pushed past reason. «исступлённый план» is a plan born of that frenzy; the word recurs across the speech (s26, s17's «романического исступления»).

Этот исход — самоубийство.  
This way out is suicide.
> Zero copula with a dash: Russian uses no present-tense 'to be': 'This way out [is] suicide.' The dash stands in for the missing copula between two nominative nouns — the standard written marking of an equational sentence.

Он бежит за своими заложенными чиновнику Перхотину пистолетами и в то же время дорогой, на бегу, выхватывает из кармана все свои деньги, из-за которых только что забрызгал руки свои отцовскою кровью.  
He runs to fetch the pistols he had pawned with the clerk Perhotin, and at the same time, along the way, on the run, he snatches from his pocket all his money — the money for which he had only just spattered his hands with his father’s blood.
> Historic present, verbs of motion: «бежит» (unidirectional motion verb 'is running') and «выхватывает» continue the vivid present narration. «бежит» specifically marks single-direction, goal-bound running — 'he runs [there]' — as against multidirectional «бегает».
> Passive participle as dense modifier: «заложенными» is the past passive participle of «заложить» ('pawned'), agreeing with «пистолетами» in the instrumental; «чиновнику Перхотину» is a dative ('pawned with/to the clerk Perhotin'). The whole packs a relative clause into one instrumental noun-phrase.
> «забрызгать» — to spatter; «отцовскою» bookish ending: «забрызгать» is to splash or spatter (with droplets) — coarser and more visceral than «обагрить» in s7. «отцовскою» is the older long instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой») of «отцовский», 'father's'.

О, деньги теперь ему нужнее всего: умирает Карамазов, застреливается Карамазов, и это будут помнить!  
Oh, the money is more needful to him now than anything: Karamazov is dying, Karamazov is shooting himself, and this shall be remembered!
> Comparative «нужнее» + «всего»: «нужнее» is the invariable predicative comparative of «нужный» ('more needful'); «нужнее всего» ('more needful than anything') is the idiomatic superlative-by-comparison — comparative plus genitive «всего».
> Verb-first word order for drama: Fronting the verbs «умирает… застреливается» before the subject reverses the neutral order to throw rhetorical weight onto the actions. The reflexive «застреливается» ('shoots himself') uses -ся for the self-directed act.
> Compound future + indefinite 'they': «будут помнить» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive) — 'will [go on] remembering'. The subjectless third-person plural «будут» is the impersonal 'they/people will remember', a common Russian way to say 'it will be remembered'.

Недаром же мы поэт, недаром же мы прожигали нашу жизнь, как свечку с обоих концов.  
Not for nothing, after all, are we a poet; not for nothing have we burned away our life like a candle at both ends.
> Mock-grand 'we' + particle «же»: The prosecutor ventriloquizes Mitya in a self-aggrandizing first-person plural ('we are a poet'), and «же» adds insistent emphasis ('not for nothing, after all'). «Недаром» means 'not in vain, with good reason'.
> «прожигать жизнь» — to burn life away: «прожигать жизнь» is a set idiom for living dissolutely, squandering one's life in pleasure. Dostoevsky extends it with «как свечку с обоих концов» — like a candle lit at both ends — fusing the Russian idiom with the same image English knows. «свечку» is a diminutive of «свеча».

„К ней, к ней, — и там, о, там я задаю пир на весь мир, такой, какого еще не бывало, чтобы помнили и долго рассказывали.  
‘To her, to her — and there, oh, there I shall throw a feast for the whole world, such a feast as has never been seen, one to be remembered and told of long afterward.
> Historic present; «чтобы»-purpose with past form: «задаю» is the vivid present ('I throw [a feast]'). The trailing «чтобы помнили и долго рассказывали» uses «чтобы» plus past-form verbs because the subject (people in general) differs from 'I' — the irrealis purpose construction.
> «пир на весь мир» — a feast for all the world: A rhyming folk-idiom ('a feast for the whole world') for a lavish, no-expense-spared celebration. Its sing-song fairy-tale ring colours Mitya's romantic, theatrical fantasy of his last revel.

Среди диких криков, безумных цыганских песен и плясок мы подымем заздравный бокал и поздравим обожаемую женщину с ее новым счастьем, а затем — тут же, у ног ее, размозжим перед нею наш череп и казним нашу жизнь!  
Amid wild shouting, amid frantic gypsy songs and dancing, we shall raise the cup of health and toast the adored woman on her new happiness, and then — right there, at her feet, before her very eyes — we shall dash out our brains and execute our own life!
> String of perfective futures: Each verb is a perfective conjugated as a simple future ('we shall raise… toast… dash out… execute') — a sequence of single completed acts driving the fantasy forward. «подымем» is the colloquial/older variant of «поднимем».
> «заздравный бокал» — the cup of health: «заздравный» (from «за здравие», 'to the health of') describes a toast drunk to someone's health; «заздравный бокал» is the cup raised in such a toast. The word has a festive, slightly archaic ring.
> «размозжить» — to smash, dash out: «размозжить» is a violent verb, to smash or crush to pulp; «размозжить череп» is to blow one's brains out. The clinical brutality of the word jars deliberately against the festive «заздравный бокал» beside it.

Вспомнит когда-нибудь Митю Карамазова, увидит, как любил ее Митя, пожалеет Митю!“  
Some day she will remember Mitya Karamazov, will see how Mitya loved her, will feel pity for Mitya!’
> Perfective futures, subject withheld: Three perfective futures ('she will remember… see… pity'), with the subject «она» dropped because the endings already mark third-person singular, and the verbs fronted for momentum. The repeated object «Митю» drives the pathos.
> «Митя» — the diminutive of Дмитрий: «Митя» (accusative «Митю») is the affectionate short form of «Дмитрий». Mitya speaks of himself in this tender diminutive, casting himself as an object of pity — the name itself doing emotional work.

Много картинности, романического исступления, дикого карамазовского безудержу и чувствительности — ну и еще чего-то другого, господа присяжные, чего-то, что кричит в душе, стучит в уме неустанно и отравляет его сердце до смерти; это ''что-то'' — это совесть, господа присяжные, это суд ее, это страшные ее угрызения!  
Much of it is theatrical, full of romantic frenzy, of wild, headlong Karamazov abandon and sentimentality — well, and of something else besides, gentlemen of the jury, something that cries out in the soul, hammers ceaselessly in the mind and poisons the heart unto death; this ''something'' is conscience, gentlemen of the jury, it is the judgment of conscience, it is its dreadful pangs of remorse!
> «безудерж» — unrestrained abandon: «безудерж» (here genitive «безудержу») is uncontrolled, headlong abandon — from «без удержу», 'without check'. «дикого карамазовского безудержу» names the wild, unbridled Karamazov nature the prosecutor keeps invoking.
> Surname turned adjective: «карамазовский» is an adjective coined from the family name «Карамазов» — 'Karamazov-like, characteristic of a Karamazov'. Russian readily derives such -ский adjectives from proper names, here to brand a whole temperament.
> Three present-tense relative verbs: After «что-то, что…» three imperfective present verbs ('cries out… hammers… poisons') depict conscience as a continuous, ongoing torment. The «что» is the relative pronoun introducing the clause that defines the 'something'.

Но пистолет всё помирит, пистолет — единственный выход, и нет другого, а там — я не знаю, думал ли в ту минуту Карамазов, ''„что будет там“'', и может ли Карамазов по-гамлетовски думать о том, что там будет?  
But the pistol will reconcile everything; the pistol is the only way out, and there is no other, while as for what lies beyond — I do not know whether Karamazov was thinking, at that minute, ''“of what would come beyond,”'' or whether a Karamazov is even capable of brooding, Hamlet-fashion, on what would come there.
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether': «я не знаю, думал ли… Карамазов» uses the enclitic «ли» after the fronted, focused verb to mean 'whether he was thinking'. It is the literary marker of an indirect yes/no question.
> «по-гамлетовски» — Hamlet-fashion: An adverb coined from «Гамлет» with the «по-…-ски» pattern (cf. «по-русски»), meaning 'in Hamlet's manner, like Hamlet'. It sets up the famous closing contrast of s22 between brooding Hamlets and headlong Karamazovs.

Нет, господа присяжные, у тех Гамлеты, а у нас еще пока Карамазовы!»  
No, gentlemen of the jury, they over there have their Hamlets, while we, as yet, have only Karamazovs!”
> «у» + genitive of possession; contrastive «а»: «у тех… у нас» is the «у» + genitive 'have/among' construction ('with them there are…, with us there are…'), and «а» pivots the contrast. The surnames «Гамлеты», «Карамазовы» are pluralized into types — 'Hamlets', 'Karamazovs'.

Тут Ипполит Кириллович развернул подробнейшую картину сборов Мити, сцену у Перхотина, в лавке, с ямщиками.  
Here Ippolit Kirillovitch unfolded a most detailed picture of Mitya’s preparations — the scene at Perhotin’s, in the shop, with the drivers.
> Superlative suffix «-ейш-»: «подробнейшую» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «подробный» ('most detailed'), formed with the suffix «-ейш-» rather than periphrastic «самый». This elevated form suits the narrator's slightly ironic report of the orator's thoroughness.
> «ямщик» — coach-driver: A «ямщик» is a hired driver of a horse-drawn carriage or post-troika, a stock figure of Russian road life. The word recurs in s28 and ties to the chapter's troika imagery; «с ямщиками» is the «с» + instrumental of accompaniment.

Он привел массу слов, изречений, жестов, всё подтвержденных свидетелями, — и картина страшно повлияла на убеждение слушателей.  
He cited a mass of words, sayings, and gestures, all confirmed by witnesses — and the picture had a terrible effect on the conviction of those who heard it.
> Passive participle + instrumental agent: «подтверждённых» is the past passive participle of «подтвердить» ('confirmed'), and the agent «свидетелями» ('by witnesses') stands in the instrumental — the regular way Russian names the doer of a passive.
> «страшно» as an intensifying adverb: Here «страшно» ('terribly') has bleached into a mere intensifier — 'had a terrible/powerful effect' — rather than literally 'frighteningly'. This colloquial intensifier-use is common in expressive narration.

Главное, повлияла совокупность фактов.  
Above all, it was the sum of the facts together that told.
> Verb before subject; «главное» as parenthetical: «Главное» ('the main thing, above all') opens as a parenthetical adverbial; the verb «повлияла» precedes its subject «совокупность фактов», throwing the new information (the sum of facts) to the end — Russian's topic-comment flow.
> «совокупность» — the aggregate, totality: «совокупность» is a bookish, almost legal noun meaning the sum-total or aggregate of several things taken together. «совокупность фактов» ('the totality of the facts') is exactly the kind of forensic phrasing a prosecutor reaches for.

Виновность этого исступленно мятущегося и уже не берегущего себя человека выставилась неотразимо.  
The guilt of this man — frenzied, in torment, and no longer caring what became of himself — stood out irresistibly.
> Two present participles + reflexive «себя»: «мятущегося» ('in torment', from «метаться', to thrash about) and «берегущего» ('caring for', from «беречь») are present active participles in the genitive, agreeing with «человека». «себя» is the reflexive object — 'no longer guarding himself'.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «выставилась» (from «выставиться») uses -ся for an intransitive/middle sense — the guilt 'set itself forth, stood out' rather than being put forth by an agent. «неотразимо» ('irresistibly, undeniably') intensifies.

«Нечего уже ему было беречь себя, — говорил Ипполит Кириллович, — два-три раза он чуть-чуть было не сознался вполне, почти намекал и только разве не договаривал (здесь следовали показания свидетелей).  
“He had nothing left to spare himself for,” said Ippolit Kirillovitch, “two or three times he came within a hair’s breadth of confessing outright, all but hinted at it, and stopped only just short of saying it (here followed the witnesses’ testimony).
> Negative «нечего» + dative subject + infinitive: «нечего… беречь» is the negative impersonal 'there is nothing to spare himself for'; the logical subject «ему» stands in the dative, and «было» supplies past tense. A classic dative-experiencer impersonal with a negative pronoun.
> «было» of the averted action: «чуть-чуть было не сознался» combines the 'almost' particle «чуть-чуть», the special past particle «было» (marking an action begun or nearly done but not completed), and «не сознался» — 'he very nearly confessed [but didn't]'. The «было…не» frame signals an action on the brink.
> «договаривать» — to say out fully: «договаривать/договорить» is to finish saying something, to spell it all out. «только разве не договаривал» — 'only just stopped short of saying it outright'. The verb recurs in s29 («договорить… нельзя было»).

Даже ямщику в дороге крикнул: „Знаешь ли, что ты убийцу везешь!“  
He even cried out to the driver on the road: ‘Do you know you are carrying a murderer!’
> «ли» in a direct question; animate accusative: «Знаешь ли» fronts the verb with «ли» for a pointed direct question ('Do you know…?'). «убийцу» is the accusative singular of «убийца» (a first-declension -а noun; the genitive is the distinct «убийцы»), the object of «везёшь» ('you are carrying/driving'). The acc=gen animacy rule does not apply to singular -а nouns.
> «везти» — to carry by conveyance: «везти» (here «везёшь») specifically means to transport someone/something by vehicle (as a driver does), unidirectional motion. To a ямщик driving him, Mitya cries that he is 'carrying a murderer' — the verb fits the troika scene exactly.

Но договорить все-таки ему нельзя было: надо было попасть сперва в село Мокрое и уже там закончить поэму.  
But say it out fully he could not, all the same: he had first to reach the village of Mokroe, and only there to finish his poem.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + dative: «ему нельзя было [договорить]» is the impersonal modal of impossibility/prohibition: «нельзя» ('one cannot / must not') with the dative experiencer «ему» and «было» for the past — 'he could not say it out'.
> Impersonal «надо» of necessity: «надо было попасть… закончить» is the impersonal necessity construction ('it was necessary to reach… to finish'), again with no nominative subject. The perfective infinitives «попасть» and «закончить» view each task as a single completed goal.

Но что же, однако, ожидает несчастного?  
But what, after all, awaits the unhappy man?
> Particle «же» + concessive «однако»: «что же… однако» layers two attitude-markers: «же» lends the question urgency ('but what, then…'), «однако» a turning-back ('however, after all'). «несчастного» is the animate accusative of the substantivized adjective 'the unhappy man'.

Дело в том, что почти с первых же минут в Мокром он видит и, наконец, постигает совершенно, что „бесспорный“ соперник его вовсе, может быть, уж не так бесспорен и что поздравлений с новым счастьем и заздравного бокала от него не хотят и не принимают.  
The thing is that almost from the very first minutes at Mokroe he sees, and at last grasps completely, that his “incontestable” rival is perhaps not so incontestable after all, and that no congratulations on her new happiness, no cup of health, are wanted from him or will be accepted.
> Imperfective present of dawning realization: «видит… постигает» are imperfective present (historic present) verbs of perception, rendering the gradual unfolding of Mitya's understanding as ongoing process. «постигать» ('to comprehend, grasp') is more elevated than «понимать».
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated verbs «не хотят и не принимают», the objects shift to the genitive — «поздравлений», «заздравного бокала» — instead of the accusative. This genitive-of-negation marks the wholesale rejection of what is offered.

Но вы уже знаете факты, господа присяжные, по судебному следствию.  
But you already know the facts, gentlemen of the jury, from the judicial inquiry.

Торжество Карамазова над соперником оказалось неоспоримым и тут — о, тут начался совсем уже новый фазис в его душе, и даже самый страшный фазис изо всех, какие пережила и еще переживет когда-либо эта душа!  
Karamazov’s triumph over his rival proved beyond dispute — and here, oh, here there began an altogether new phase in his soul, and the most terrible phase of all that this soul has lived through or will ever live through!
> Aspect pair across past and future: The relative «какие» governs «пережила» (perfective past, 'has lived through') and «переживёт» (perfective future, 'will yet live through') — the same verb in both tenses the perfective allows, spanning all the soul's torments past and to come.
> «фазис» — phase (archaic form): «фазис» is the older, learned masculine variant of modern «фаза» ('phase, stage'), a Greek loan. Its slightly bookish, scientific air suits the prosecutor's pose of clinical psychological analysis.

Положительно можно признать, господа присяжные, — воскликнул Ипполит Кириллович, — что поруганная природа и преступное сердце — сами за себя мстители полнее всякого земного правосудия!  
It may be positively affirmed, gentlemen of the jury,” cried Ippolit Kirillovitch, “that outraged nature and a guilty heart are themselves avengers more complete than any earthly justice!
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «можно признать» is the impersonal 'one may affirm / it can be affirmed', with no subject and the infinitive carrying the action. «Положительно» here means 'positively, decidedly' (an intensifier), not 'in a positive manner'.
> Intensifier «сами» + reflexive «себя»: «сами за себя» combines the intensive pronoun «сами» ('themselves') with «за себя» ('for themselves') — 'avengers of/for their own selves'. «поруганная природа и преступное сердце» are cast as their own avengers.
> «поругать/поруганный» — outraged, defiled: «поруганный» (past passive participle) means defiled, profaned, outraged — a word with archaic-religious overtones (cf. «поругание святыни», desecration). «поруганная природа» is human nature violated, which then takes its own revenge.

