# The Brothers Karamazov, The Old Buffoon

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book II — An Unfortunate Gathering

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c2. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c2.json.


Они вступили в комнату почти одновременно со старцем, который при появлении их тотчас показался из своей спаленки.  
They entered the room almost at the same moment as the elder, who appeared from his little bedchamber the instant they came in.
> A relative clause with «который»: «который» joins the relative clause and agrees with its antecedent «старцем» in gender and number (masculine singular), while taking the nominative because it is the subject of «показался». The clause is set off by a comma, the standard Russian punctuation for a relative.
> Accusative of motion-toward after «в»: «в комнату» is accusative, not prepositional, because the preposition «в» expresses motion into the room rather than location in it. The verb «вступили» (perfective past) frames the entrance as a single completed event.
> «спаленка» — a little bedchamber: A double diminutive of «спальня» (bedroom): «спаленка» suggests a small, modest sleeping-room, fitting for a monk's cell. We render the affectionate smallness as 'little bedchamber.'

В келье еще раньше их дожидались выхода старца два скитские иеромонаха, один — отец библиотекарь, а другой — отец Паисий, человек больной, хотя и не старый, но очень, как говорили про него, ученый.  
Two monks of the hermitage were already in the cell, awaiting the elder's coming: one was the father librarian, the other Father Païsy, a man in poor health, though not old, and, as they said of him, very learned.
> Genitive object after «дожидаться»: The reflexive verb «дожидаться» (to await) governs the genitive: «выхода старца» = 'the elder's coming-out.' Both «выхода» and «старца» are genitive, the second showing possession of the first.
> The concessive frame «хотя… но»: «хотя (и)… но» pairs a concession with its counter-statement: 'though not old, yet very learned.' The subordinating «хотя» opens the concession; «но» resumes the main thought, a characteristically balanced 19th-century rhythm.

Кроме того, ожидал, стоя в уголку (и всё время потом оставался стоя), молодой паренек, лет двадцати двух на вид, в статском сюртуке, семинарист и будущий богослов, покровительствуемый почему-то монастырем и братиею.  
Besides them, standing in a corner (and he remained standing the whole time afterward), there waited a young fellow, about twenty-two by the look of him, in an ordinary frock coat, a seminarian and future theologian who for some reason enjoyed the protection of the monastery and its brotherhood.
> The gerund «стоя» — attendant circumstance: «стоя» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) from «стоять»: 'standing,' an action simultaneous with the main verb «ожидал» and sharing its subject. It compresses 'he waited while he stood' into one supple phrase.
> Genitive of approximate age: Inverting the numeral and noun — «лет двадцати двух» instead of «двадцати двух лет» — signals approximation: 'about twenty-two.' The whole phrase is genitive, governed by the implied measure of age; «двух» triggers genitive on its dependents.
> «паренёк» — a young fellow: An affectionate diminutive of «парень» (lad, fellow). It conveys mild, slightly condescending warmth toward the young seminarian — 'a young fellow.'
> Present passive participle + instrumental agent: «покровительствуемый» is a bookish present passive participle ('being protected'), describing the seminarian. The agent doing the protecting stands in the instrumental: «монастырём и братиею». «братиею» is an archaic instrumental of «братия» (the brotherhood).
> «статский» — civilian dress: «статский» (civilian, lay), as opposed to military or clerical, marks the seminarian's «сюртук» (frock coat) as ordinary secular clothing — notable on a future churchman. The word is the same root as the rank «статский советник».

Он был довольно высокого роста, со свежим лицом, с широкими скулами, с умными и внимательными узенькими карими глазами.  
He was rather tall, with a fresh face, broad cheekbones, and narrow brown eyes that were intelligent and attentive.
> Genitive and instrumental of description: Russian describes a person's traits two ways here: «высокого роста» is a bare genitive of measure ('of tall stature'), while the chain «со свежим лицом, с широкими скулами» uses «с» + instrumental ('with a fresh face, with broad cheekbones'). The instrumental of accompanying feature is the standard portrait construction.
> A stacked agreement chain: Four adjectives — «умными, внимательными, узенькими, карими» — all stand in the instrumental plural to agree with «глазами», showing how Russian piles modifiers while keeping every ending in lockstep. «узенькими» carries the diminutive -еньк-, softening 'narrow' to 'narrow little.'