Мало того: правосудие и земная казнь даже облегчают казнь природы, даже необходимы душе преступника в эти моменты как спасение ее от отчаяния, ибо я и представить себе не могу того ужаса и тех нравственных страданий Карамазова, когда он узнал, что она его любит, что для него отвергает своего „прежнего“ и „бесспорного“, что его, его, „Митю“, зовет с собою в обновленную жизнь, обещает ему счастье, и это когда же?  
More than that: justice and earthly punishment even lighten the punishment that nature inflicts — are even necessary to the criminal’s soul in such moments, as its salvation from despair, for I cannot so much as imagine the horror and the moral torments of Karamazov when he learned that she loved him, that for his sake she was casting off her “previous” and “incontestable” one, that she was calling him, him, “Mitya,” to a renewed life with her, was promising him happiness — and when was this?
> Short adjective + dative: «необходимы» is the short (predicative) plural of «необходимый» ('indispensable'), and it governs the dative «душе преступника» ('to the criminal's soul'). Short adjectives are the bookish norm for such predicates and often take a dative complement.
> Archaic «ибо»; «и… не» emphatic negation: «ибо» ('for, because') is the lofty bookish causal conjunction. «я и представить себе не могу» uses «и» before the infinitive to mean 'I cannot even imagine', with «себе» the dative reflexive of «представить себе».
> Emphatic repetition of the accusative pronoun: The tripled object «его, его, „Митю“» heaps emphasis on the astonishment that it is precisely *him* she calls — pronoun, repeated pronoun, then the tender diminutive name in apposition, all accusative objects of «зовёт».

Когда уже всё для него покончено и когда уже ничего невозможно!  
When everything was already finished for him, and when nothing more was possible!
> Short passive participle + impersonal predicate: «покончено» is the short neuter past passive participle ('everything is finished/done with'), an impersonal result-state; «ничего невозможно» pairs the genitive «ничего» with the impersonal «невозможно» — 'nothing is possible'. Both are subjectless states.

Кстати, сделаю вскользь одну весьма важную для нас заметку для пояснения настоящей сущности тогдашнего положения подсудимого: эта женщина, эта любовь его до самой этой последней минуты, до самого даже мига ареста, пребывала для него существом недоступным, страстно желаемым, но недостижимым.  
By the way, I will note in passing one remark of great importance to us, by way of explaining the true nature of the accused’s situation at that time: this woman, this love of his, right up to the very last minute, up to the very instant of arrest, had remained for him a creature beyond reach, passionately longed for but unattainable.
> Instrumental predicate after «пребывать»: «пребывать» ('to remain, abide' — bookish for «оставаться») takes its predicate in the instrumental: «существом недоступным» ('a being unattainable'). The post-posed adjective «недоступным» and the lofty verb both raise the register.
> «вскользь» — in passing: «вскользь» is an adverb meaning 'in passing, casually, glancingly'. «сделаю вскользь одну… заметку» is the orator's familiar gesture of slipping in an aside while pretending it is minor.
> Present passive participle as adjective: «желаемым» is the rare present passive participle of «желать» ('desired'), here in the instrumental agreeing with «существом», modified by «страстно» ('passionately'). It pairs with «недостижимым» ('unattainable') to define the unreachable beloved.

Но почему, почему он не застрелился тогда же, почему оставил принятое намерение и даже забыл, где лежит его пистолет?  
But why, why did he not shoot himself then and there, why did he abandon the resolution he had taken, and even forget where his pistol lay?
> Reflexive «-ся» of the self-directed act: «застрелился» (perfective past of «застрелиться») uses -ся for the reflexive 'shot himself'. The doubled «почему, почему» and «тогда же» ('then and there, at that very time') give the rhetorical question its urgency.
> Indirect question with «где»: «забыл, где лежит его пистолет» embeds an indirect question introduced by «где» ('where'). «лежит» ('lies') is the imperfective present of position — Russian prefers a specific stance verb (lying, standing) where English just says 'was'.

А вот именно эта страстная жажда любви и надежда ее тогда же, тут же утолить и удержали его.  
It was precisely this passionate craving for love, and the hope of slaking it then and there, on the spot, that held him back.
> Fronted subject for focus; «именно»: «именно» ('it was precisely…') spotlights the subject — the passionate craving and hope — which is heaped up at the front while the verb «удержали» lands the answer. The plural verb agrees with the compound subject «жажда… и надежда».
> «утолить» — to slake, satisfy: «утолить» is to quench or assuage a thirst, hunger, or longing (cf. «утолить жажду», to slake thirst). Applied to «жажда любви», 'the thirst for love', it sustains the chapter's metaphor of craving as an unquenchable thirst.

В чаду пира он приковался к своей возлюбленной, тоже вместе с ним пирующей, прелестной и обольстительной для него более, чем когда-либо, — он не отходит от нее, любуется ею, исчезает пред нею.  
In the heat of the carousal he clings to his beloved, who is feasting there beside him, more enchanting and seductive to him than ever — he will not leave her side, he gazes on her, he loses himself before her.
> Reflexive verbs in the historic present: A run of -ся and motion verbs in the vivid present: «приковался» ('chained himself, clung'), «не отходит» ('does not move away'), «любуется» ('gazes admiringly', -ся middle), «исчезает» ('vanishes'). The cluster paints obsessive, helpless devotion.
> «любоваться» governs the instrumental: «любоваться кем-либо» ('to admire, gaze with delight upon') takes its object in the instrumental — «ею» ('her'). A number of Russian verbs of attitude (гордиться, восхищаться, любоваться) require the instrumental rather than the accusative.
> «чад» — fumes, intoxicating haze: «чад» is acrid smoke or fumes, and figuratively a daze or stupor; «в чаду пира» is 'in the intoxicating haze of the feast'. The word recurs in s43 («чад и гам») and conveys both literal smoke and clouded judgment.

Эта страстная жажда даже могла на миг подавить не только страх ареста, но и самые угрызения совести!  
This passionate craving could even, for a moment, smother not only the fear of arrest but the very pangs of conscience!
> Correlative «не только… но и»: «не только… но и» ('not only… but also') is a paired correlative conjunction, here escalating from «страх ареста» to «самые угрызения совести». «самые» means 'the very' (intensifier), not 'most'.

На миг, о, только на миг!  
For a moment, oh, only for a moment!
> Verbless exclamatory fragment: An elliptical, verbless exclamation echoing the end of s41 — Russian freely drops the verb in such emotive repetitions. «на миг» ('for a moment', «миг» = instant) is fronted bare for rhetorical effect.

Я представляю себе тогдашнее состояние души преступника в бесспорном рабском подчинении трем элементам, подавившим ее совершенно: во-первых, пьяное состояние, чад и гам, топот пляски, визг песен, и она, она, раскрасневшаяся от вина, поющая и пляшущая, пьяная и смеющаяся ему!  
I picture to myself the state of the criminal’s soul at that time as held in unquestionable, slavish thrall to three elements that overwhelmed it utterly: first, the drunken state, the fumes and the din, the stamp of the dancing, the shriek of the songs, and she, she, flushed with wine, singing and dancing, drunk and laughing at him!
> A cascade of active participles: «раскрасневшаяся» (past, 'flushed'), then present participles «поющая», «пляшущая», «смеющаяся» ('singing, dancing, laughing'), all feminine nominative agreeing with «она». The pile-up turns Grushenka into a swirl of simultaneous, intoxicating action.
> Dative after «подчинение»; numeral + noun: «подчинение чему-либо» ('subjection to something') governs the dative «трём элементам». The numeral «три» also takes a special case form of its noun; in the dative the whole phrase «трём элементам» declines together.
> Sensory nouns of the carousal: A drumroll of vivid nouns: «гам» (din, hubbub), «топот» (stamping of feet), «пляска» (folk-dance), «визг» (shriek, squeal). Their clipped, onomatopoeic quality recreates the sensory overload of the Mokroe revel.

Во-вторых, ободряющая отдаленная мечта о том, что роковая развязка еще далеко, по крайней мере не близко, — разве на другой только день, лишь наутро придут и возьмут его.  
Second, the heartening, far-off dream that the fatal reckoning was still a long way off — not close, at any rate — that surely not before the next day, not before morning, would they come and take him.
> Perfective futures; particle «разве»: «придут и возьмут» are perfective futures ('they will come and take him'), the subjectless 'they' of impersonal narration. «разве» here softens to 'surely only', voicing the consoling self-deception that arrest is far off.
> «развязка» — the dénouement: «развязка» (literally an 'untying') is the resolution or climax of a drama or plot — and by extension a fateful outcome. «роковая развязка» ('the fatal dénouement') keeps the chapter's running metaphor of Mitya's life as a poem or play hurtling to its end.

Стало быть, несколько часов, это много, ужасно много!  
So then, several hours — that is a great deal, an awful lot!
> «стало быть» — discourse 'so then': «стало быть» is a fossilized phrase ('so then, consequently, that is to say'), drawing a conclusion in a colloquial, reasoning voice. It opens the verbless exclamation «несколько часов, это много», where «это» resumes the topic before the comment.

В несколько часов можно много придумать.  
In a few hours one can think up a great deal.
> Impersonal «можно» of possibility: «можно… придумать» is the subjectless 'one can think up [a great deal]', with the perfective infinitive «придумать» viewing the inventing as an achievable result. A generic, experiencer-less statement.

Я представляю себе, что с ним было нечто похожее на то, когда преступника везут на смертную казнь, на виселицу: еще надо проехать длинную-длинную улицу, да еще шагом, мимо тысяч народа, затем будет поворот в другую улицу и в конце только этой другой улицы страшная площадь!  
I picture to myself that something happened to him like what befalls a criminal being carried to execution, to the gallows: there is still a long, long street to drive down, and at a walking pace at that, past thousands of people, then there will be a turn into another street, and only at the end of that other street the dreadful square!
> Impersonal 'they carry'; animate accusative: «преступника везут» uses the subjectless third-plural «везут» ('they carry') for a generic agent, with «преступника» the animate accusative object. «везти» again marks unidirectional conveyance toward the gallows.
> Reduplication for intensity: Repeating the adjective — «длинную-длинную» ('a long, long street') — is a colloquial Russian intensifier conveying extreme degree, far more vivid than a single «очень длинную». It mimics the dragging subjective sense of the endless road.

Мне именно кажется, что в начале шествия осужденный, сидя на позорной своей колеснице, должен именно чувствовать, что пред ним еще бесконечная жизнь.  
It seems to me precisely that at the start of the procession the condemned man, seated in his cart of shame, must feel precisely that an endless life still lies before him.
> Short adjective «должен»; archaic «пред»: «должен… чувствовать» is the short-adjective modal of obligation ('must feel'). «пред» is the bookish/poetic variant of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «ним» — a touch of elevated register.
> «колесница позора» — the cart of shame: «колесница» is a lofty word for a chariot or cart (cf. biblical/triumphal chariots); «позорная колесница» is the tumbrel in which the condemned were paraded to execution. The grand word ironically dignifies the cart of disgrace.

Но вот, однако же, уходят дома, колесница всё подвигается — о, это ничего, до поворота во вторую улицу еще так далеко, и вот он всё еще бодро смотрит направо и налево и на эти тысячи безучастно любопытных людей, приковавшихся к нему взглядами, и ему всё еще мерещится, что он такой же, как и они, человек.  
But there — the houses keep slipping away, the cart keeps moving on — oh, that is nothing, the turn into the second street is still so far off, and look, he still gazes briskly to right and left at these thousands of idly curious people who fasten their eyes upon him, and it still seems to him that he is a man like them, like any of them.
> Historic present + iterative «всё»: Imperfective presents «уходят» ('keep slipping away') and «подвигается» ('keeps moving on') render continuous process; «всё» here is the adverb 'continually, all the while', not the pronoun 'everything'. The -ся of «подвигается» gives the middle 'moves itself along'.
> Dative experiencer with «мерещиться»: «мерещится» ('it seems, it is fancied') is an impersonal experiencer verb taking the dative «ему» — 'it still seems to him'. The -ся verb has no nominative subject; the person to whom it appears stands in the dative.
> «безучастный» — indifferent, detached: «безучастный» (from «без участия», 'without participation/sympathy') means detached, indifferent, taking no part. «безучастно любопытных» captures the crowd's idle, uninvolved curiosity — gawking without compassion.

Но вот уже и поворот в другую улицу — о! это ничего, ничего, еще целая улица.  
But now comes the turn into the other street — oh, that is nothing, nothing, there is a whole street yet.
> «ничего» as 'it's all right': Here «ничего» is the idiomatic 'it's nothing, never mind, it's all right' — not the negative pronoun. The repeated «ничего, ничего» plus verbless «еще целая улица» ('a whole street yet') voice the condemned man's self-soothing.

И сколько бы ни уходило домов, он всё будет думать: „Еще осталось много домов“.  
And however many houses slip away, he will keep thinking: ‘There are still plenty of houses left.’
> Concessive «сколько бы ни» + genitive: «сколько бы ни уходило домов» is the concessive 'however many houses slip away', built from «сколько» + the particles «бы… ни» and a past-form verb. The counted noun «домов» stands in the genitive plural after «сколько».
> Compound future for ongoing thought: «будет думать» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive) — 'he will keep thinking' — its imperfective aspect stressing the repeated, continuing nature of the consoling thought. «всё» = 'continually'.

И так до самого конца, до самой площади.  
And so it goes, right to the very end, right to the square itself.
> Intensifier «самый» + genitive of «до»: «самый» here means 'the very' ('right to the very end, the very square'), declining to agree — «самого конца», «самой площади» — both genitives governed by «до» ('up to'). The parallel «до… до…» drives the relentless approach home.

Так, представляю себе, было тогда и с Карамазовым.  
So, I picture to myself, it was then with Karamazov too.
> «с» + instrumental of the one affected: «было… с Карамазовым» — 'so it was with Karamazov' — uses «с» plus the instrumental to name the person to whom something happens. The particle «и» here means 'too, also' ('so it was with Karamazov too').

„Еще там не успели, — думает он, — еще можно что-нибудь подыскать, о, еще будет время сочинить план защиты, сообразить отпор, а теперь, теперь — теперь она так прелестна!“  
‘They have not managed it over there yet,’ he thinks, ‘there is still something one might hit upon, oh, there will still be time to compose a plan of defence, to work out a rejoinder — and now, now — now she is so enchanting!’
> Layered impersonals of hope: A chain of subjectless constructions: «не успели» ('they haven't managed it', impersonal 'they'), «можно подыскать» ('one can hit upon'), «будет время сочинить» ('there will be time to compose'). Together they stage the mind's bargaining with fate.
> Indefinite «что-нибудь» — anything at all: «что-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'something, anything at all' — he might hit upon any expedient, not a particular one. Contrast «что-то», which would mean a specific but unnamed thing.

Смутно и страшно в душе его, но он успевает, однако же, отложить от своих денег половину и где-то их спрятать — иначе я не могу объяснить себе, куда могла исчезнуть целая половина этих трех тысяч, только что взятых им у отца из-под подушки.  
All is dim and dreadful in his soul, yet he manages, all the same, to set aside half of his money and to hide it away somewhere — otherwise I cannot explain to myself where a whole half of those three thousand could have vanished to, money he had only just taken from his father from under the pillow.
> Impersonal predicate-adverbs of feeling: «Смутно и страшно [было] в душе его» uses the neuter predicative adverbs «смутно» ('dimly, confusedly') and «страшно» ('dreadfully') with no subject — the impersonal way Russian states an inner state ('all is dim and dreadful in his soul').
> «успевать» + perfective infinitive: «успевает отложить… спрятать» — 'he manages to set aside… to hide' — pairs «успевать» ('to have time / manage to') with perfective infinitives that view each action as a completed result. The historic present sustains the on-the-spot immediacy.

Он в Мокром уже не раз, он там уже кутил двое суток.  
He has been at Mokroe more than once before; he had already caroused there two days running.
> Verbless present vs. imperfective past: The first clause is verbless ('he [has been] at Mokroe more than once', present zero-copula), the second imperfective past «кутил» ('had been carousing') of habitual action. «двое суток» uses the collective numeral «двое» with «сутки» (a 24-hour day), 'two full days'.
> «кутить» — to carouse, go on a spree: «кутить» means to revel, drink, and squander money in riotous merrymaking — the verb for a Russian binge or spree («кутёж»). It defines Mitya's whole mode of being at Mokroe.

Этот старый, большой деревянный дом ему известен, со всеми сараями, галереями.  
This old, large wooden house is well known to him, with all its outbuildings and galleries.
> Short adjective «известен» + dative: «известен» is the short predicative form of «известный» ('known'), governing the dative «ему» — 'the house is known to him'. The trailing «со всеми сараями, галереями» is «с» + instrumental of accompaniment.
> «сарай», «галерея» — outbuildings: «сарай» is a shed, barn, or outbuilding; «галерея» here a covered passage or veranda running along the house. The detail of a rambling wooden house «со всеми сараями» sets up the prosecutor's theory of where the money was hidden (s58).

Я именно предполагаю, что часть денег скрылась тогда же, и именно в этом доме, незадолго пред арестом, в какую-нибудь щель, в расщелину, под какую-нибудь половицу, где-нибудь в углу, под кровлей — для чего?  
I suppose precisely that part of the money was hidden then and there, and precisely in that house, shortly before the arrest — in some crack, in some chink, under some floorboard, somewhere in a corner, beneath the roof — and what for?
> Reflexive «скрыться»; partitive genitive: «скрылась» (perfective of «скрыться», -ся) is the intransitive 'hid itself, vanished'. «часть денег» uses the partitive genitive «денег» after «часть» ('a part of the money'), and «денег» is itself the genitive plural of the pluralia-tantum «деньги'.
> Hiding-places: «щель», «расщелина», «половица»: A precise little inventory: «щель» (a crack, slit), «расщелина» (a cleft, chink), «половица» (a single floorboard), «под кровлей» (beneath the roof, «кровля» = roofing). The indefinite «какую-нибудь» ('some… or other') signals the prosecutor is guessing at an unspecified crevice.