В лице выражалась совершенная почтительность, но приличная, без видимого заискивания.  
His face expressed perfect deference, but a decorous one, without any visible fawning.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «выражалась» (from «выражаться») uses the reflexive clitic to make the verb intransitive: deference 'expressed itself' / 'was expressed' in his face, with no external agent. The subject «почтительность» follows the verb — a topic-comment ordering that puts the new information last.
> «заискивание» — fawning: «заискивать» is to ingratiate oneself, to curry favor obsequiously; the noun «заискивание» names that cringing flattery. The point of the sentence is precisely its absence — his deference is decorous, not servile.

Вошедших гостей он даже и не приветствовал поклоном, как лицо им не равное, а, напротив, подведомственное и зависимое.  
He did not even greet the entering guests with a bow, as one whose standing was not equal to theirs but, on the contrary, subordinate and dependent.
> Fronted object and a past active participle: «Вошедших гостей» (the object) is fronted before the subject «он» for emphasis — possible because the accusative endings keep the roles clear. «вошедших» is a past active participle of «войти» ('who had entered'), declined to agree with «гостей» in the animate accusative plural.
> Contrastive «а» and the dative of comparison: «а» is the mild contrastive 'but/and,' pivoting from what he is not to what he is: 'not equal to them, but, on the contrary, subordinate.' «им» is dative, governed by «равное» (equal to someone). «не равное» negates the short-adjective-like attribute.

Старец Зосима вышел в сопровождении послушника и Алеши.  
The elder Zossima came out accompanied by the novice and Alyosha.
> Genitive after «в сопровождении»: The set phrase «в сопровождении» (accompanied by) governs the genitive: «послушника и Алеши» both stand in the genitive as those who accompany. «вышел» is the perfective of the prefixed motion verb «выйти» (to come/go out).

Иеромонахи поднялись и приветствовали его глубочайшим поклоном, пальцами касаясь земли, затем, благословившись, поцеловали руку его.  
The monks rose and greeted him with a most profound bow, touching the ground with their fingers, then, having received his blessing, kissed his hand.
> Two gerunds, two aspects: The sentence chains two gerunds of different aspect: «касаясь» (imperfective present, 'touching') marks an action ongoing alongside the bow, while «благословившись» (perfective past, 'having received a blessing') marks a completed action prior to the kiss. The contrast tracks the ceremony's exact sequence.
> Superlative in «-айший» + instrumental: «глубочайшим» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «глубокий» (-айш- after a velar), 'the most profound,' in the instrumental to mark the manner of greeting («приветствовали… поклоном»). The synthetic superlative is markedly literary beside the everyday «самый глубокий».

Благословив их, старец ответил им каждому столь же глубоким поклоном, перстами касаясь земли, и у каждого из них попросил и для себя благословения.  
Having blessed them, the elder answered each with just as deep a bow, touching the ground with his fingers, and from every one of them asked a blessing for himself as well.
> Perfective past gerund «благословив»: «Благословив» (having blessed) is a perfective past gerund opening the sentence: the blessing is completed before the main action «ответил». It shares the subject «старец» and renders 'having blessed them, the elder answered.'
> «персты» — fingers (archaic, elevated): «перст» is the high, Church-Slavonic-flavored word for finger, against everyday «палец». Note that the previous sentence used plain «пальцами» for the monks but «перстами» for the elder — a deliberate lift in register around the holy figure.
> Genitive object of «попросить» and the source «у» + genitive: «попросить» takes its requested thing in the genitive when it is abstract: «попросил… благословения» (asked for a blessing). The source from whom is «у каждого из них» — «у» + genitive marks the person petitioned.

Вся церемония произошла весьма серьезно, вовсе не как вседневный обряд какой-нибудь, а почти с каким-то чувством.  
The whole ceremony was carried out very seriously, not at all like some everyday rite, but almost with a kind of feeling.
> «не… а» — corrective negation: «вовсе не… а…» sets up a corrective contrast: 'not at all like an everyday rite, but rather with some feeling.' «вовсе» intensifies the negation, and the contrastive «а» supplies the replacement, a frequent Russian way of refining a description.
> «вседневный» — everyday, quotidian: «вседневный» (lit. 'all-day-ish') is a slightly bookish word for 'everyday, daily,' more elevated than «ежедневный». Paired with «обряд» (rite, ceremony) it frames the gesture against routine religious observance.