Как для чего?  
What for, indeed?
> Echo-question «Как…?»: «Как для чего?» ('What do you mean, what for?') is the rhetorical echo-question: «как» repeats and challenges the previous question «для чего?» of s58, as if scandalized that anyone could ask. A lively oratorical device.

Катастрофа может совершиться сейчас, конечно мы еще не обдумали, как ее встретить, да и некогда нам, да и стучит у нас в голове, да и к ''ней-то'' тянет, ну а деньги? — деньги во всяком положении необходимы!  
The catastrophe may break upon us at any moment now; of course we have not yet thought out how to meet it, and there is no time for us, and our head is pounding, and we are drawn to ''her'' — but the money? — money is indispensable in every situation!
> Reflexive «совершиться» + modal «может»: «может совершиться» — 'may come to pass' — pairs the modal «может» with the perfective reflexive infinitive «совершиться» (-ся, 'to be accomplished, occur'). The catastrophe is framed as happening of itself, agentless.
> Impersonal verbs + emphatic «ней-то»: «стучит у нас в голове» ('our head is pounding', subjectless 'it pounds') and «тянет» ('one is drawn', impersonal) are agentless physical-pull verbs. «к ней-то» fastens the emphatic clitic «-то» to the pronoun — 'and toward *her* [we are] drawn'. The chain of «да и…» ('and besides') mimics breathless reasoning.
> Short adjective «необходимы» as predicate: «необходимы» is the short plural predicative of «необходимый» ('indispensable'), agreeing with «деньги». The aphoristic, dash-punctuated close — 'money is indispensable in every situation' — lands as the prosecutor's cynical summary of Mitya's calculation.

Человек с деньгами — везде человек.  
A man with money is a man anywhere.
> Zero copula and the dash: Russian uses no verb 'to be' in the present, so the dash «—» stands in for 'is' between two nominatives: «человек … — человек» ('a man … is a man'). Both noun phrases are in the nominative because the link is a present-tense equation.
> Instrumental after «с» (with): «с деньгами» ('with money') is the instrumental of accompaniment governed by the preposition «с». «Деньги» is a plurale tantum, so it appears only in the plural, here instrumental «деньгами».

Может быть, такая расчетливость в такую минуту вам покажется неестественною?  
Perhaps such calculation at such a minute will strike you as unnatural?
> Dative experiencer 'will strike you': «вам покажется неестественною» frames the impression impersonally: the person to whom something seems goes in the dative, «вам» ('to you'). The verb «покажется» is a perfective future ('will appear, will seem').
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: The predicate adjective stands in the instrumental after «показаться» ('to seem [to be]'). The ending «-ою» (for modern «-ой») is the bookish, 19th-century long form, lending the prosecutor's speech its formal cadence.

Но ведь уверяет же он сам, что еще за месяц пред тем, в один тоже самый тревожный и роковой для него момент, он отделил от трех тысяч половину и зашил себе в ладонку, и если, конечно, это неправда, что и докажем сейчас, то всё же эта идея Карамазову знакомая, он ее созерцал.  
But after all he assures us himself that a whole month before, in another moment equally anxious and fateful for him, he had set aside half of the three thousand and sewn it into a little amulet bag; and even if this, of course, is untrue — which we shall prove presently — still the idea is one familiar to Karamazov, one he had dwelt upon.
> Emphatic particle «же»: «же» here insists and presses the point — 'but he himself does assure us'. Set right after «уверяет», it underlines the verb, a hallmark of the prosecutor's rhetorical needling.
> Dative of interest «себе»: «зашил себе» uses the reflexive pronoun «себе» in the dative — 'sewed [it] for himself, into his own'. It marks the subject as the beneficiary of his own action, a flavour English drops.
> Conditional with correlative «то»: «если … то» is the standard Russian 'if … then' frame; «то всё же» ('then still, all the same') concedes the point even granting the falsehood. «Всё же» is a fixed concessive 'all the same'.
> Dative with «знакомый» (familiar to): «знакомая Карамазову» means 'familiar to Karamazov' — the adjective «знакомый» governs the dative of the person to whom something is known. Note the personal name «Карамазову» itself declines in the dative.

Мало того, когда он уверял потом следователя, что отделил полторы тысячи в ладонку (которой никогда не бывало), то, может быть, и выдумал эту ладонку, тут же мгновенно, именно потому, что два часа пред тем отделил половину денег и спрятал куда-нибудь там в Мокром, на всякий случай, до утра, только чтобы не хранить на себе, по внезапно представившемуся вдохновению.  
What is more, when he afterward assured the investigating magistrate that he had set aside fifteen hundred in a little bag (one that had never existed), it may be that he invented this little bag then and there, on the instant, precisely because two hours before he had set aside half the money and hidden it somewhere there at Mokroe, against all eventualities, until morning, simply so as not to keep it on himself, acting on an inspiration that came to him out of the blue.
> «Мало того» — 'what is more': A set discourse connective, literally 'little of that', meaning 'moreover, not only that, what is more'. It piles a further point onto the argument and is typical of formal, oratorical prose.
> Genitive of negation with «не бывало»: «которой никогда не бывало» — 'which had never existed' — uses the negated existential «не бывало» (iterative of «быть»), which forces its subject into the genitive «которой». «Бывало» conveys 'used to be / ever was', stronger than a plain «не было».
> Indefinite «-нибудь» (anywhere at all): «куда-нибудь» means 'to somewhere or other, anywhere at all' — the «-нибудь» series marks a non-specific, undetermined place, fitting the prosecutor's point that even Mitya did not fix on a spot.
> Past active participle as modifier: «представившемуся» is a past active participle from «представиться» ('to present itself'), agreeing with «вдохновению» in the dative after «по». The whole phrase ('on an inspiration that had presented itself') compresses a который-clause into one adjective — dense, literary syntax.

Две бездны, господа присяжные, вспомните, что Карамазов может созерцать две бездны, и обе разом!  
Two abysses, gentlemen of the jury, remember that Karamazov is capable of contemplating two abysses, and both at once!
> Polite plural imperative: «вспомните» ('remember!') is the perfective imperative with the «-те» ending that makes it plural or polite — addressed to the «господа присяжные» (gentlemen of the jury).
> «бездна» — abyss, and a Karamazov motif: «бездна» ('abyss, chasm') is a charged, near-Biblical word in Dostoevsky. 'Two abysses, both at once' echoes the novel's recurring image of the Karamazov soul holding the ideal of the Madonna and the ideal of Sodom together — sensuality and saintliness in one breast.

В том доме мы искали, но не нашли.  
In that house we searched, but did not find it.
> Aspect pair «искали / не нашли»: The imperfective «искали» ('were searching', the drawn-out process) is set against the perfective «не нашли» ('did not find', the completed result). The pairing — long looking, no result — is exactly what aspect exists to draw.

Может, эти деньги и теперь еще там, а может, и на другой день исчезли и теперь у подсудимого.  
Perhaps that money is still there even now, or perhaps the next day it vanished and is now in the possession of the accused.
> «у» + genitive for possession: «теперь у подсудимого» ('now in the possession of the accused') uses the «у» + genitive frame that Russian prefers to a verb 'to have': literally 'by/at the accused [is]'. «Подсудимого» is a substantivized adjective ('the one on trial').
> Contrastive «а» and concessive «и»: «а может» pivots to the alternative ('or perhaps'); the «а» is the soft contrastive that hinges between two possibilities. The «и» before «исчезли» is the emphatic particle 'even / indeed', not 'and'.

Во всяком случае, арестовали его подле нее, перед ней на коленях, она лежала на кровати, он простирал к ней руки и до того забыл всё в ту минуту, что не расслышал и приближения арестующих.  
At any rate, he was arrested beside her, on his knees before her, while she lay upon the bed; he was stretching out his arms to her and had so far forgotten everything at that minute that he did not even hear the approach of those who came to arrest him.
> Subjectless 'they' construction: «арестовали его» is a third-person-plural verb with no stated subject — Russian's impersonal 'they arrested him', i.e. 'he was arrested'. It backgrounds the agents (the arresting party) and foregrounds the victim «его».
> «подле» — beside (bookish): «подле» ('beside, close by', + genitive) is an elevated, somewhat archaic preposition where speech would use «возле» or «рядом с». It lifts the register of this tableau of Mitya kneeling.
> Correlative «до того … что» (so … that): «до того … что» is the result construction 'so far / to such a degree … that'. «До того» literally 'to that [point]', with «что» opening the consequence clause — a tidy way to register the intensity of his self-forgetting.
> Substantivized present active participle: «арестующих» is a present active participle ('those arresting / who were arresting') used as a noun in the genitive plural — 'the approach of those coming to arrest'. Turning a participle into a noun like this is a compact, bookish move.

Он ничего еще не успел приготовить в уме своем для ответа.  
He had not yet had time to make ready in his mind a single word of answer.
> Negative concord with «ничего»: «ничего … не успел» piles the negative pronoun «ничего» onto the negated verb «не успел» — Russian's obligatory negative concord, two negatives making one. «Ничего» is the genitive of «ничто», standard for a negated object.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «в уме своем» ('in his [own] mind') uses «свой», the reflexive possessive that always points back to the clause's subject. Russian prefers «своем» here over «его», which would suggest someone else's mind.

И он и ум его были взяты врасплох.  
Both he and his wits had been taken unawares.
> Periphrastic passive with short participle: «были взяты» is the analytic past passive: «быть» plus the short past passive participle «взяты» (from «взять», 'to take'), agreeing in the plural — 'were taken'. «Взяты врасплох» is the fixed idiom 'caught off guard'.
> «врасплох» — off guard, by surprise: An adverb (now only fixed in this phrase) meaning 'unawares, off guard', almost always with «застать» or «взять». The rhetorical pairing «и он и ум его» ('both he and his wits') splits the man from his intellect for effect.

И вот он пред своими судьями, пред решителями судьбы своей.  
And here he stands before his judges, before those who will decide his fate.
> Archaic «пред» + instrumental: «пред» is the bookish, abbreviated form of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «судьями». Throughout this speech Dostoevsky favours «пред» for its solemn, courtroom ring.
> «решитель» — one who decides: «решители» is an agent noun ('the deciders, those who will decide') from «решить», an elevated coinage; «судьбы своей» is 'of his own fate'. The doubled phrase 'before his judges, before the deciders of his fate' builds rhetorical weight by apposition.

Господа присяжные заседатели, бывают моменты, когда, при нашей обязанности, нам самим становится почти страшно пред человеком, страшно и за человека!  
Gentlemen of the jury, there are moments when, in the discharge of our duty, we ourselves are seized with something almost like dread before a man — dread of him, and dread for him as well!
> Impersonal 'it becomes frightening': Russian often expresses feeling with an impersonal construction: «нам становится страшно» literally 'to-us it-becomes frightening' — there is no grammatical subject, and the person who feels is in the dative («нам»). Note also the pair «страшно пред человеком» (afraid facing the man) versus «страшно за человека» (afraid for the man): the same adverb plus different prepositions flips the meaning.
> Iterative «бывают» (there occur): «бывают» is the iterative/habitual of «быть» — 'there happen to be, there occur from time to time'. It opens a generalization ('there are moments when…'), a favourite move of the prosecutor stepping back to philosophize.

Это минуты созерцания того животного ужаса, когда преступник уже видит, что всё пропало, но всё еще борется, всё еще намерен бороться с вами.  
These are the minutes of contemplating that animal terror, when the criminal already sees that all is lost, yet still struggles, still means to struggle on against you.
> Idiomatic perfective «пропало»: «всё пропало» ('all is lost') uses the neuter past perfective of «пропасть» as a fixed exclamation of ruin. The perfective marks the irrevocable, accomplished loss the criminal suddenly sees.
> Imperfective of persistence: The imperfectives «борется» ('keeps struggling') and the infinitive «бороться» portray ongoing, unfinished effort. «Всё еще» ('still, yet') reinforces the durative reading — the man who fights on though all is lost.

Это минуты, когда все инстинкты самосохранения восстают в нем разом и он, спасая себя, глядит на вас пронизывающим взглядом, вопрошающим и страдающим, ловит и изучает вас, ваше лицо, ваши мысли, ждет, с которого боку вы ударите, и создает мгновенно в сотрясающемся уме своем тысячи планов, но все-таки боится говорить, боится проговориться!  
These are the minutes when every instinct of self-preservation rises up in him at once, and, saving himself, he looks at you with a piercing gaze, questioning and suffering, catching at you and studying you, your face, your thoughts, waiting to see from which side you will strike, and on the instant frames a thousand schemes in his shaken mind — yet for all that is afraid to speak, afraid of letting something slip!
> Gerund + chain of present verbs: «спасая себя» is an imperfective gerund ('saving himself', simultaneous with the main action), heading a long string of present-tense verbs that all share the one subject — Dostoevsky's breathless, accumulating syntax. «Себя» is the reflexive object pronoun.
> Stacked present active participles: «пронизывающим» ('piercing'), «вопрошающим» ('questioning'), «страдающим» ('suffering') are three present active participles in the instrumental, agreeing with «взглядом» ('gaze'). «Вопрошающим» is itself bookish, from the elevated «вопрошать» ('to interrogate, inquire').
> Embedded indirect question: «ждет, с которого боку вы ударите» — 'waits [to see] from which side you will strike'. The interrogative «с которого боку» opens an indirect question; «ударите» is a perfective future. «Боку» is the old stressed locative-style form of «бок».

Эти унизительные моменты души человеческой, это хождение ее по мытарствам, эта животная жажда самоспасения — ужасны и вызывают иногда содрогание и сострадание к преступнику даже в следователе!  
These humiliating moments of the human soul, this passage of its through torment, this animal craving for self-salvation — they are dreadful, and at times stir even in the investigator a shudder and a compassion for the criminal!
> Short-form predicate adjective: «ужасны» is the short (predicative) form of «ужасный», agreeing in the plural with the three subjects. The short adjective is bookish and asserts the quality as a verdict — 'are dreadful' — typical of this elevated register.
> «самоспасение» — self-salvation: A compound of «само-» ('self-') and «спасение» ('salvation'). The «-ение» noun is bookish, and «спасение» carries a religious charge ('salvation'), so 'animal craving for self-salvation' sounds the theological note the prosecutor keeps striking.

И вот мы этому всему были тогда свидетелями.  
And there we all were, witnesses of it all at the time.
> Instrumental predicate after «быть»: «были свидетелями» — 'were witnesses' — puts the predicate noun in the instrumental because the linking verb is the past «были». A bare nominative «свидетели» would only be possible in the zero-copula present.
> Dative governed by «свидетель»: «свидетелями этому всему» — 'witnesses to all this' — takes the dative «этому всему» as the thing witnessed. Fronting «этому всему» before the verb gives it topical weight in the sentence.

Сначала он был ошеломлен, и в ужасе у него вырвалось несколько слов, его сильно компрометирующих: „Кровь! Заслужил!“  
At first he was stunned, and in his horror a few words broke from him that gravely compromised him: ‘Blood! I have deserved it!’
> Reflexive «вырвалось» + genitive after «несколько»: «вырвалось» (reflexive, from «вырваться», 'to break/tear loose') is intransitive — 'a few words broke loose from him'. «У него» locates the source; «несколько слов» takes the genitive plural «слов» because the quantifier «несколько» governs it.
> Participle agreeing with «слов»: «компрометирующих» is a present active participle ('compromising') in the genitive plural, agreeing with «слов», with «его» as its object — 'a few words gravely compromising him'. The participle replaces a который-clause.
> «Заслужил» — 'I deserved it': The bare perfective past «Заслужил!» ('[I] have deserved [it]!') drops the pronoun «я», as the gendered «-л» ending already shows a male speaker. Wrenched out of context, this cry — paired with «Кровь!» — is what 'gravely compromises' Mitya.

Но он быстро сдержал себя.  
But he quickly mastered himself.
> «себя» as full object pronoun: «сдержал себя» ('mastered/restrained himself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» as a genuine direct object — distinct from a bound «-ся» verb. The perfective «сдержал» marks the single, decisive act of self-control.

Что сказать, как ответить — всё это пока ещё у него не готово, но готово лишь одно голословное отрицание: „В смерти отца не виновен!“  
What to say, how to answer — none of it is ready for him as yet; ready is only one bare denial: ‘I am not guilty of my father’s death!’
> Dative-less infinitive deliberation: «что сказать, как ответить» ('what to say, how to answer') uses bare infinitives to render an open deliberative question — what is there to say? The implied experiencer is «ему» (for him), supplied later in «у него не готово».
> «голословный» — unsupported, bare: «голословный» (from «голый» 'bare' + «слово» 'word') means 'unsubstantiated, mere assertion'. A «голословное отрицание» is a flat denial backed by nothing — exactly the prosecutor's charge against Mitya's 'I am not guilty'.

Вот пока наш забор, а там, за забором, мы, может быть, еще что и устроим, какую-нибудь баррикаду.  
There, for the time being, is our fence, and beyond it, behind that fence, we may yet contrive something, some barricade.
> «забор» / «баррикада» — defensive metaphor: «забор» is a plain wooden 'fence', «баррикада» a borrowed 'barricade'. The prosecutor likens Mitya's bare denial to a flimsy fence behind which he hopes 'to contrive' («устроим») some sturdier barricade — a sustained military-defensive image.
> Indefinite «что» and «какую-нибудь»: «что» here is the indefinite 'something' (colloquial for «что-нибудь»), and «какую-нибудь баррикаду» ('some barricade or other') uses the non-specific «-нибудь». Together they convey vague, not-yet-formed scheming.

Компрометирующие первые восклицания свои он спешит, предупреждая вопросы наши, объяснить тем, что считает себя виновным лишь в смерти слуги Григория.  
Forestalling our questions, he hastens to explain those first compromising exclamations of his by saying that he holds himself guilty only of the death of the servant Grigory.
> Imperfective gerund «предупреждая»: «предупреждая» is a present (imperfective) gerund — 'forestalling / anticipating [our questions]', an action simultaneous with the main verb «спешит». «Предупреждать» here means not 'to warn' but 'to get in ahead of'.
> «виновен в» + prepositional: «виновным в смерти» — 'guilty of the death' — the adjective «виновный» governs «в» + prepositional («в смерти»). It appears in the instrumental «виновным» because «считает себя» ('holds himself [to be]') takes an instrumental predicate.

„В этой крови виновен, но кто же убил отца, господа, кто убил? Кто же мог убить его, ''если не я?''“  
‘Of that blood I am guilty, but who killed my father, gentlemen, who killed him? Who could have killed him, ''if not I?''’
> Insistent «же» in a question: «кто же убил?» — 'but who then killed?' — the particle «же» sharpens the interrogative into an exasperated challenge. «Отца» is the animate accusative (= genitive) of «отец».
> Elliptical conditional 'if not I': «если не я» ('if not I') keeps the pronoun in the nominative «я», not «меня», because it stands as the elided subject of an unspoken «убил» ('[killed], if not I [killed]'). This little phrase becomes the prosecutor's centrepiece in the next segment.

Слышите это: спрашивает он нас же, нас же, пришедших к нему самому с этим самым вопросом!  
Do you hear that: he puts the question to us, to us, who had come to him with that very question!
> Emphatic «же» on a repeated object: «нас же, нас же» ('us, of all people, us!') doubles the object «нас» with the particle «же» for indignant emphasis — the very men who came to question him are now being questioned. The repetition is pure courtroom rhetoric.
> Past active participle «пришедших»: «пришедших» is the past active participle of the prefixed motion verb «прийти» ('to come, arrive'), in the genitive plural agreeing with «нас» — 'us, who had come to him'. «При-» + «-йти» yields the perfective 'arrive'.

Слышите вы это забегающее вперед словечко: „если не я“, эту животную хитрость, эту наивность и эту карамазовскую нетерпеливость?  
Do you hear that little phrase that runs ahead of itself, ‘if not I’ — that animal cunning, that naïveté, that Karamazov impatience?
> «словечко» — diminutive of «слово»: «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» ('word'), here faintly contemptuous and knowing — 'that little phrase, that telltale word'. The suffix «-ечк-» colours the prosecutor's pouncing tone as he isolates «если не я».
> «карамазовский» — adjective from the name: «карамазовский» turns the surname into an adjective — 'the Karamazov [impatience]', i.e. that family trait. Building an «-ский» adjective from a person's name to name a whole temperament is a recurring device in the novel and its criticism.
> Present active participle as epithet: «забегающее вперед» ('running ahead [of itself]') is a present active participle agreeing with neuter «словечко». «Забегать вперёд» is an idiom for getting ahead of oneself — the phrase betrays Mitya by anticipating the very accusation.

Не я убил, и думать не моги, что я: „Хотел убить, господа, хотел убить, — признается он поскорее (спешит, о, спешит ужасно!), — но всё же неповинен, не я убил!“  
I did not kill him, and do not dare to think that I did: ‘I wanted to kill him, gentlemen, I wanted to kill him,’ he hastens to admit (he is in a hurry, oh, in a dreadful hurry!), ‘but all the same I am not guilty, it was not I who killed him!’
> Folk imperative «не моги»: «не моги» is a colloquial, folksy negative imperative of «мочь» ('to be able') — 'don't you dare'. The prosecutor ventriloquizes Mitya in plain, popular speech: «и думать не моги, что я» ('and don't even dare think that I [did it]').
> Reflexive «-ся» verb «признаётся»: «признаётся» ('admits, confesses') is the reflexive partner of the existing non-reflexive «признавать/признать» ('to recognize, acknowledge'); the «-ся» gives the 'confess/own up' sense. «Поскорее» is the comparative adverb 'as quickly as possible, all the sooner', stressing the haste the prosecutor mocks.
> «неповинен» — guiltless (short form): «неповинен» is the short predicative form of «неповинный» ('innocent, not guilty'), bookish and absolute beside the plainer «не виновен». The short adjective frames innocence as a stated verdict on his state.

Он уступает нам, что хотел убить: видите, дескать, сами, как я искренен, ну так тем скорее поверьте, что не я убил.  
He concedes to us that he wanted to kill: see for yourselves, he as good as says, how sincere I am — so the sooner you should believe that it was not I who killed.
> «дескать» — reported-speech particle: «дескать» flags that the surrounding words are the speaker's mocking paraphrase of what the accused 'as good as says' — a hearsay/quotative particle with no English equivalent, conveying ironic distance.
> Correlative «тем» + comparative: «тем скорее» ('all the sooner, so much the more readily') uses the «тем» + comparative pattern that answers an implied «чем». «Поверьте» is the polite imperative 'believe'.

О, в этих случаях преступник становится иногда неимоверно легкомыслен и легковерен.  
Oh, in such cases the criminal becomes at times incredibly frivolous and credulous.
> Short adjectives after «становится»: «легкомыслен» and «легковерен» are short predicative adjectives ('frivolous', 'credulous') following «становится» ('becomes'). The short form is normal in such 'becomes [adj.]' predicates and rings bookish here.
> «легко-» compounds: light-minded, light-believing: Both words are «легко-» ('light, easy') compounds: «легкомысленный» 'light-minded, frivolous' (light + thought) and «легковерный» 'credulous' (light + faith). The near-rhyme pairs them as twin failings of the cornered criminal.

И вот тут, совсем как бы нечаянно, следствие вдруг задало ему самый простодушный вопрос: „Да не Смердяков ли убил?“  
And here, just then, as though quite by chance, the investigation suddenly put to him the most artless of questions: ‘Was it not Smerdyakov, perhaps, who killed him?’
> «как бы» — 'as if, as it were': «как бы» softens and hedges — 'as though, as it were' — here marking the investigators' show of innocence: 'as though quite by chance'. It contains the irrealis particle «бы» but functions as a fixed hedging phrase.
> Yes/no question with «ли»: «не Смердяков ли убил?» — 'was it not Smerdyakov, perhaps, who killed?' — uses the interrogative enclitic «ли», fronting the focused «Смердяков». The opening «да» is a softening conversational particle ('and… now…'), not 'yes'.

Так и случилось, чего мы ожидали: он страшно рассердился за то, что предупредили его и поймали врасплох, когда он еще не успел приготовить, выбрать и ухватить тот момент, когда вывести Смердякова будет всего вероятнее.  
And it fell out just as we expected: he flew into a terrible rage that we had forestalled him and caught him unawares, before he had had time to prepare, to choose and seize the moment when bringing Smerdyakov forward would be most plausible of all.
> Genitive object of «ожидать»: «ожидать» ('to expect, await') governs the genitive, so 'what we expected' is «чего мы ожидали» («чего», genitive of «что»), not «что». The clause «так и случилось, чего мы ожидали» means 'it fell out just as we expected'.
> Reflexive «-ся» + «за то, что» (because): «рассердился» ('grew angry') is a «-ся» change-of-state verb. «За то, что» ('for the fact that, because') is the causal frame, with «за» + the correlative «то» pointing forward to the «что»-clause.
> Superlative «всего вероятнее»: «всего вероятнее» ('most plausible of all') is the comparative «вероятнее» plus «всего», a common way to form a superlative-of-all ('more probable than anything'). «Вывести» here is 'to bring forward / produce' (a culprit).

По натуре своей он тотчас же бросился в крайность и сам начал нас изо всех сил уверять, что Смердяков не мог убить, не способен убить.  
True to his nature, he rushed at once to the opposite extreme and began assuring us with all his might that Smerdyakov could not have killed, was incapable of killing.
> «по» + dative; reflexive «своей»: «по натуре своей» ('true to his nature, by his nature') uses «по» governing the dative «натуре», with the reflexive possessive «своей» ('his own'). It is a fixed adverbial of characterization.
> «изо всех сил» — with all one's might: A frozen idiom: «изо» (a phonetic variant of «из», + genitive) governs «всех сил» ('all [one's] strengths') — 'with all his might'. «Изо» appears before consonant clusters like «вс-».

Но не верьте ему, это лишь его хитрость: он вовсе; вовсе еще не отказывается от Смердякова, напротив, он еще его выставит, потому что кого же ему выставить как не его, но он сделает это в другую минуту, потому что теперь это дело пока испорчено.  
But do not believe him, it is merely his cunning: he is by no means, by no means giving up on Smerdyakov yet; on the contrary, he will bring him forward later, for whom else is there for him to bring forward but Smerdyakov, only he will do it at another moment, because for the present this game has been spoiled.
> Dative + infinitive of necessity: «кого ему выставить» — 'whom is there for him to put forward' — pairs the dative experiencer «ему» with a bare infinitive to express obligation/possibility with no nominative subject. «Кого» is the animate accusative of «кто»; «же» adds insistence.
> Intensified negation «вовсе не»: «вовсе не отказывается» — 'by no means gives up' — uses «вовсе» to intensify the negation «не» ('not at all, by no means'). The doubling «вовсе, вовсе» is rhetorical reinforcement.

Он выставит его только, может быть, завтра или даже через несколько дней, приискав момент, в который сам же крикнет нам: „Видите, я сам отрицал Смердякова больше, чем вы, вы сами это помните, но теперь и я убедился: это он убил, и как же не он!“  
He will bring him forward only, perhaps, tomorrow, or even after a few days, having hit upon the moment to cry out to us himself: ‘You see, I myself denied Smerdyakov more than you did, you remember it yourselves, but now I too am convinced: it was he who killed, and how could it not have been he!’
> Perfective past gerund «приискав»: «приискав» is a perfective past gerund — 'having sought out / having hit upon [the moment]', an action completed before the main verb «выставит». «Приискать» ('to find by searching') is a bookish prefixed perfective.
> Rhetorical «как же не»: «как же не он!» — 'how could it not be he!' — is an exclamatory rhetorical denial-of-the-negative, with «же» giving the indignant force. It mimics Mitya's anticipated future outburst.
> Intensive «сам» (-self): «сам» / «сами» ('[my]self, [your]selves') is the intensifier that underscores the agent: 'I myself denied… you yourselves remember'. It agrees in gender/number with its noun but is distinct from the reflexive «себя».

А пока он впадает с нами в мрачное и раздражительное отрицание, нетерпение и гнев подсказывают ему, однако, самое неумелое и неправдоподобное объяснение о том, как он глядел отцу в окно и как он почтительно отошел от окна.  
And for the present he sinks with us into a sullen, irritable denial; impatience and rage prompt him, however, to the clumsiest and least probable explanation — of how he looked at his father through the window and how he respectfully withdrew from it.
> Aspectual present 'he sinks into': «впадает в … отрицание» ('lapses/sinks into denial') uses «в» + accusative for motion into a state. The historic present «впадает» keeps the prosecutor's reconstruction vivid and immediate.
> Superlative with «самый»: «самое неумелое и неправдоподобное» — 'the clumsiest and least probable' — forms the superlative periphrastically with «самое» agreeing with neuter «объяснение». The negative «не-» prefixes pile up the prosecutor's scorn.
> Dative «отцу» of the affected party: «глядел отцу в окно» — literally 'looked to-father into the window', i.e. 'looked at his father through the window'. The dative «отцу» marks the person whose space is intruded upon, an idiomatic Russian framing.

Главное, он еще не знает обстоятельств, степени показаний очнувшегося Григория.  
The chief thing is that he does not yet know the circumstances, the extent of the testimony given by Grigory now that he has come to.
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated «не знает», the objects shift to the genitive: «обстоятельств» and «степени показаний» ('the circumstances, the extent of the testimony'). This genitive-of-negation is automatic with abstract objects of «не знать».
> Past active participle «очнувшегося»: «очнувшегося» is the past active participle of the «-ся» verb «очнуться» ('to come to, regain consciousness'), in the animate genitive agreeing with «Григория» — 'Grigory, now that he has come to'.

Мы приступаем к осмотру и обыску.  
We proceed to the examination and the search.
> «осмотр» / «обыск» — examination and search: Two legal-procedural terms in the dative after «приступаем к»: «осмотр» is the formal 'examination/inspection' of a scene or object, «обыск» the 'search' of a person or premises. Both belong to the investigative vocabulary that pervades this courtroom chapter.

Осмотр гневит его, но и ободряет: всех трех тысяч не разыскали, разысканы только полторы.  
The search angers him, but also heartens him: the whole three thousand was not found, only fifteen hundred was found.
> Genitive of negation with a numeral phrase: «всех трех тысяч не разыскали» ('did not find the whole three thousand') puts the entire quantified phrase «всех трех тысяч» into the genitive under negation. Contrast the affirmative «разысканы … полторы» that follows.
> Short passive participle «разысканы»: «разысканы» is the short past passive participle of «разыскать» ('to track down'), agreeing in the plural — 'only fifteen hundred were found'. The short passive states the result. «Полторы» ('one and a half [thousand]') is the special numeral for 1½.

И уж конечно, лишь в этот момент гневливого молчания и отрицания вскакивает ему в голову в первый раз в жизни идея об ладонке.  
And of course it is only at this moment of wrathful silence and denial that the idea of the little amulet bag leaps into his head for the first time in his life.
> ладонка — a little amulet bag: A «ладанка» (here spelled «ладонка») is a small cloth pouch worn on the chest, traditionally holding incense («ладан»), a holy relic, or a written charm. Mitya claims he sewed half his money into such a bag. A flat rendering like ‘a little bag’ loses the religious overtone of something worn next to the body like a talisman, so we render it ‘little amulet bag’ to keep the devotional sense the Russian carries.
> Dative «ему» of the affected mind: «вскакивает ему в голову идея» — 'the idea leaps into his head' — uses the dative «ему» to mark the person in whose head it happens, with «в голову» (accusative, motion-into). «Идея» is the nominative subject placed last for emphasis.

Без сомнения, он чувствует сам всю невероятность выдумки и мучится, страшно мучится, как бы сделать ее вероятнее, так сочинить, чтоб уж вышел целый правдоподобный роман.  
Without a doubt he feels for himself the whole improbability of the invention and torments himself, torments himself dreadfully, as to how to make it more plausible, how to compose it so that it might come out a whole, credible romance.
> «-ся» verb «мучится» + «как бы» + infinitive: «мучится» ('torments himself') is a «-ся» verb of inner state. «Как бы сделать» ('how to make') uses «как бы» plus an infinitive to render anxious deliberation; «вероятнее» is the comparative 'more plausible'.
> Purpose clause «чтоб» + past form: «чтоб … вышел» ('so that … might come out') is the contracted «чтобы» governing a past-form verb «вышел» — the irrealis required in purpose/result clauses. «Роман» here means a fabricated 'romance / tall tale', not a real love affair.

В этих случаях самое первое дело, ''самая'' главная задача следствия — не дать приготовиться, накрыть неожиданно, чтобы преступник высказал заветные идеи свои во всем выдающем их простодушии, неправдоподобности и противоречии.  
In such cases the very first task, ''the'' chief task of the investigation, is to give no chance to prepare, to catch him off guard, so that the criminal blurts out his cherished ideas in all the simplicity, implausibility, and self-contradiction that gives them away.
> Infinitives defining the task: A string of perfective infinitives names the task: «не дать приготовиться» ('to give no chance to prepare'), «накрыть неожиданно» ('to catch unexpectedly'). «Приготовиться» is the «-ся» reflexive 'to get oneself ready'.
> «чтобы» with the irrealis past: «чтобы … высказал» ('so that the criminal might blurt out') again pairs «чтобы» with a past-form verb to express willed purpose. «Свои» is the reflexive possessive, and the noun «преступник» — though logically the subject — sits inside the purpose clause.
> «заветный» — cherished, secret: «заветный» means 'cherished, dearly held, secret' — of a hope or thought guarded in the heart. The prosecutor's «заветные идеи свои» casts Mitya's invented alibi as a treasured private fiction.

Заставить же говорить преступника можно лишь внезапным и как бы нечаянным сообщением ему какого-нибудь нового факта, какого-нибудь обстоятельства дела, которое по значению своему колоссально, но которого он до сих пор ни за что не предполагал и никак не мог усмотреть.  
And the criminal can be made to speak only by the sudden and, as it were, accidental communication to him of some new fact, some circumstance of the case, colossal in its significance, but which until that moment he had not for anything supposed and could in no way have foreseen.
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «заставить … можно лишь» — 'one can only force [him]…' — is an impersonal modal construction: «можно» ('it is possible') plus the infinitive «заставить», with no nominative subject. «Заставить говорить» means 'to make [someone] speak'.
> Stacked negative intensifiers: «ни за что не предполагал» ('did not for anything suppose') and «никак не мог» ('could in no way') stack «ни»-phrases onto the «не»-verb — Russian negative concord at full stretch. «Которого» is genitive, the object of the negated «предполагал».