Миусову, однако, показалось, что всё делается с намеренным внушением.  
To Miusov, however, it seemed that all of this was done with deliberate suggestiveness.
> Dative-subject «показалось»: This is the dative-experiencer pattern: «Миусову показалось» = 'to Miusov it seemed,' with no nominative subject and the impersonal neuter verb «показалось». The clause «что всё делается» is the content of the seeming, introduced by «что».
> Reflexive «делается» as passive: «делается» (from «делать» + -ся) gives an imperfective passive/middle: 'everything is being done.' Russian prefers this -ся passive for ongoing actions over a participle, leaving the doer unnamed — exactly Miusov's suspicion that some hidden intention is at work.

Он стоял впереди всех вошедших с ним товарищей.  
He stood at the front of all the companions who had come in with him.
> Past active participle as a compact relative: «вошедших» (past active participle of «войти») modifies «товарищей» and packs 'who had come in with him' into one declined word, agreeing in the animate genitive plural. Such participles let Dostoevsky avoid a string of «который»-clauses.

Следовало бы, — и он даже обдумывал это еще вчера вечером, — несмотря ни на какие идеи, единственно из простой вежливости (так как уж здесь такие обычаи), подойти и благословиться у старца, по крайней мере хоть благословиться, если уж не целовать руку.  
He ought to have — and he had even turned it over in his mind the evening before — in spite of any ideas whatever, purely out of common courtesy (since such were the customs here), to step up and be blessed by the elder, at least be blessed, even if he did not kiss the hand.
> Impersonal «следовало бы» + бы: «Следовало бы» is an impersonal conditional: «следовало» ('it was fitting / one ought') plus the irrealis particle «бы» yields 'he ought to have…' with no subject, the obligation hanging over Miusov. The infinitives «подойти», «благословиться» name what was owed.
> Emphatic negation with «ни… какие»: «ни на какие идеи» uses «ни» to sweep away every member of a class: 'in spite of any ideas whatever.' «ни» splits around the preposition «на», a normal Russian pattern, and intensifies the concessive «несмотря на».
> The particle «уж» as concessive softener: «уж» (a reduced «уже») here is not temporal 'already' but a modal particle of resignation/concession: 'since such are the customs here, after all.' These tiny particles supply the texture of inner speech that English marks only with intonation.

Но, увидя теперь все эти поклоны и лобызания иеромонахов, он в одну секунду переменил решение важно и серьезно отдал он довольно глубокий, по-светскому поклон и отошел к стулу.  
But now, seeing all these bows and kisses of the monks, in a single second he changed his decision: gravely and seriously he made a fairly deep, worldly sort of bow and withdrew to a chair.
> The gerund «увидя»: «увидя» is a perfective gerund of «увидеть» (a slightly archaic variant of «увидев»), 'having seen / on seeing.' It marks the completed perception that triggers the main clause's sudden change of mind, sharing the subject «он».
> Adverb-first inversion for emphasis: Fronting the adverbs «важно и серьёзно» and inverting verb and subject («отдал он») throws the rhetorical weight onto the manner of the bow. Word order, freed by the case endings, is doing expressive work here rather than marking grammar.
> «по-светски/по-светскому» — in a worldly manner: «светский» means 'of secular high society,' the opposite of the monastic «духовный». A «по-светскому поклон» is a society bow, not a religious one — Miusov pointedly substitutes a salon gesture for the expected blessing.

Точно так же поступил и Федор Павлович, на этот раз как обезьяна совершенно передразнив Миусова.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch did exactly the same, this time aping Miusov completely, like a monkey.
> Inclusive particle «и» and inversion: Here «и» is not the conjunction 'and' but the inclusive/emphatic particle 'too, also': 'Fyodor Pavlovitch did exactly the same too.' Fronting «Точно так же поступил» and placing the subject last marks the parallel with Miusov as the point.
> Perfective gerund «передразнив»: «передразнив» (perfective gerund of «передразнить», to mimic mockingly) names the completed action accompanying «поступил»: 'doing the same, having aped Miusov completely.' The prefix пере- carries the sense of imitating right through, all over.