Этот факт был у нас наготове, о, уже давно наготове: это показание очнувшегося слуги Григория об отворенной двери, из которой выбежал подсудимый.  
Such a fact was ready to our hand, oh, long since ready: it was the testimony of the servant Grigory, now recovered, about the open door through which the accused had run out.
> Passive participle + relative «который»: «отворенной» is a past passive participle ('opened, standing open') agreeing with «двери». The relative «из которой» ('out of which') takes the genitive after «из»; «выбежал» is the perfective prefixed motion verb 'ran out'.
> Participle agreeing with «слуги»: «очнувшегося слуги Григория» — 'the servant Grigory, now recovered' — the past active participle «очнувшегося» (from «очнуться») agrees in the animate genitive with «слуги». Recurs as the prosecution's key witness.

Про эту дверь он совсем забыл, а что Григорий мог ее видеть, и не предполагал.  
He had quite forgotten about that door, and that Grigory could have seen it he had never supposed.
> Fronted «про» + accusative for topic: «про эту дверь» ('about that door') is «про» + accusative, a colloquial 'about/concerning'. Fronting it before the subject makes 'that door' the topic — 'as for that door, he had quite forgotten it'.
> Fronted clause + emphatic «и … не»: The whole «что»-clause ('that Grigory could have seen it') is fronted as the object, and «и не предполагал» ('he had not even supposed') uses «и» as 'even' intensifying the negation — a marked, topic-comment word order.

Эффект вышел колоссальный.  
The effect was colossal.
> «колоссальный» — colossal: A Greek-derived loanword ('colossal, enormous'), slightly grandiose in tone. Its repetition across this passage («значению … колоссально», «Эффект вышел колоссальный») is part of the prosecutor's heightened, theatrical diction.

Он вскочил и вдруг закричал нам: „Это Смердяков убил, Смердяков!“ — и вот выдал свою заветную, свою основную мысль, в самой неправдоподобной форме ее, ибо Смердяков мог убить лишь после того, как он поверг Григория и убежал.  
He leapt up and suddenly shouted at us: ‘It was Smerdyakov who killed him, Smerdyakov!’ — and so betrayed his cherished, his fundamental idea, in the most implausible form it could take, for Smerdyakov could only have killed after he had struck Grigory down and run off.
> Chain of perfective past verbs: Three perfective pasts — «вскочил» (leapt up), «закричал» (cried out), «выдал» (gave away) — move the narrative forward as a sequence of single completed events, the engine of Russian storytelling against an imperfective backdrop.
> «ибо» — 'for, because' (archaic): «ибо» is a high, bookish causal conjunction ('for, inasmuch as'), the kind of period-elevated word a 19th-century prosecutor wields. Plain speech would say «потому что» or «так как».
> Temporal «после того, как»: «после того, как» ('after [the point that]') introduces a temporal clause with the correlative «того». «Поверг» is the perfective past of the bookish «повергнуть» ('to strike/cast down'), heightening the violence of Mitya's blow.

Когда же мы ему сообщили, что Григорий видел отпертую дверь раньше своего падения, а выходя из своей спальни, слышал стонущего за перегородкой Смердякова — Карамазов был воистину раздавлен.  
And when we informed him that Grigory had seen the door open before his own fall, and that, coming out of his bedroom, he had heard Smerdyakov groaning behind the partition — Karamazov was truly crushed.
> Imperfective gerund «выходя»: «выходя» is a present (imperfective) gerund from the prefixed motion verb «выходить» ('to come out') — 'as he was coming out [of his bedroom]', simultaneous with «слышал» ('heard'). It shares Grigory's subject.
> Present active participle «стонущего»: «стонущего» ('groaning') is a present active participle in the animate accusative agreeing with «Смердякова» — 'heard Smerdyakov groaning'. The participle compresses 'who was groaning' into one word. «За перегородкой» is «за» + instrumental for location.
> «воистину» — verily; «раздавлен»: «воистину» ('verily, truly') is a Church-Slavonic-flavoured intensifier, famous from the Easter greeting «Воистину воскресе!». «Раздавлен» is the short passive participle 'crushed' — together, 'truly crushed', with a near-liturgical weight.

Сотрудник мой, наш почтенный и остроумный Николай Парфенович, передавал мне потом, что в это мгновение ему стало его жалко до слез.  
My colleague, our worthy and quick-witted Nikolay Parfenovitch, told me afterward that at that instant he felt sorry for him to the point of tears.
> Dative experiencer 'felt sorry': «ему стало … жалко» — 'he came to feel pity' — is the dative-subject pattern: the one who pities is in the dative «ему», the object pitied «его» in the genitive after «жалко». No nominative subject at all. «До слез» = 'to the point of tears'.

И вот в это-то мгновение, чтоб поправить дело, он и спешит нам сообщить об этой пресловутой ладонке: так и быть, дескать, услышьте эту повесть!  
And it is at that very instant, to mend matters, that he hastens to tell us of this celebrated little bag: so be it, he as good as says, hear this tale!
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and «и»: «в это-то мгновение» uses the topic-emphasizing clitic «-то» ('this very instant'), and the «и» in «он и спешит» underlines the verb ('he does hasten'). Both tiny particles spotlight the decisive moment.
> «пресловутый», «так и быть», «повесть»: «пресловутый» is 'notorious, much-talked-of' (ironic 'celebrated'); «так и быть» is a fixed concession 'so be it, all right then'; «повесть» is a 'tale, story' (also a literary genre), here Mitya's grudgingly offered yarn about the bag.

Господа присяжные, я уже выразил вам мои мысли, почему считаю всю эту выдумку об зашитых за месяц перед тем деньгах в ладонку не только нелепицей, но и самым неправдоподобным измышлением, которое только можно было приискать в данном случае.  
Gentlemen of the jury, I have already laid before you my reasons for considering the whole of this invention — the money sewn a month earlier into a little bag — to be not merely an absurdity, but the most implausible fabrication that could possibly have been hit upon in the given case.
> Past passive participle «зашитых»: «зашитых» is a past passive participle ('sewn[-in]') from «зашить», in the prepositional plural agreeing with «деньгах» after «об» — 'about the money sewn [into the bag]'. The participle does the work of a whole relative clause.
> «не только … но и» + instrumental: «не только … но и» ('not only … but also') is the standard correlative pair. Both predicate nouns stand in the instrumental («нелепицей», «измышлением») because «считаю … [быть]» governs an instrumental complement. «Нелепица» = 'absurdity', «измышление» = 'fabrication'.

Если б даже искать на пари: что можно сказать и представить неправдоподобнее, — то и тогда нельзя бы было выдумать хуже этого.  
If one were even to look, for a wager, for the most implausible thing that could be said and imagined — even then one could not have invented anything worse than this.
> Counterfactual with «бы» twice: A full counterfactual: «если б … искать» ('if one were even to look') with the irrealis «б»(ы), answered by «нельзя бы было выдумать» ('one could not have invented'). The mobile «бы» appears in both halves; «нельзя» is the impersonal 'it is impossible'.
> «на пари» — for a wager: «пари» is an indeclinable borrowing ('a bet, wager'); «на пари» means 'for a bet, on a wager'. The flourish — 'if one searched, for a wager, for the most implausible thing' — is the prosecutor's sardonic hyperbole.

Тут, главное, можно осадить и в прах разбить торжествующего романиста подробностями, теми самыми подробностями, которыми всегда так богата действительность и которые всегда, как совершенно будто бы незначащая и ненужная мелочь, пренебрегаются этими несчастными и невольными сочинителями и даже никогда не приходят им в голову.  
Here, above all, one can floor the triumphant romancer and shatter him to dust with details — those very details in which reality is always so rich, and which, as something supposedly quite insignificant and unnecessary, a trifle, are always neglected by these wretched, involuntary inventors and never so much as enter their heads.
> Present active participle as object: «торжествующего романиста» ('the triumphant romancer') has the present active participle «торжествующий» modifying «романист», both in the animate accusative. «Осадить» (cut down to size) and «в прах разбить» (smash to dust) are the vivid perfective infinitives.
> Reflexive passive + instrumental agent: «пренебрегаются» is an imperfective passive in «-ся» ('are neglected'), and the agent stands in the instrumental: «этими … сочинителями» ('by these inventors'). «Пренебрегать» itself governs the instrumental, reinforcing the case.
> «мелочь», «сочинитель»: «мелочь» is a 'trifle, small detail' (also 'small change'); «сочинитель» is a faintly disparaging 'maker-up, fabricator' (from «сочинять», 'to compose/invent'). The prosecutor's contempt rests on these word choices.

О, им в ту минуту не до того, их ум создает лишь грандиозное целое — и вот смеют им предлагать этакую мелочь!  
Oh, at such a minute they have no thought to spare for that; their mind frames only the grandiose whole — and here someone dares to offer them so paltry a trifle!
> Idiom «не до» + genitive (dative experiencer): «им не до того» — 'they have no thought to spare for that' — is the idiom «не до» + genitive, with the dative «им» naming the person. Literally 'to them [it is] not up to that', a compact, subjectless turn for 'they can't be bothered with it'.
> Subjectless «смеют» + colloquial «этакую»: «смеют … предлагать» ('[they] dare to offer') is again a subjectless 3rd-plural ('someone dares'). «Этакую» is the colloquial, indignant variant of «такую» ('such a, a mere'), dripping with the inventor's offended scorn.

Но на этом-то их и ловят!  
But it is on this very thing that they are caught!
> Topic «-то» + emphatic «и» + subjectless verb: «на этом-то их и ловят» — 'it is on this very thing that they are caught'. The clitic «-то» spotlights «на этом», «и» reinforces «ловят», and «ловят» is the subjectless 3rd-plural ('one catches them'). A dense little cluster of particles for maximum emphasis.

Задают подсудимому вопрос: „Ну, а где вы изволили взять материал для вашей ладонки, кто вам сшил ее?“ — „Сам зашил“. — „А полотно где изволили взять?“  
The accused is asked: ‘Well, and where were you pleased to get the material for your little bag, who sewed it for you?’ — ‘I sewed it myself.’ — ‘And where were you pleased to get the linen?’
> «изволить» + infinitive — mock courtesy: «изволили взять» ('were pleased to get') uses the archaic deferential «изволить» plus infinitive, an exaggeratedly polite officialese the magistrate deploys ironically. The repeated «изволили» needles the accused with false courtesy.
> Dative of interest «вам»: «кто вам сшил ее» — 'who sewed it for you' — the dative «вам» marks the beneficiary. «Сшил» is the perfective past of «сшить» ('to sew up [completed]').

Подсудимый уже обижается, он считает это почти обидною для себя мелочью и, верите ли, искренно, искренно!  
The accused is already offended; he takes this for an almost insulting trifle, and, would you believe it, sincerely, sincerely so!
> «-ся» verb and instrumental predicate: «обижается» ('takes offence') is a «-ся» verb of feeling. «Считает … обидною … мелочью» ('regards [it] as an insulting trifle') puts the predicate in the instrumental after «считать». «Обидною» is the bookish «-ою» long-form instrumental.
> Question particle «ли» as appeal: «верите ли» ('would you believe it?') is the interrogative enclitic «ли» on «верите», here a rhetorical aside drawing the jury in rather than a real question. The repeated «искренно, искренно!» drives home the irony.

Но таковы все они.  
But they are all like that.
> Short demonstrative «таковы»: «таковы» is the short predicative form of «таков» ('such, like that'), agreeing in the plural with «они» — 'such are they all, they are all like that'. The short «таков» is a bookish, sententious predicate, fronted for aphoristic weight.

„Я от рубашки моей оторвал“. — „Прекрасно-с. Стало быть, в вашем белье мы завтра же отыщем эту рубашку с вырванным из нее клочком“.  
‘I tore it from my shirt.’ — ‘Excellent. Then in your linen we shall find tomorrow that very shirt with a piece torn out of it.’
> The deferential particle «-с»: «-с» appended to «Прекрасно» ('Excellent, sir') is the «словоерс» — a contraction of «сударь» ('sir') tacked onto words as a marker of deference or, as here, sly mock-politeness. It is a vivid period speech-tic, untranslatable but tonally crucial.
> «Стало быть» — 'therefore, so then': «Стало быть» (literally 'it became to be') is a fixed inferential connective, 'consequently, so then', drawing a conclusion. It opens the magistrate's logical trap: 'so then we shall find that very shirt tomorrow'.
> Past passive participle «вырванным»: «вырванным» is a past passive participle ('torn out') in the instrumental after «с», agreeing with «клочком» ('scrap, piece') — 'with a piece torn out of it'. «Из нее» (genitive) points back to the shirt.

И сообразите, господа присяжные, ведь если бы только мы нашли в самом деле эту рубашку (а как бы ее не найти в его чемодане или комоде, если бы такая рубашка в самом деле существовала), — то ведь это уж факт, факт осязательный в пользу справедливости его показаний!  
And consider, gentlemen of the jury, if only we had actually found that shirt (and how could we fail to find it, in his trunk or chest of drawers, had such a shirt actually existed) — why, that would be a fact, a tangible fact in favour of the truth of his testimony!
> Counterfactual «если бы … то»: «если бы … нашли … то» is a past counterfactual ('if only we had found … then'), the past-form verb plus «бы» supplying the irrealis. «Ведь» and «уж» in the apodosis appeal to the jury — 'why, that would surely be a fact'.
> Embedded counterfactual within parenthesis: «как бы ее не найти» ('how could we fail to find it') is a rhetorical 'how not to', and «если бы … существовала» ('had such a shirt existed') is a nested counterfactual with «бы». Two layers of hypothesis stacked inside the parenthesis.
> Polite imperative «сообразите»: «сообразите» ('consider, work it out!') is the perfective polite imperative addressed to the jury — «сообразить» means 'to grasp, figure out, put two and two together', a verb the prosecutor uses again and again of what Mitya cannot do.

Но этого он не может сообразить.  
But this he cannot work out.
> Fronted genitive object under negation: «этого … не может сообразить» — 'this he cannot work out' — fronts the genitive «этого» (genitive of negation, from «это») for topical contrast with the foregoing. Word order makes 'this' the emphatic theme.

 — „Я не помню, может, не от рубашки, я в хозяйкин чепчик зашил“. — „В какой такой чепчик?“ — „Я у ней взял, у нее валялся, старая коленкоровая дрянь“. — „И вы это твердо помните?“ — „Нет, твердо не помню…“  
 ‘I don’t remember, perhaps it wasn’t from a shirt, I sewed it into the landlady’s cap.’ — ‘What sort of a cap was that?’ — ‘I took it from her, it was lying about at her place, an old calico rag.’ — ‘And do you remember that for certain?’ — ‘No, I don’t remember it for certain…’
> Possessive adjective «хозяйкин»: «хозяйкин» is a possessive adjective formed from «хозяйка» ('landlady') with the suffix «-ин» — 'the landlady's [cap]'. Such «-ин/-ов» possessives, built from a person, are colloquial and very much alive in Mitya's plain speech.
> «чепчик», «коленкор», «дрянь»: «чепчик» is a soft indoor 'cap, bonnet' (diminutive of «чепец»); «коленкоровый» means 'made of calico' («коленкор»), a cheap cotton cloth; «дрянь» is 'rubbish, trash'. The cluster paints the bag's origin as a worthless old scrap.
> «у нее» possession + «валялся»: «у нее валялся» — 'was lying about at her place' — pairs «у» + genitive «нее» (location/possession) with «валяться» ('to lie around, lie neglected'), a «-ся» verb. The whole register is offhand, spoken.

И сердится, сердится, а между тем представьте: как бы это не помнить?  
And he gets angry, gets angry, and yet just imagine: how could he not remember it?
> Rhetorical «как бы … не» + infinitive: «как бы это не помнить?» — 'how could one not remember it?' — is a rhetorical-question idiom, «как бы … не» plus infinitive, expressing the impossibility of the alternative. The «бы» lends the hypothetical, incredulous tone.
> Reflexive «сердится» (gets angry): «сердится» ('gets/is angry') is a «-ся» verb of emotional state, doubled for intensity. The imperfective present, in the prosecutor's vivid reconstruction, keeps Mitya's mounting irritation alive before the jury.

В самые страшные минуты человеческие, ну на казнь везут, вот именно эти-то мелочи и запоминаются.  
In a man's most terrible moments — say, when he is being carted off to his execution — it is precisely these little things that lodge in the memory.
> Subjectless «везут»: «везут» is third-person plural with no stated subject — the indefinite-personal construction, 'they cart [one] off', which Russian uses where English reaches for a passive ('when one is being carted off'). The bare verb implies an unnamed 'they'.
> The focus clitic «-то» and reflexive «-ся»: The hyphenated «-то» on «эти-то» foregrounds 'these very' trifles as the known topic, while the emphatic «и» ('precisely') points the spotlight. «запоминаются» is a middle-voice «-ся» verb: the trifles 'get themselves remembered', an event happening to them rather than a deliberate act.
> «казнь» — execution: A bookish, weighty noun for capital punishment (feminine, soft-stem). The colloquial framing «ну на казнь везут» ('say, they're carting you off to the scaffold') drops it abruptly into the prosecutor's musing, heightening the menace.

Он обо всем забудет, а какую-нибудь зеленую кровлю, мелькнувшую ему по дороге, или галку на кресте — вот это он запомнит.  
He will forget everything else, but some green roof that flickered past him on the road, or a jackdaw on a cross — that he will remember.
> Contrastive «а» and topic-comment word order: The mild contrastive «а» pivots from 'everything' to 'some one little thing', and the fronted object «какую-нибудь зеленую кровлю» is left dangling until «вот это он запомнит» picks it up — a left-dislocation that throws all the weight onto the remembered detail.
> Non-specific «-нибудь» and accusative object: «-нибудь» marks 'some roof or other', any unspecified one, against specific «-то». Both noun and adjective stand in the accusative (feminine «-ую») as the object of «запомнит».
> Past active participle «мелькнувшую»: «мелькнувшую» is a past active participle from perfective «мелькнуть» ('to flash by'), agreeing with «кровлю» in feminine accusative — it compresses 'a roof that had flashed past him on the road' into a single modifier, the hallmark of literary description.
> «галка» — jackdaw: A jackdaw (a small crow); perched 'on a cross' (a church or graveyard cross), the trivial bird becomes the kind of meaningless detail the condemned mind fixes on. «галку» is animate accusative, «на кресте» prepositional after «на» for location.

Ведь он, зашивая ладонку свою, прятался от домашних, он должен был помнить, как унизительно страдал он от страху с иглой в руках, чтобы к нему не вошли и его не накрыли; как при первом стуке вскакивал и бежал за перегородку (в его квартире есть перегородка)…  
After all, when he stitched up his little amulet, he hid from the household; he must have remembered how humiliatingly he suffered, in his fright, with the needle in his hands, lest someone come in and catch him at it; how at the first knock he sprang up and ran behind the partition (there is a partition in his lodging)…
> Appeal-particle «ведь» and an imperfective gerund: «Ведь» opens the sentence appealing to shared knowledge — 'after all, you'll recall…'. «зашивая» is an imperfective present gerund ('while sewing up'), naming the action going on simultaneously with «прятался», and sharing its subject «он».
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою» ('his own') refers back to the clause's subject «он» — the amulet belongs to him. Using «его» instead would point to someone else's. The order, noun before possessive, gives a faintly colloquial, intimate weight.
> «ладанка» — a little amulet: A small cloth pouch worn round the neck holding a relic, prayer, or — originally — incense («ладан»). Here the defendant Dmitri (Mitya) Karamazov's '«ладонка»' (Dostoevsky's spelling) is the little bag of money the accused claims to have sewn. The «-к-» suffix lends a homely diminutive smallness.
> Negative purpose with «чтобы… не»: «чтобы» plus the past-form verbs «вошли… накрыли» builds an irrealis purpose clause; with «не» it means 'lest' / 'so that nobody would come in and catch him'. The subjectless plural verbs again imply an indefinite 'they'.
> «перегородка» — partition: A thin partition wall dividing one room into two — a marker of cramped, poor lodging. «за перегородку» takes the accusative after «за» for motion behind it ('ran behind the partition'); the parenthetical «есть перегородка» repeats the word for grim emphasis on the shabby setting.

Но, господа присяжные, для чего я вам это всё сообщаю, все эти подробности, мелочи! — воскликнул вдруг Ипполит Кириллович. — А вот именно потому, что подсудимый стоит упорно на всей этой нелепице до самой сей минуты!  
But, gentlemen of the jury, why am I telling you all this, all these particulars, these trifles! — Ippolit Kirillovich suddenly exclaimed. — For this very reason: that the accused clings stubbornly to all this absurdity right up to the present minute!
> Imperfective «сообщаю» as live process: The imperfective present «сообщаю» ('am telling') frames the act as ongoing before the jury's eyes — 'why am I telling you all this?' — fitting the orator's self-interruption. «вам» is the dative indirect object, «это всё» the accusative.
> Archaic demonstrative «сей»: «сей» ('this') is a bookish, archaic demonstrative, already old-fashioned in Dostoevsky's day and reserved for elevated or legal-rhetorical speech. Here «до самой сей минуты» ('right up to this very minute') gives the prosecutor's outburst a deliberately formal, oratorical ring.
> «нелепица» — absurd nonsense: A dismissive noun for a piece of arrant nonsense or absurdity (from «нелепый», 'absurd'). The prosecutor brands the defendant's whole story as «нелепица», a cocky, contemptuous word-choice. Here in the prepositional «на… нелепице» after «стоит на» ('clings to').

Во все эти два месяца, с той самой роковой для него ночи, он ничего не разъяснил, ни одного объяснительного реального обстоятельства к прежним фантастическим показаниям своим не прибавил; всё это, дескать, мелочи, а вы верьте на честь!  
In all these two months, from the very night that proved fatal for him, he has clarified nothing, has not added a single explanatory, real circumstance to his earlier fantastical testimony; it is all trifles, he says, and you must take it on faith!
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated «не прибавил» the object goes into the genitive: «ни одного… обстоятельства» ('not a single circumstance'). The intensifier «ни» drives the negative concord, and the genitive marks the total absence of any such addition.
> Negative pronoun with concord: «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») plus «не» is the standard double negation: 'he clarified nothing'. Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even when a «ни»-word is present — one meaning carried by two negatives.
> «дескать» — reported-speech particle: A colloquial quotative particle meaning roughly 'so he says / as he would have it', flagging that the words are someone else's claim, voiced with skepticism. Here the prosecutor mockingly ventriloquizes the defendant: 'it's all trifles, «дескать»'.
> Imperative «верьте»: «верьте» is the plural/polite imperative of imperfective «верить» ('believe!'). The sarcastic command, still in the defendant's imagined voice, demands the jury take it all 'on faith' («на честь», on [his] word of honour).

О, мы рады верить, мы жаждем верить, хотя бы даже на честь!  
Oh, we should be glad to believe, we thirst to believe, even on his bare word!
> Concessive «хотя бы»: «хотя бы» ('even if only', 'if only') is a concessive built on the particle «бы»; reinforced by «даже» ('even') it concedes the minimum: 'glad to believe — even just on his bare word'. The «бы» lends the whole the flavour of a wished-for hypothetical.
> «жаждать» — to thirst (for): An elevated, slightly archaic verb meaning 'to thirst, crave' (literally and figuratively). Its bookish, almost biblical colour suits the prosecutor's rising rhetoric — 'we thirst to believe' — and sets up the «шакалы, жаждущие крови» of the next line.

Что же мы, шакалы, жаждущие крови человеческой?  
Are we, then, jackals thirsting for human blood?
> Insistent «же» and zero copula: The rhetorical question has no verb 'to be' — present-tense equational sentences in Russian simply juxtapose «мы» and «шакалы» ('are we jackals?'). The particle «же» loads the «что» with indignant insistence: 'What ARE we, then — jackals?'
> Present active participle «жаждущие»: «жаждущие» is a present active participle of «жаждать» ('thirsting'), agreeing with «шакалы» in nominative plural; «крови человеческой» is its genitive object ('thirsting for human blood'). The post-posed adjective «человеческой» gives a solemn, bookish cadence.

Дайте, укажите нам хоть один факт в пользу подсудимого, и мы обрадуемся, — но факт осязательный, реальный, а не заключение по выражению лица подсудимого родным его братом или указание на то, что он, бия себя в грудь, непременно должен был на ладонку указывать, да еще в темноте.  
Give us, point out to us, just one fact in the prisoner's favor, and we shall rejoice — but a palpable, real fact, not an inference drawn from the expression on the accused's face by his own brother, nor a suggestion that, when he beat his breast, he must necessarily have been pointing to the amulet, and in the dark at that.
> Paired perfective imperatives: «Дайте… укажите» are plural/polite imperatives from perfective «дать» and «указать», urging a single decisive act: 'give, point out to us'. «нам» is the dative; «хоть один» means 'even just one'.
> Instrumental of the agent: «родным его братом» is in the instrumental because it names the agent of the verbal noun «заключение… родным братом» ('an inference drawn… by his own brother') — the instrumental marks who does the inferring, parallel to a passive's agent.
> Archaic gerund «бия»: «бия» ('beating') is an old imperfective gerund of «бить», long since replaced in living speech but still found in 19th-century bookish prose — 'while beating himself on the breast'. «себя» is the reflexive object pointing back to the subject «он».
> «осязательный» — palpable: Literally 'tangible, that can be touched' (from «осязать», 'to feel by touch'), used figuratively for hard, concrete evidence. Paired with «реальный» it underlines the prosecutor's demand for fact you could lay a hand on, against mere psychological 'inference'.

Мы обрадуемся новому факту, мы первые откажемся от нашего обвинения, мы поспешим отказаться.  
We shall rejoice at a new fact, we shall be the first to drop our charge, we shall hasten to drop it.
> Perfective futures in series: All three verbs are perfective presents reading as simple futures — «обрадуемся» ('we shall rejoice'), «откажемся» ('shall renounce'), «поспешим» ('shall hasten') — each a single completed act. The drumbeat of perfectives projects swift, decisive future action.
> Predicate «первые» — 'the first to': «первые» stands as a nominative predicate adjective agreeing with «мы» — 'we [will be] the first to renounce', a common Russian way of saying 'be the first to do X' by simply pairing the adjective with the verb.

Теперь же вопиет справедливость, и мы настаиваем, мы ни от чего отказаться не можем».  
But now justice cries out, and we hold firm; we can drop nothing."
> Inversion and the particle «же»: «же» here marks the contrastive 'but now', and the verb-then-subject order («вопиет справедливость») throws the new, emphatic subject 'justice' into final, climactic position — a rhetorical inversion typical of oratory.
> Negative concord with «ни… не»: «ни от чего… не можем» chains two negatives ('we cannot renounce anything'); «ни от чего» is the genitive «ничего» split around the preposition «от», as «ни»-words obligatorily are. The verb keeps «не» — one meaning, several negatives.
> «вопиёт» — cries out (Church-Slavonic): A Church-Slavonic verb, 'cries aloud, clamours', loud with biblical resonance (the blood that 'cries out from the ground', Gen. 4:10). Its archaic «-иет» form lifts 'justice cries out' to a prophetic, scriptural pitch — and it returns in «вопиял», «вопиющую» below.

Ипполит Кириллович перешел тут к финалу.  
Here Ippolit Kirillovich passed on to his peroration.
> Perfective «перешёл» moves the narration on: «перешёл» (perfective past of «перейти», a prefixed verb of motion) marks a single completed transition — 'passed over [to the finale]'. Against the imperfective background of description, such perfectives step the narrative forward event by event.

Он был как в лихорадке, он вопиял за пролитую кровь, за кровь отца, убитого сыном «с низкою целью ограбления».  
He was as if in a fever; he cried out for the blood that had been spilled, for the blood of a father murdered by his son "with the base aim of robbery."
> Past passive participle «убитого»: «убитого» is a past passive participle from perfective «убить» ('killed'), agreeing with «отца» in masculine animate genitive; «сыном» is the instrumental of the agent — 'a father killed by his son'. The construction packs the whole crime into one phrase.
> Past «был» + locative simile: The past «был» links subject to a prepositional phrase «как в лихорадке» ('as if in a fever') rather than a plain predicate noun — Russian readily renders 'he was as if feverish' by an «как в» + prepositional simile.
> «вопиял» — cried out (elevated): Past tense of the Church-Slavonic «вопиять» (see «вопиёт» above), here applied to the prosecutor himself — 'he cried out for the spilled blood'. The narrator's choice of this scriptural verb wryly inflates Ippolit Kirillovich's fever-pitch as quasi-prophetic.

Он твердо указывал на трагическую и вопиющую совокупность фактов.  
He pointed firmly to the tragic and clamorous accumulation of facts.
> Participle «вопиющую» turned adjective: «вопиющую» is the present active participle of «вопиять» used adjectivally ('crying out, flagrant'), agreeing with «совокупность» in feminine accusative — a fossilised participle that now means 'glaring, egregious'. It chimes with «вопиёт/вопиял» to bind the passage.
> «совокупность» — aggregate: An abstract noun in «-ость» meaning 'the totality, the sum, the whole body' of things taken together. The bookish legalese 'the tragic and flagrant «совокупность фактов»' (aggregate of facts) is the prosecutor's calculated lawyer's diction.

«И что бы вы ни услышали от знаменитого своим талантом защитника подсудимого, — не удержался Ипполит Кириллович, — какие бы ни раздались здесь красноречивые и трогательные слова, бьющие в вашу чувствительность, всё же вспомните, что в эту минуту вы в святилище нашего правосудия.  
"And whatever you may hear from the defending counsel, famed for his talent, — Ippolit Kirillovich could not restrain himself, — whatever eloquent and moving words may ring out here, striking at your sensibility, still remember that at this minute you are in the sanctuary of our justice.
> Concessive «что/какой бы ни»: The «… бы ни» pattern builds a universal concession: «что бы ни услышали» ('whatever you may hear'), «какие бы ни раздались» ('whatever words may ring out'). The «бы» makes it hypothetical, «ни» generalises it to 'no matter what' — and the verbs are perfective futures.
> Instrumental of respect: «знаменитого… талантом»: «своим талантом» is in the instrumental specifying the respect in which the counsel is famous — 'famed for his talent'. Adjectives like «знаменитый», «известный», «богатый» govern this instrumental of respect; «своим» reflexively ties the talent to the counsel himself.
> Present active participle «бьющие»: «бьющие» (present active participle of «бить») agrees with «слова» — 'words striking at your sensibility'. This very phrase is what one onlooker later quotes mockingly («биющих-то на чувствительность»), so the participle is worth fixing.
> «святилище» — sanctuary: A solemn, sacral word for an inner sanctum or holy place. Applying «святилище» to a courtroom — 'the sanctuary of our justice' — sacralises secular law, the very inflation the later onlookers find overdone.

Вспомните, что вы защитники правды нашей, защитники священной нашей России, ее основ, ее семьи, ее всего святого!  
Remember that you are the defenders of our truth, the defenders of our sacred Russia, of her foundations, of her family, of everything she holds holy!
> Genitive chain after «защитники»: «защитники» ('defenders [of]') governs a cascade of genitives: «России… основ… семьи… всего святого» — each 'of her X'. The frozen possessive «ее» ('her') and the mounting parallel structure build the oratorical crescendo.
> Imperative «вспомните»: «Вспомните» is the plural/polite imperative of perfective «вспомнить» ('call to mind!'), anaphorically repeated across these lines («Вспомните… Не мучьте… не копите») to hammer the jury with successive commands.

Да, вы здесь представляете Россию в данный момент, и не в одной только этой зале раздастся ваш приговор, а на всю Россию, и вся Россия выслушает вас как защитников и судей своих и будет ободрена или удручена приговором вашим.  
Yes, here and now you represent Russia, and your verdict will resound not in this hall alone but throughout all Russia, and all of Russia will hear you out as her defenders and her judges, and will be heartened or cast down by your verdict.
> Compound future passive with short participles: «будет ободрена или удручена» joins the future of «быть» to short-form past passive participles ('will be heartened or cast down'). The short feminine «-а» endings agree with «вся Россия», and the whole is a periphrastic future passive.
> Inversion for rhetorical weight: The verb «раздастся» (perfective future, 'will resound') precedes its subject «ваш приговор», and the «не… а» frame ('not… but') contrasts the narrow hall with all Russia. Fronting the negated phrase maximises the rhetorical sweep.
> «приговор» — verdict / sentence: The court's verdict and sentence. Note the dramatic claim that «ваш приговор» will resound «на всю Россию» — the prosecutor stakes the nation's fate on a provincial jury, the grandiosity Dostoevsky is quietly satirising.

Не мучьте же Россию и ее ожидания, роковая тройка наша несется стремглав и, может, к погибели.  
Do not torment Russia, then, and her hopes; our fateful troika is racing headlong, and perhaps to its ruin.
> Negative imperative with appealing «же»: «Не мучьте» is a negated imperfective imperative ('do not torment'); negated imperatives in Russian normally take the imperfective. The softening «же» turns the command into an urgent appeal — 'do not, then, torment Russia'.
> «стремглав» — headlong: An adverb meaning 'at breakneck speed, headlong' (literally 'head-first'), bookish and vivid. 'Our fateful troika races «стремглав»' — the word's rush matches the runaway image of Russia hurtling toward «погибель» (perdition).

И давно уже в целой России простирают руки и взывают остановить бешеную, беспардонную скачку.  
And throughout all Russia hands have long been stretched out, crying to halt this frenzied, reckless gallop.
> Subjectless plural verbs: «простирают… взывают» are third-person plurals with no named subject — 'hands are stretched out and [people] cry to halt', the indefinite-personal pattern. «остановить» is a perfective infinitive of purpose after «взывают» ('cry [out to] halt').
> «взывать» — to cry out, appeal: An elevated verb 'to call out, to appeal imploringly', biblical in colour (the vox clamantis). With «простирают руки» ('stretch out their hands') it paints all Russia in a posture of prophetic supplication — the prosecutor's pulpit register.
> «беспардонный» — shameless: 'Unceremonious, shameless, brazen' — from French 'pardon', literally 'giving no quarter'. Yoked to «бешеную» ('frenzied'), it brands the runaway gallop as reckless and impudent, intensifying the moral alarm.