Иван Федорович раскланялся очень важно и вежливо, но тоже держа руки по швам, а Калганов до того сконфузился, что и совсем не поклонился.  
Ivan Fyodorovitch bowed very gravely and politely, but also kept his arms stiff at his sides, while Kalganov was so abashed that he did not bow at all.
> Contrastive «а» and the «до того… что» degree clause: «а» shifts to a contrasting subject (Kalganov vs Ivan). «до того… что» is a correlative degree construction: 'so much… that,' where «до того» anticipates the result clause «что и совсем не поклонился.' «сконфузился» is reflexive (got embarrassed).
> Idiomatic gerund phrase «держа руки по швам»: «держа» is an imperfective gerund (holding) describing simultaneous manner. «руки по швам» (lit. 'hands along the seams [of the trousers]') is a fixed idiom for standing stiffly at attention, arms rigid at the sides.

Старец опустил поднявшуюся было для благословения руку и, поклонившись им в другой раз, попросил всех садиться.  
The elder lowered the hand he had begun to raise for a blessing and, bowing to them a second time, asked them all to sit down.
> Participle + the particle «было»: «поднявшуюся» is a past active participle of the reflexive «подняться» ('that had risen'), agreeing with «руку» in the feminine accusative. The little particle «было» marks an action begun but interrupted or undone — the hand that had started to rise but was then lowered.
> Perfective gerund «поклонившись»: «поклонившись» (having bowed) is a perfective gerund placing the bow just before the request «попросил». «им» is the dative of the person bowed to, and «попросил всех садиться» takes the accusative object «всех» (попросить кого-то; the dative would be «всем») with an imperfective infinitive of polite invitation.

Кровь залила щеки Алеши; ему стало стыдно.  
The blood rushed into Alyosha's cheeks; he was ashamed.
> Word order: agent and result: «Кровь залила щёки Алеши» literally 'blood flooded Alyosha's cheeks' — the inanimate «кровь» is the nominative subject and «щёки» the accusative object, a vivid agentive idiom for blushing. «залила» is perfective: a sudden, completed rush.
> Dative subject: «ему стало стыдно»: The classic experiencer construction: «ему» (dative) feels, with the impersonal neuter «стало» (became) plus the predicative «стыдно» (ashamed). There is no nominative subject — the shame simply comes over Alyosha. This dative-first framing pervades the novel's inner life.

Сбывались его дурные предчувствия.  
His evil forebodings were coming true.
> Imperfective «-ся» and verb-first order: «Сбывались» (imperfective reflexive of «сбываться», to come true) views the process as unfolding — his forebodings 'were coming true,' not all at once. Beginning with the verb and ending on the subject «предчувствия» puts the new, ominous noun in the stressed final position.

Старец уселся на кожаный красного дерева диванчик, очень старинной постройки, а гостей, кроме обоих иеромонахов, поместил у противоположной стены, всех четверых рядышком, на четырех красного дерева обитых черною сильно протершеюся кожей стульях.  
The elder seated himself on a little leather sofa of red wood, of very old-fashioned make, and placed the guests — except for the two monks — along the opposite wall, all four side by side, on four red-wood chairs upholstered in black, badly worn leather.
> Reflexive «усесться» — settling oneself: «уселся» is the perfective reflexive of «усесться» (to seat oneself, settle in), the -ся giving the intransitive 'sat himself down.' «на… диванчик» is accusative for motion onto. «диванчик» is a diminutive — a 'little sofa.'
> «оба/обоих» — the collective 'both': «оба» (masc.) / «обе» (fem.) means 'both' and declines: «кроме обоих иеромонахов» is genitive after «кроме». It behaves like a numeral, governing the genitive of its noun.
> Past passive participle + instrumental of material: «обитых» is a past passive participle ('upholstered') agreeing with «стульях» in the prepositional plural; the material doing the upholstering stands in the instrumental, «кожей». Note the archaic instrumental endings «черною… протершеюся» (modern «чёрной… протёршейся»).
> «рядышком» — cozily side by side: A diminutive-adverbial form of «рядом» (side by side), with the affectionate -ышк-: 'all snug in a row.' It lends a faintly comic, homely touch to the four grand guests lined up on worn chairs.

Иеромонахи уселись по сторонам, один у дверей, другой у окна.  
The monks settled themselves at the sides, one by the door, the other by the window.
> Distributive «один… другой» and «у» + genitive of place: «один… другой» distributes the pair: 'one… the other.' Location 'by/near' is «у» + genitive: «у дверей», «у окна». «уселись» is again the perfective reflexive of seating oneself.

Семинарист, Алеша и послушник оставались стоя.  
The seminarian, Alyosha, and the novice remained standing.
> «оставаться» + gerund «стоя»: «оставались» is imperfective (kept on, remained), and «стоя» is the gerund 'standing,' so 'remained standing.' The imperfective stresses the continuing state, contrasting with the seated guests who 'уселись' (perfective, settled).

Вся келья была очень необширна и какого-то вялого вида.  
The whole cell was very cramped and of a somewhat faded appearance.
> Short adjective vs genitive of quality: Two predicative strategies stand side by side: the short adjective «необширна» (cramped, lit. 'not spacious') predicates a quality directly, while «какого-то вялого вида» is a genitive of quality, 'of a somewhat faded appearance.' Short forms like «необширна» are bookish and characteristic of 19th-century description.
> The indefinite «какой-то»: «какой-то» ('some… or other') marks a quality the narrator perceives but cannot pin down — 'a somewhat faded look.' The clitic -то flags a real but unspecified character, a recurring shading in Dostoevsky's impressionistic descriptions.

Вещи и мебель были грубые, бедные и самые лишь необходимые.  
The objects and furniture were coarse, poor, and only the barest necessities.
> «самые лишь необходимые» — only the most necessary: «самые» here forms a superlative of «необходимые» ('the most necessary'), and the particle «лишь» (only, merely) restricts it: 'only the barest necessities.' «лишь» is a slightly literary synonym of «только».

Два горшка цветов на окне, а в углу много икон — одна из них богородицы, огромного размера и писанная, вероятно, еще задолго до раскола.  
Two pots of flowers on the windowsill, and in the corner many ikons — one of them of the Mother of God, of enormous size and painted, in all likelihood, long before the schism.
> Past passive participle «писанная»: «писанная» is a past passive participle from «писать» — note that an ikon is «писана» (written/painted), the traditional Orthodox idiom. The long form agrees with «одна (икона)» in the feminine; the doubled -нн- marks it as a full participle.

Пред ней теплилась лампадка.  
Before it a little lamp was burning.
> Archaic «пред» and reflexive «теплилась»: «Пред» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед» (before, in front of), governing the instrumental «ней». «теплилась» (imperfective reflexive of «теплиться») renders a small flame quietly, continuously burning — the verb almost only used of such lamps and faint warmth.

Около нее две другие иконы в сияющих ризах, затем около них деланные херувимчики, фарфоровые яички, католический крест из слоновой кости с обнимающею его Mater dolorosa и несколько заграничных гравюр с великих итальянских художников прошлых столетий.  
Beside it stood two other ikons in gleaming settings, then near them molded little cherubs, porcelain eggs, an ivory Catholic crucifix with a Mater dolorosa embracing it, and several foreign engravings after the great Italian painters of past centuries.
> Diminutives «херувимчики», «яички»: «херувимчики» (little cherubs) and «яички» (little eggs — here decorative porcelain ones) carry diminutive suffixes that make the bric-à-brac sound small, dainty, faintly kitsch — a gentle authorial wink at the cell's clutter.

Подле этих изящных и дорогих гравюрных изображений красовалось несколько листов самых простонароднейших русских литографий святых, мучеников, святителей и проч., продающихся за копейки на всех ярмарках.  
Alongside these elegant and costly engraved images were displayed several sheets of the most common Russian popular lithographs of saints, martyrs, prelates, and so on — the kind sold for a few kopecks at every fair.
> Double-marked superlative: «простонароднейших» already carries the synthetic superlative suffix -ейш- ('most common-folk'), and «самых» piles on the analytic superlative as well — an emphatic, almost colloquial doubling, 'the very commonest of all.'
> Present active participle of an -ся verb: «продающихся» is a present active participle of the reflexive «продаваться» (to be sold), agreeing with «литографий» in the genitive plural: 'the kind being sold for kopecks.' It compresses a «которые продаются»-clause into one modifier.