И если сторонятся пока еще другие народы от скачущей сломя голову тройки, то, может быть, вовсе не от почтения к ней, как хотелось поэту, а просто от ужаса — это заметьте.  
And if the other nations still step aside for now from the headlong-racing troika, it may be not at all out of respect for her, as the poet would have it, but simply out of terror — mark that.
> Correlative «если… то»: The conditional «если» is answered by the correlative «то» ('if X… then…'), a standard Russian frame. «сторонятся» is a «-ся» verb ('they step aside'); the negated «не от почтения… а просто от ужаса» contrasts two motives, both in the genitive after «от».
> Participle «скачущей» + frozen gerund «сломя голову»: «скачущей» is a present active participle ('galloping') in feminine genitive after «от», modifying «тройки». Embedded in it is «сломя голову», a fossilised gerund phrase ('breaking one's head') that survives only as the idiom 'headlong, recklessly'.
> Dative-experiencer «хотелось поэту»: Impersonal «хотелось» with the dative «поэту» ('as the poet would have wished') — no nominative subject; the wish simply 'happened to' the poet. The «-ся» reflexive plus dative is Russia's characteristic experiencer construction.

От ужаса, а может, и от омерзения к ней, да и то еще хорошо, что сторонятся, а пожалуй, возьмут да и перестанут сторониться, и станут твердою стеной перед стремящимся видением, и сами остановят сумасшедшую скачку нашей разнузданности, в видах спасения себя, просвещения и цивилизации!  
Out of terror, and perhaps out of revulsion toward her, and it is well enough that they merely step aside — yet they may well take it into their heads to stop stepping aside, to stand like a firm wall before the onrushing apparition, and to halt of their own accord this mad gallop of our unbridled license, for the sake of saving themselves, their enlightenment and their civilization!
> The «взять да и» construction: «возьмут да и перестанут» is the idiomatic «взять да и» + verb, conveying a sudden, willful 'they'll just up and stop' — an unexpected decisive act. Both verbs are perfective futures; «да и» here is not 'and' but part of the set turn.
> Instrumental of the predicate after «стать»: After «станут» ('they will become/stand') the predicate «твердою стеной» ('a firm wall') takes the instrumental, not the nominative — the standard rule for «стать/быть» complements. The «-ою» on «твердою» is the older, bookish instrumental ending for «-ая».
> «разнузданность» — unbridled license: An abstract noun 'unbridledness, dissoluteness' — literally 'having the bridle («узда») taken off', a horse-image that loops back to the runaway troika. 'The mad gallop of our «разнузданность»' fuses the equine metaphor with moral abandon.
> «в видах» — for the sake of: A bookish, slightly bureaucratic idiom 'with a view to, for the sake of', governing the genitive «спасения себя, просвещения и цивилизации». «себя» is the reflexive object ('saving themselves').

Эти тревожные голоса из Европы мы уже слышали.  
These uneasy voices from Europe we have already heard.
> Object fronting for topic: The accusative object «эти тревожные голоса» is fronted before subject «мы» and verb «слышали» — topic first, so the sentence is 'about' these voices, with 'we have already heard' as the comment. Free word order makes this reordering purely about emphasis.

Они раздаваться уже начинают.  
They are already beginning to ring out.
> Imperfective infinitive «раздаваться» of an inceptive: «начинают» ('are beginning') governs the imperfective infinitive «раздаваться» — verbs of beginning, continuing, and ceasing always take the imperfective. «-ся» makes it 'ring out, resound'; the fronted infinitive throws emphasis onto the act of sounding.

Не соблазняйте же их, не копите их всё нарастающей ненависти приговором, оправдывающим убийство отца родным сыном!..»  
Do not, then, tempt them; do not heap up their ever-mounting hatred with a verdict that acquits the murder of a father by his own son!.."
> Negated imperatives with «же»: Two negated imperfective imperatives ('do not tempt… do not heap up'), each softened by appealing «же». Negated commands favour the imperfective, naming an activity to refrain from rather than a single act.
> Instrumental of means + participle «оправдывающим»: «приговором» is the instrumental of means ('with a verdict'), and «оправдывающим» is a present active participle agreeing with it in instrumental ('a verdict that acquits the murder'). The participle compresses a relative clause into the noun phrase.

Одним словом, Ипполит Кириллович хоть и очень увлекся, но кончил-таки патетически — и, действительно, впечатление, произведенное им, было чрезвычайное.  
In a word, Ippolit Kirillovich, though he had let himself be carried away too far, ended on a pathetic note all the same — and the impression he produced was, in truth, extraordinary.
> Concessive «хоть и… но»: «хоть и… но» frames a concession: 'though he did get carried away, he nevertheless ended…'. The clitic «-таки» on «кончил-таки» adds 'after all, all the same', confirming the outcome against expectation.
> Past passive participle «произведённое»: «произведённое» is a past passive participle from perfective «произвести» ('produced'), agreeing with «впечатление» (neuter); «им» is the instrumental agent — 'the impression produced by him'. A compact, bookish substitute for a relative clause.
> «патетически» — on a 'pathetic' note: Here 'pathetic' in the older rhetorical sense — full of pathos, impassioned, emotionally heightened — not 'pitiful'. A false friend for English readers: 'he ended «патетически»' means he closed with stirring emotional force.

Сам он, окончив речь свою, поспешно вышел и, повторяю, почти упал в другой комнате в обморок.  
He himself, having finished his speech, hurried out and, I repeat, all but fainted away in the next room.
> Perfective past gerund «окончив»: «окончив» is a perfective past gerund ('having finished'), naming a prior completed action before the main verb «вышел» ('went out'). It shares the subject «он» and is a staple of literary narration. «речь свою» uses reflexive «свою» for 'his own speech'.
> The narrator's «повторяю» — 'I repeat': «повторяю» (imperfective present, 1st sg.) breaks the frame to insert the chronicler-narrator's own voice — 'I repeat'. This intrusive first-person narrator, a townsman recounting the trial, is a signature device of the novel's courtroom books.
> «упасть в обморок» — to faint: The idiom «упасть в обморок» means 'to faint, fall in a swoon'; «почти упал… в обморок» = 'all but fainted away'. «обморок» (a swoon) takes the accusative after «в» for the motion into that state.

Зала не аплодировала, но серьезные люди были довольны.  
The hall did not applaud, but the serious people were satisfied.
> Short adjective «довольны»: «довольны» is the short-form predicate adjective ('satisfied'), used because it states a predicate, not an attribute — short forms can only predicate. The plural «-ы» agrees with «люди». Such short forms carry a faintly bookish, definitive ring.

Не так довольны были только одни дамы, но всё же и им понравилось красноречие, тем более что за последствия они совсем не боялись и ждали всего от Фетюковича: «наконец-то он заговорит и, уж конечно, всех победит!»  
Only the ladies were rather less satisfied, though even they enjoyed the eloquence, the more so as they had no fears whatever about the consequences and expected everything from Fetyukovich: "At last he will speak out and, of course, defeat them all!"
> Causal «тем более что» + «-ся» verb: «тем более что» ('the more so as / especially since') introduces a reinforcing cause. «боялись» is a verb that exists only in the «-ся» form ('to fear'), here governing «за последствия» ('feared for the consequences') with «за» + accusative.
> Inceptive «заговорит» and perfective future: «заговорит» is a perfective future with the inceptive prefix «за-» ('will begin to speak, will speak out'); «победит» is likewise perfective future ('will defeat'). «наконец-то» ('at last') carries the emphatic «-то» clitic.

Все поглядывали на Митю; всю речь прокурора он просидел молча, сжав руки, стиснув зубы, потупившись.  
Everyone kept glancing at Mitya; throughout the prosecutor's whole speech he had sat in silence, his hands clenched, his teeth set, his eyes cast down.
> Three perfective gerunds of attendant state: A chain of perfective past gerunds — «сжав» (having clenched), «стиснув» (having set), «потупившись» (having cast down [his eyes]) — each describing the posture in which Mitya 'sat through' the speech. «потупившись» also carries «-ся». Such gerund-strings are the texture of Dostoevsky's narration.
> Accusative of duration + «про-» of spanning time: «всю речь» is an accusative of extent ('throughout the whole speech'), and «просидел» uses the prefix «про-» meaning to spend/sit-through a span of time — 'he sat [it] out for the whole speech'. The fronted time-phrase sets the scene as topic.

Изредка только подымал голову и прислушивался.  
Only now and then did he raise his head and listen.
> Imperfective of repeated action: Subjectless but understood «он»; «подымал… прислушивался» are imperfective pasts conveying the iterative 'now and then he would raise his head and listen'. «изредка» ('occasionally') cues the habitual reading, and «подымал» is the bookish variant of «поднимал».

Особенно, когда заговорили о Грушеньке.  
Especially when the talk turned to Grushenka.
> Subjectless «заговорили» + prepositional of topic: «заговорили» is a perfective-inceptive plural with no subject ('when they began to speak / the talk turned'). «о Грушеньке» is the prepositional of topic after «о» ('about Grushenka'); the name itself is an affectionate diminutive of Agrafena.

Когда прокурор передавал о ней мнение Ракитина, в лице его выразилась презрительная и злобная улыбка, и он довольно слышно проговорил: «Бернары!»  
When the prosecutor relayed Rakitin's opinion of her, a contemptuous and spiteful smile came over his face, and he said, quite audibly, "The Bernards!"
> «-ся» middle + inverted subject: «выразилась» ('expressed itself, came over') is a «-ся» middle verb; its subject «презрительная и злобная улыбка» follows it, so the new information — the smile — lands last. «в лице его» ('on his face') is the prepositional of location.

Когда же Ипполит Кириллович сообщал о том, как он допрашивал и мучил его в Мокром, Митя поднял голову и прислушивался со страшным любопытством.  
But when Ippolit Kirillovich recounted how he had interrogated and tormented him at Mokroye, Mitya raised his head and listened with terrible curiosity.
> Imperfective pasts of drawn-out action: «допрашивал… мучил» are imperfective pasts conveying the prolonged process of 'interrogating and tormenting' — not a single act but an ordeal that went on. The «как» clause reports the manner ('how he interrogated…').

В одном месте речи как будто хотел даже вскочить и что-то крикнуть, но, однако, осилил себя и только презрительно вскинул плечами.  
At one point in the speech he seemed about to leap up and shout something, but he mastered himself after all and only gave a contemptuous shrug of his shoulders.
> «как будто» + perfective infinitives, then «но»: «как будто» ('as if, seemingly') softens 'he even wanted to leap up'; the perfective infinitives «вскочить… крикнуть» name the single impulses checked by «но… осилил себя» ('but he mastered himself'). «себя» is the reflexive object.
> Specific-unknown «что-то»: «что-то» ('something [or other]') marks a definite but unspecified thing he meant to shout — the «-то» series, as against non-specific «что-нибудь». Here the narrator doesn't know what Mitya would have cried, so the something is real but unidentified.

Про этот финал речи, именно про подвиги прокурора в Мокром, при допросе преступника, потом у нас в обществе говорили и над Ипполитом Кирилловичем подсмеивались: «Не утерпел, дескать, человек, чтобы не похвастаться своими способностями».  
About this finale of the speech, namely the prosecutor's exploits at Mokroye in interrogating the criminal, people in our circle talked afterward and poked fun at Ippolit Kirillovich: "The man couldn't help himself, they said, he had to show off his abilities."
> Subjectless imperfectives of report: «говорили… подсмеивались» are subjectless plural imperfectives ('people talked… poked fun'), the indefinite-personal pattern again. «у нас в обществе» ('in our circle') situates the gossip among the narrator's townsfolk. «подсмеивались» carries «-ся».
> «не утерпеть, чтобы не…» — couldn't help but: The double-negative idiom «не утерпел, чтобы не похвастаться» literally 'didn't refrain so as not to boast' = 'couldn't help boasting'. «чтобы… не» builds the irrealis clause, and the two negatives combine to an affirmative.
> «подвиги» — exploits (here ironic): «подвиг» normally means a heroic feat or noble deed; here 'the prosecutor's «подвиги» at Mokroye' is dryly ironic — the narrator borrows the gossips' mock-heroic tone for what was merely showing off.

Заседание было прервано, но на очень короткий срок, на четверть часа, много на двадцать минут.  
The session was adjourned, but only for a very short while, a quarter of an hour, twenty minutes at most.
> Periphrastic past passive: «было прервано» is the periphrastic passive — past «быть» plus the short past passive participle «прервано» (neuter, from perfective «прервать») — 'the session was adjourned/interrupted', stating a completed result.
> «много» — 'at most': Here «много» does not mean 'much' but functions adverbially as 'at the most' — 'a quarter of an hour, «много» twenty minutes' = twenty minutes at the outside. A colloquial usage worth noting against the ordinary 'many/much'.

В публике раздавались разговоры и восклицания.  
Among the public, conversations and exclamations broke out.
> «-ся» verb with following subject: «раздавались» (imperfective «-ся», 'rang out, broke out') stands before its plural subject «разговоры и восклицания», so the new information — what broke out — comes last. «в публике» is the prepositional of location.

Я иные запомнил:  
Some of them I remember:
> Bookish «иные» for 'some': «иные» ('some, certain ones') is a slightly bookish substantivised pronoun-adjective in the accusative plural, object of «запомнил» ('I remembered'). The narrator's «я… запомнил» again foregrounds the chronicler's first-person voice.

— Серьезная речь! — нахмуренно заметил господин в одной группе.  
"A serious speech!" — remarked a gentleman in one group, with a frown.
> Adverb «нахмуренно» from a participle: «нахмуренно» ('with a frown, frowningly') is an adverb derived from the past passive participle «нахмуренный»; such participle-based adverbs of manner are common in Dostoevsky's stage directions for speech. Verb «заметил» precedes its subject «господин».

— Психологии навертел уж много, — раздался другой голос.  
"He twisted in rather too much psychology," — another voice rang out.
> «навертеть» — to twist/spin in a lot: «навертел» (perfective, prefix «на-» of accumulation) literally 'twisted/wound on a quantity' — colloquially 'he spun in / piled on a lot of psychology'. «психологии» is genitive (partitive 'a lot of'), and «уж» adds a weary 'rather too'.
> Perfective «раздался» + inverted subject: «раздался» (perfective past of «раздаться», 'rang out') precedes its subject «другой голос», a single completed event introducing each new speaker — a recurring frame in this overheard-voices passage.

— Да ведь всё правда, неотразимая истина!  
"But it's all true, the irrefutable truth!"
> Stacked particles «да ведь» + zero copula: «Да ведь» piles two particles — affirming «да» and the appealing «ведь» ('but after all, you know') — onto a copula-less equation «всё правда» ('it's all true'). This particle-cluster is exactly the spoken texture Russian uses where English needs intonation.

— Да, это он мастер.  
"Yes, he's a master at it."
> Zero-copula equation: No verb 'to be' — present-tense «это он мастер» simply equates 'he [is] a master [at it]', with «мастер» a bare nominative predicate. The colloquial «это он» fronts and emphasises 'he, now, is a master'.

— Итог подвел.  
"He summed it all up."
> Object-fronted perfective «подвёл итог»: The idiom «подвести итог» means 'to sum up, draw the bottom line'. Here the object «итог» is fronted before the perfective past «подвёл» for emphasis, and the subject 'he' is dropped — 'summed it all up [he did]'.

— И нам, и нам тоже итог подвел, — присоединился третий голос, — в начале-то речи, помните, что все такие же, как Федор Павлович?  
"And he summed us up too, us as well," — a third voice chimed in — "at the beginning of the speech, remember, that we're all just the same as Fyodor Pavlovich?"
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «в начале-то» highlights the known topic — 'at the beginning [of the speech], you'll recall' — a colloquial nudge to shared memory, distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».
> «такой же… как» comparison: «такие же… как» frames an equation of likeness — 'just the same as Fyodor Pavlovich'. «же» here intensifies the 'same', and «все такие» ('all such') has no copula in the present.

— И в конце тоже. Только он это соврал.  
"And at the end too. Only there he was lying."
> «соврать» — to lie/fib: «соврал» (perfective of «врать») is a colloquial, slightly contemptuous 'told a lie, fibbed' — earthier than the neutral «солгать». 'Only there he «соврал»' dismisses the prosecutor's grand finale as plain falsehood.

— Да и неясности были.  
"And there were some obscure bits, too."
> Additive «да и» + existential «были»: «Да и» here is the additive 'and also, what's more', tacking on a further point. «неясности были» ('there were obscurities') is an existential with the subject after the verb, focusing on what existed.

— Увлекся маленько.  
"He got a little carried away."
> «маленько» — colloquial 'a bit': «маленько» is a folksy, diminutive-flavoured adverb for 'a little, a wee bit', plainer-people's speech against standard «немного». With «увлёкся» ('got carried away', a «-ся» verb) it gives an indulgent, conversational shrug.

— Несправедливо, несправедливо-с.  
"Unfair, unfair, sir."
> The deferential particle «-с»: The clitic «-с» appended to «несправедливо-с» is the «словоер», a vestige of «сударь» ('sir') tacked on for politeness or ingratiating deference. By Dostoevsky's day it already signalled obsequiousness or social inferiority; here it colours the speaker as deferential ('unfair, sir').

— Ну нет, все-таки ловко. Долго ждал человек, а вот и сказал, хе-хе!  
"Well, no, it was deft all the same. The man waited a long while, and now he's had his say, heh-heh!"
> Imperfective «ждал» vs perfective «сказал»: «ждал» (imperfective, 'waited' as a drawn-out process, with «долго») contrasts with «сказал» (perfective, 'and now he's said [it]', a single completed act) — a textbook aspect pairing. The «а вот и» turns the corner to 'and there now, he's had his say'.