Было несколько литографических портретов русских современных и прежних архиереев, но уже по другим стенам.  
There were several lithographed portraits of Russian bishops, both present-day and former, but these hung on the other walls.
> Quantifier «несколько» + genitive plural: The impersonal «было» ('there were') pairs with «несколько» (several), which governs the genitive plural «портретов». The neuter singular «было» agrees with the quantifier phrase, not with the plural noun — standard for such existential statements.

Миусов бегло окинул всю эту «казенщину» и пристальным взглядом уперся в старца.  
Miusov ran a fleeting glance over all this "officialdom" and fixed his eyes intently on the elder.
> «казёнщина» — officialdom, soullessness: From «казённый» (belonging to the state treasury, official), «казёнщина» is a contemptuous noun for everything dull, bureaucratic, and lifelessly conventional. Miusov sweeps the whole pious display under this dismissive word — the narrator marks his disdain with the guillemets.
> Instrumental of manner + «упереться в»: «пристальным взглядом» is the instrumental of manner ('with an intent gaze'). «упереться в» + accusative (here «в старца») means to fix/plant oneself against something — the reflexive verb makes his stare almost physically lean on the elder.

Он уважал свой взгляд, имел эту слабость, во всяком случае в нем простительную, приняв в соображение, что было ему уже пятьдесят лет — возраст, в который умный светский и обеспеченный человек всегда становится к себе почтительнее, иногда даже поневоле.  
He set great store by his own judgment of people — he had this weakness, pardonable enough in him, considering that he was already fifty: the age at which an intelligent man of the world, well provided for, always grows more respectful toward himself, sometimes even against his will.
> Perfective gerund + dative of age: «приняв» (having taken) is a perfective gerund opening the parenthetical reasoning. Age is expressed with the dative of the person: «было ему… пятьдесят лет» = 'he was fifty' (lit. 'to him there were fifty years'), the impersonal «было» agreeing with neither.
> Long-form adjective as predicate complement: «простительную» (pardonable) is a full attributive adjective agreeing with «слабость» in the accusative; «в нём» (in him) localizes the pardon. The phrasing 'a weakness, pardonable enough in him' shows Russian appositive adjectives doing the work of an English relative clause.
> Reflexive «себе» and comparative «почтительнее»: «к себе» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» (dative «себе»), pointing back to the clause's subject: 'toward himself.' «почтительнее» is the predicative comparative of «почтительный» (more respectful), invariable in -ее.
> «светский», «обеспеченный»: «светский» again means 'of the (high) world,' a man of society. «обеспеченный» (well provided for, financially secure) is the past passive participle of «обеспечить» used adjectivally — Miusov as the comfortable, worldly gentleman the elder is not.

С первого мгновения старец ему не понравился.  
From the very first instant he did not like the elder.
> Dative experiencer with «понравиться»: «нравиться/понравиться» reverses English: the thing liked, «старец», is the nominative subject, and the one who likes it, «ему», is dative. So 'the elder did not please him' = 'he did not like the elder.' «понравился» is perfective: the dislike registered at first sight.

В самом деле, было что-то в лице старца, что многим бы, и кроме Миусова, не понравилось.  
And in truth there was something in the elder's face that many besides Miusov would not have liked.
> Conditional «бы» + dative in a relative clause: The relative «что» picks up «что-то» and heads a clause with «бы»: «многим бы… не понравилось» = 'which many would not have liked.' «многим» is the dative experiencer of «понравиться», and «бы» + past «понравилось» builds the hypothetical.
> The indefinite «что-то»: «что-то» ('something') with the clitic -то marks a real but unidentifiable quality — 'something in the elder's face.' This vagueness, half-felt and unnamed, is a signature of Dostoevsky's psychological notation.

Это был невысокий сгорбленный человечек с очень слабыми ногами, всего только шестидесяти пяти лет, но казавшийся от болезни гораздо старше, по крайней мере лет на десять.  
He was a short, stooped little man with very weak legs, only sixty-five years old, yet looking, because of his illness, a good deal older — by at least ten years.
> Past active participle + «гораздо» + comparative: «казавшийся» is a past active participle of «казаться» ('who seemed'), agreeing with «человечек». It governs the predicative comparative «старше» (older), intensified by «гораздо» (much). «от болезни» is «от» + genitive of cause: 'because of illness.'
> Genitive of age and «на» for the extent of difference: «шестидесяти пяти лет» is the genitive describing age. «лет на десять» uses «на» + accusative to express the measure of a difference — 'older by about ten years' — with the inversion «лет на десять» again signalling approximation.
> «человечек» — a little man: The diminutive of «человек», «человечек» renders the elder small and almost pitiable — 'a little man.' Combined with «сгорбленный» (stooped) it sketches physical frailty with a touch of tenderness.

Всё лицо его, впрочем очень сухенькое, было усеяно мелкими морщинками, особенно было много их около глаз.  
His whole face, which was, for that matter, very thin and dry, was strewn with fine little wrinkles, especially many of them about the eyes.
> Past passive participle (short form) + instrumental: «усеяно» is the short-form past passive participle of «усеять» (to strew, bestrew), joined to «было» to state a result: 'was strewn.' What it is strewn with stands in the instrumental, «мелкими морщинками» — the instrumental of means with a passive.
> Tender diminutives «сухенькое», «морщинки»: «сухенькое» (-еньк-, from «сухой» dry/thin) and «морщинки» (-к-, little wrinkles) keep the elder's portrait in the register of fond smallness, the wrinkles 'fine little' ones rather than harsh furrows.

Глаза же были небольшие, из светлых, быстрые и блестящие, вроде как бы две блестящие точки.  
His eyes were small, of a light color, quick and shining, like two glittering points.
> The particle «же» marking a new topic: Here «же» is not 'but/however' in the strong sense but a soft topic-shifting particle: 'as for the eyes, they were…' It signals a return to the catalogue of features, the kind of low-stress connective that gives the description its conversational drift.
> Hedging «вроде как бы»: «вроде как бы» heaps three hedging markers — «вроде» (sort of), «как» (like), «бы» (the irrealis particle) — to soften the simile to 'something like two glittering points.' Such stacked approximation is typical of the narrator's tentative, feeling-his-way manner.

Седенькие волосики сохранились лишь на висках, бородка была крошечная и реденькая, клином, а губы, часто усмехавшиеся, — тоненькие, как две бечевочки.  
A few grayish hairs were left only at his temples, his little beard was tiny and sparse, tapering to a point, and his lips, which often smiled, were thin as two threads of string.
> Diminutive suffixes: Russian piles on diminutive suffixes (-ик, -к-, -очк-, -еньк-) to color a description with affection, smallness, or a faintly ironic tenderness. Here «волосики» (little hairs), «бородка» (little beard), «реденькая» (rather thin), «тоненькие» (very thin), and «бечевочки» (little strings) make the elder's frail features seem delicate and touching. English has almost no diminutives, so we carry the effect with adjectives like 'little,' 'sparse,' and 'thin as two threads of string.'
> Past active participle «усмехавшиеся»: «усмехавшиеся» is a past active participle of the reflexive «усмехаться» (to smile slightly, smirk), imperfective, agreeing with «губы»: 'lips that often smiled.' The imperfective stem gives a habitual, repeated smiling rather than a single one.

Нос не то чтобы длинный, а востренький, точно у птички.  
His nose was not exactly long, but sharp-pointed, just like a little bird's.
> The corrective idiom «не то чтобы… а»: «не то чтобы… а…» is a fixed hedging-corrective frame: 'not exactly… but rather…' It qualifies a description by first half-denying one term and then offering a truer one — 'not exactly long, but sharp-pointed.' Note «чтобы» here is idiomatic, not a purpose clause.
> Diminutives «востренький», «птичка»: «востренький» is the diminutive of «вострый/острый» (sharp), 'sharp-pointed in a small way,' and «птичка» a little bird. «точно у птички» (just as a little bird's) uses «у» + genitive of possession to make the comparison — keeping the whole image small and bird-like.