— Что-то защитник скажет?  
"What will the defense have to say, I wonder?"
> «что-то» as 'I wonder what': Here «что-то» is not 'something' but a musing 'I wonder what' — the «-то» colouring the question «что… скажет?» with curiosity. «скажет» is a perfective future ('will say'); subject «защитник» is fronted before it for the topic.

В другой группе:  
In another group:

— А петербургского-то он напрасно сейчас задел: «биющих-то на чувствительность» помните?  
"He needn't have jabbed at the Petersburg man just now: that bit about 'those who strike at the sensibilities,' remember?"
> Fronted genitive object + topic «-то»: «петербургского» is a substantivised adjective ('the Petersburg man') in animate accusative-genitive, fronted before subject «он» with the highlighting clitic «-то». «задел» (perfective, 'needled, jabbed at') is the comment that lands last after «напрасно» ('needlessly').
> Garbled participle «биющих»: The onlooker mangles the prosecutor's «бьющие в чувствительность» into a folksy «биющих… на чувствительность» — an unschooled, half-archaic form of the participle, a small touch of social comedy in the overheard chatter. «-то» again flags the remembered phrase.

— Да, это он неловко.  
"Yes, that was clumsy of him."
> Colloquial elliptical predicate: A clipped spoken construction: «это он неловко [сделал/поступил]» — 'that [was] clumsy of him', with the verb left out and «неловко» functioning as the predicate adverb. Russian conversation freely omits an understood verb of doing. «он» is a nominative subject, «неловко» an adverbial predicate — no dative experiencer here.

— Поспешил.  
"He was too hasty."
> One-word perfective with dropped subject: A single perfective past «поспешил» ('he was too hasty / hurried') stands as a whole utterance, subject 'he' understood from context — the laconic, clipped exchange of overheard voices. The perfective marks it as a completed lapse.

— Нервный человек-с.  
"A nervous man, sir."
> Deferential «-с» again: Another «словоер»: «человек-с» = 'a nervous man, sir'. The repeated «-с» characterises this speaker as habitually obsequious, the petty-deferential note Dostoevsky catches in his minor townsfolk.

— Вот мы смеемся, а каково подсудимому?  
"Here we are laughing, but how must the accused feel?"
> Dative-experiencer «каково подсудимому»: «каково подсудимому?» is an impersonal experiencer construction: the dative «подсудимому» ('to the accused') with the neuter «каково» and no verb — 'how must it be for the accused?'. There is no nominative subject; the feeling simply befalls him.

— Да-с. Митеньке-то каково?  
"Just so, sir. How must poor Mitenka feel?"
> «Митенька» — affectionate diminutive: «Митенька» is a tender, pitying diminutive of Дмитрий (Дмитрий → Митя → Митенька), built with the affectionate «-еньк-» suffix. The speaker's 'how must poor «Митеньке» feel?' drips compassion — the diminutive itself does the emotional work.
> Dative diminutive + «-то»: «Митеньке» is in the dative as the experiencer of «каково» ('how is it for [poor] Mitenka?'), echoing the impersonal frame of the previous line, with the topicalising «-то» tying it back to 'we laugh, but…'.

— А вот что-то защитник скажет?  
"And what will the defense have to say, I wonder?"
> Refrain: «что-то… скажет?»: The earlier musing 'I wonder what the defence will say' returns almost verbatim as a refrain across the groups, «что-то» again carrying the 'I wonder' nuance and «скажет» the perfective future. The repetition knits the eavesdropped scene together.

В третьей группе:  
In a third group:

— Это какая такая дама, с лорнетом, толстая, с краю сидит?  
"Who is that lady, the stout one with the lorgnette, sitting at the edge there?"
> «какая такая» — emphatic 'who on earth': «какая такая» doubles two question-words for an insistent, colloquial 'just what / who on earth is that lady?'. The verb «сидит» (imperfective present, 'is sitting') closes the string of descriptive phrases pinning her down.

— Это генеральша одна, разводка, я ее знаю.  
"That's a certain general's wife, a divorcee, I know her."
> «генеральша» — a general's wife: The feminine «-ша» suffix forms 'the wife of a [general]' — «генеральша» = a general's lady. Such rank-derived titles for wives were the everyday currency of status in imperial Russia; her standing is given entirely by her husband's office.
> «разводка» — a divorcée (colloquial): A colloquial, faintly disreputable term for a divorced woman (from «развод», 'divorce'). The speaker's casual «разводка, я ее знаю» drops a whiff of scandal — divorce being socially marked in this provincial milieu.

— То-то, с лорнетом.  
"That's why — the lorgnette."
> «То-то» — that's just it: A colloquial particle-cluster of confirmation, here roughly "that's exactly why / there you have it". It picks up the previous speaker's point and clinches it, a very spoken hinge in Dostoevsky's overheard chatter.

— Шушера.  
"A frump."
> «Шушера» — riffraff, a nobody: A dismissive, low-register word for worthless trash or insignificant people; applied to a woman here it sneers "a frump / a nonentity". The bald one-word verdict is the texture of catty crowd-talk.

— Ну нет, пикантненькая.  
"Well, no, rather piquant."
> «пикантненькая» — a double diminutive: From the French loan «пикантный» (piquant, spicy-attractive) with a doubled affectionate suffix -еньк-: "rather a cute little spicy thing". The diminutive adds a leering, appraising warmth to the gallant's correction of «шушера».
> «Ну нет» — the soft contradiction: The filler particle «ну» plus «нет» opens a gentle objection, "well, no…", before the speaker offers his own appraisal. «Ну» is one of Russian's busiest conversational particles, here softening disagreement.

— Подле нее через два места сидит блондиночка, та лучше.  
"Two seats along from her sits a little blonde; she's the better-looking one."
> «блондиночка» — a little blonde: The French loan «блондинка» with the diminutive -очка: a fond, appraising "little blonde". The suffix again colours the leering register of the spectators.
> Verb-before-subject presentation: The clause opens with the location («подле нее через два места») and the verb «сидит», holding the subject «блондиночка» for the end. Russian's free word order lets new information land last — the blonde is the news.
> «подле» + genitive: «Подле» (beside, near) is a slightly bookish preposition governing the genitive, here «нее» (with the prepositional н-). It is one of the cluster of placement prepositions that demand the genitive.

— А ловко они его тогда в Мокром накрыли, а?  
"They caught him neatly back then at Mokroye, eh?"
> «накрыли» — perfective of the catch: Perfective past of «накрыть», literally "to cover", in the slangy sense "to catch / nab red-handed". The perfective frames the arrest as a single decisive, completed event.
> Tag particle «а?»: The final «а?» is an appeal for agreement, "eh? / right?", inviting the listener to share the speaker's admiration of the neat capture. A staple of Dostoevsky's buttonholing dialogue.

— Ловко-то ловко. Опять рассказал. Ведь он про это здесь по домам уж сколько рассказывал.  
"Neat enough, to be sure. He told it all again. After all, he's already told the story of it here in any number of houses."
> Concessive «X-то X»: Repeating the word with the clitic «-то» between forms a concessive "neat enough, sure — but…", conceding the point before the speaker qualifies it. This «-то» emphasises a granted topic rather than making it indefinite.
> «ведь» — appeal to shared knowledge: The particle «ведь» means "after all, you know", taking for granted that the listener too has heard the prosecutor's repeated tale. It carries the speaker's knowing, slightly weary tone.
> Imperfective of repeated telling: «Рассказывал» (imperfective past) against the earlier perfective «рассказал» marks a habitual, repeated action — he has told the story over and over, «по домам» (from house to house). Aspect alone carries the "again and again" sense.

— И теперь не утерпел. Самолюбие.  
"And now he couldn't resist either. Vanity."
> «не утерпел» — perfective negated: Perfective past of «утерпеть» (to hold out, refrain) under negation: "he couldn't help himself". The perfective makes the failure to resist a single, accomplished slip.
> «самолюбие» — self-regard, vanity: Literally "self-love" (само- + любие), the bare abstract noun thrown out as a diagnosis: "[it's] vanity". A favourite Dostoevskian motive-word for wounded pride and amour-propre.

— Обиженный человек, хе-хе!  
"An aggrieved man, heh-heh!"
> «обиженный» — an aggrieved man: Past passive participle of «обидеть» (to wrong, offend) used adjectivally: a man who has been slighted and nurses the grievance. «Обида» — injury, offence taken — is a key emotional register throughout the novel.

— И обидчивый. Да и реторики много, фразы длинные.  
"And touchy. And too much rhetoric, the sentences too long."
> «обидчивый» — touchy: Where «обиженный» (s188) is the man who has been wronged, «обидчивый» is the man prone to take offence — the -чивый suffix marks a disposition. The two near-twins are set side by side for a sly play on his thin skin.
> «реторика» — old spelling of rhetoric: Period spelling of «риторика» (rhetoric), here in the genitive «реторики» after the quantity word «много». Used dismissively: too much oratorical flourish.
> Genitive after «много»: Quantifiers like «много» (much, many) govern the genitive — «реторики» is genitive singular of «реторика». The same rule then shapes «фразы длинные», the long sentences he complains of.

— Да и пугает, заметьте, всё пугает. Про тройку-то помните? «Там Гамлеты, а у нас еще пока Карамазовы!» Это он ловко.  
"And he frightens you, mark it, he's forever frightening you. Remember that bit about the troika? 'There they have Hamlets, but with us so far it's still Karamazovs!' That was deft of him."
> Imperfective «всё пугает»: The imperfective «пугает» (frightens, present) repeated with «всё» ("keeps on, all the time") paints a continual, habitual action — he is forever scaring his audience. The inserted imperative «заметьте» (mark it, notice) buttonholes the listener.
> Topic «тройку-то»: The clitic «-то» pins «тройку» as the known topic — "the troika, you remember?". Fronting the «про»-phrase before the verb makes the troika the theme the whole question hangs on.

— Это он либерализму подкуривал. Боится!  
"That was him pandering to liberalism. He's afraid!"
> «подкуривать» — to flatter, smoke up to: Literally "to waft incense / smoke toward", figuratively to flatter and curry favour — here "he was pandering to liberalism". The object «либерализму» stands in the dative, the person/cause being flattered.

— Да и адвоката боится.  
"And he's afraid of the defense lawyer too."
> «бояться» + genitive: The reflexive-only verb «бояться» (to fear) governs the genitive of what is feared: «адвоката» is genitive of «адвокат» (the defence lawyer). Note the verb exists only in its -ся form.

— Да, что-то скажет господин Фетюкович?  
"Yes, what will Mr. Fetyukovich have to say?"
> «что-то» — here just 'what': In this context «что-то» reads as «что» with the colouring particle «-то», "what(ever) will Mr. Fetyukovich say?", not the indefinite "something". The perfective «скажет» is a simple future — a single, awaited utterance.

— Ну, что бы ни сказал, а наших мужичков не прошибет.  
"Well, whatever he says, he won't get through to our peasants."
> Concessive «что бы ни» — whatever he says: The frame «что бы ни» + past/perfective verb means "no matter what he says". It fuses the irrealis particle «бы» with the intensifying «ни» of negative concord — a fixed bookish concessive.
> «мужичков» — our little peasants: Diminutive (genitive/accusative plural) of «мужик», peasant. The -ок diminutive plus «наших» (our) gives a fond, slightly patronising "our good peasants" — the jurors, plain folk Fetyukovich must win over.
> «прошибить» — to get through to: Colloquial perfective «прошибить», literally "to break/knock through", here "won't get through to / won't crack" the stolid peasants. Under negation it states a firm prediction of failure.

— Вы думаете?  
"You think so?"
> Bare «Вы думаете?»: A two-word skeptical question, "you think (so)?", with the dropped object understood from context. The retained pronoun «вы» (here polite/plural) carries a faint challenge.

В четвертой группе:  
In a fourth group:
> «в четвёртой группе» — prepositional of location: The ordinal-plus-noun phrase stands in the prepositional after «в» to mark location: "in a fourth group". The ordinal «четвёртой» agrees with feminine «группе» in case and gender.

— А про тройку-то ведь у него хорошо, это где про народы-то.  
"That bit about the troika was good, though, the part about the nations."
> Stacked particles «-то … ведь»: Two particles colour one short clause: «-то» flags «тройку» as the known topic, «ведь» appeals to shared memory ("that bit about the troika — it really was good, you know"). The impersonal «хорошо» needs no verb "to be".
> «где» pointing to a passage: Colloquial «где» here loosely means "the place where / the part where", introducing the passage about the «народы» (peoples, nations). The clipped grammar mimics live, associative speech.

— И ведь правда, помнишь, где он говорит, что народы не будут ждать.  
"And it's true, remember, where he says the nations won't wait."
> Compound (imperfective) future: «Не будут ждать» is the imperfective future: «будут» (future of «быть») plus the imperfective infinitive «ждать» — "the nations will not [go on] waiting". The construction names an ongoing future state, fittingly here a refusal to keep waiting.
> «И ведь правда»: «Ведь» again leans on shared experience — "and it's true, after all" — while «помнишь» (you remember, informal ты) buttonholes the companion. The familiar «помнишь» marks intimate, equal interlocutors.

— А что?  
"How so?"
> «А что?» — how so? / what of it?: A tiny idiomatic query opening with contrastive «а», prompting the other to explain or justify: "how so? / what do you mean?". Constant in Russian back-and-forth dialogue.

— Да в английском парламенте уж один член вставал на прошлой неделе, по поводу нигилистов, и спрашивал министерство: не пора ли ввязаться в варварскую нацию, чтобы нас образовать. Ипполит это про него, я знаю, что про него. Он на прошлой неделе об этом говорил.  
"Why, in the English parliament a member stood up only last week, on the subject of the nihilists, and asked the ministry whether it wasn't time to step in among a barbarous nation and educate us. Ippolit meant him, I know it was him he meant. He was talking about this very thing last week."
> Imperfective «вставал» for the reported event: «Вставал» (imperfective past of «вставать») reports that a member "was getting up / stood up" — the imperfective lends a vague, general recollection rather than a sharply completed act. «На прошлой неделе» (last week) is prepositional of time.
> «не пора ли» — isn't it time?: The interrogative particle «ли» follows the focused «пора» to form an embedded yes/no question: whether it isn't "time to step in". «Пора» + infinitive is an impersonal "(it's) time to".
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы» introduces purpose — "in order to educate us". With a single shared subject it takes the bare infinitive «образовать» rather than a past-form verb; «нас» is the accusative object.
> «варварская нация» — a barbarous nation: The imagined Englishman's contemptuous phrase for Russia, reported with bristling irony. «Варварский» (barbarous) and the Latinate «нация» set up the wounded national pride the chapter dwells on.

— Далеко куликам.  
"They've a long way to go yet."
> «Далеко куликам» — they've far to fly yet: An elliptical, proverb-flavoured jibe: a «кулик» is a sandpiper/snipe (a small marsh bird), and the dative «куликам» means roughly "the little birds have a long way to go" — i.e. the English are in no position to school Russia.

— Каким куликам? Почему далеко?  
"A long way for whom? Why a long way?"
> «каким» — interrogative in the dative: The puzzled echo picks up the dative «куликам» and questions it with «каким» (dative plural of «какой», "which / what"), agreeing in case and number only — gender is not distinguished in the plural: "a long way for which sandpipers?".

— А мы запрем Кронштадт да и не дадим им хлеба. Где они возьмут?  
"Why, we'll close Kronstadt and give them no grain. Where will they get it?"
> Genitive of negation «хлеба»: Under the negated «не дадим» (we won't give), the object «хлеб» shifts to the genitive «хлеба» — "we'll give them no grain". A classic genitive of negation; «им» is the dative recipient.
> Perfective futures of the plan: Both «запрём» (we'll lock/close) and «дадим» (we'll give) are perfective verbs conjugated as simple futures — two single, decisive future acts. The folksy «да и» ("and just") chains them.

— А в Америке? Теперь в Америке.  
"And in America? They get it in America now."
> Elliptical prepositional retort: Both fragments rely on «в» + prepositional «Америке» for location, with the verb ("they get it") left unspoken — "And in America? In America now [they do]." The case ending alone carries the locative sense.

— Врешь.  
"Nonsense."
> «Врёшь!» — you're lying / nonsense!: Second-person singular present of «врать» (to lie, talk rubbish), flung out as a one-word rebuff. Far blunter than English "nonsense", the familiar «ты»-form marks the rough intimacy of the bystanders.

Но зазвонил колокольчик, всё бросилось на места. Фетюкович взошел на кафедру.  
But the bell rang out, and everyone rushed back to their places. Fetyukovich mounted the rostrum.
> Inceptive perfective «зазвонил»: The prefix за- on «звонить» gives «зазвонить», "to begin to ring / ring out" — a perfective marking the onset of the sound. Subject «колокольчик» follows its verb, the new event leading the sentence.
> Reflexive «бросилось» + neuter «всё»: «Бросилось» is the reflexive -ся perfective of «бросить» (to throw), here "everyone rushed / flung themselves"; the neuter singular «всё» ("everything/everyone") triggers neuter agreement «бросилось». The -ся gives the intransitive, self-directed motion.
> «взойти на кафедру» — to mount the rostrum: «Взошёл» (perfective of «взойти», to ascend) plus «кафедра» (here the speaker's tribune/rostrum, also "pulpit" or academic "chair") — Fetyukovich steps up to deliver the defence. The slightly solemn verb dignifies the moment the courtroom has awaited.
---

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.