«По всем признакам злобная и мелко-надменная душонка», — пролетело в голове Миусова.  
"By every sign, a spiteful and pettily arrogant little soul," flashed through Miusov's mind.
> «душонка» — a mean little soul: «душонка» is the pejorative diminutive of «душа» (soul), with the contemptuous -онк- suffix: a petty, base little soul. Coupled with «мелко-надменная» (pettily arrogant), it shows Miusov's snap verdict in its full disdain.
> Perfective «пролетело» for a flashing thought: «пролетело» (perfective of «пролететь», to fly through) is used figuratively of a thought that darts through the mind in an instant — the prefix про- giving the sense of passing right through. The neuter form agrees with the quoted thought as a clausal subject.

Вообще он был очень недоволен собой.  
On the whole he was very displeased with himself.
> Short adjective «недоволен» + instrumental: «недоволен» is the short (predicative) form of «недовольный» (displeased), used only as a predicate; the cause of displeasure stands in the instrumental — «собой», the instrumental of the reflexive «себя». So 'displeased with himself.'

Пробившие часы помогли начать разговор.  
The striking of a clock helped to start the conversation.
> Past active participle «пробившие»: «пробившие» is a past active participle of «пробить» (to strike, of a clock), agreeing with «часы»: 'the clock that had struck.' It compresses the relative idea into one declined word and stands attributively before the noun.

Ударило скорым боем на дешевых маленьких стенных часах с гирями ровно двенадцать.  
A cheap little wall clock with weights chimed twelve in a quick, hurried beat.
> Impersonal «ударило» — it struck twelve: «Ударило» is an impersonal neuter past with no nominative subject — 'it struck.' The manner is the instrumental «скорым боем» (in a quick beat), and «двенадцать» is the accusative number of strokes. The subjectless framing makes the chime an event that simply happens.
> «часы с гирями» — a weight-driven clock: «гири» are the hanging weights that drive an old wall clock; «с гирями» (instrumental after «с») specifies the cheap mechanism. The homely detail underscores the poverty of the cell.

— Ровнешенько настоящий час, — вскричал Федор Павлович, — а сына моего Дмитрия Федоровича всё еще нет.  
"Exactly on the hour," cried Fyodor Pavlovitch, "and my son Dmitri Fyodorovitch is still not here.
> Genitive of absence with «нет»: «нет» (there is no…) obligatorily takes the genitive of the absent thing: «сына… Дмитрия Фёдоровича… нет» = 'my son Dmitri is not here.' Every word in the phrase — noun, possessive, name, patronymic — stands in the genitive. «всё ещё» means 'still.'

Извиняюсь за него, священный старец!  
I apologize for him, holy elder!
> Reflexive «извиняюсь» + «за» + accusative: «извиняюсь» is the reflexive 'I apologize' (lit. 'I excuse myself'); the person apologized for is «за него» — «за» + accusative. Note that prescriptivists prefer «извините», making «извиняюсь» feel colloquial — apt for the buffoonish Fyodor.

(Алеша весь так и вздрогнул от «священного старца»).  
(Alyosha winced all over at the words 'holy elder.')
> «от» + genitive of cause: «от» + genitive marks the cause of a reaction: «вздрогнул от…» = 'winced because of / at….' Here the cause is the very phrase «священного старца», quoted in the genitive as the thing that triggered Alyosha's shudder.
> Emphatic «так и» with a perfective verb: «так и» before a perfective verb intensifies a sudden, whole-bodied reaction: 'positively shuddered all over.' Paired with «весь» (all of him) it conveys an involuntary spasm — the colloquial particle giving the prose its spoken energy.

Сам же я всегда аккуратен, минута в минуту, помня, что точность есть вежливость королей…  
As for me, I am always punctual, to the very minute, remembering that punctuality is the courtesy of kings…
> Intensifier «сам» + topic particle «же» + short adjective: «сам» ('myself, for my own part') intensifies «я»; «же» softly contrasts him with his absent son. «аккуратен» is the short predicative form of «аккуратный» (punctual, exact), the bookish short adjective fitting Fyodor's mock-pompous self-praise.
> Gerund «помня» and the bookish copula «есть»: «помня» is an imperfective gerund (remembering) of attendant circumstance. The aphorism uses «есть» as an explicit present-tense copula — 'punctuality is the courtesy of kings' — which Russian normally omits; its presence lends sententious, quotation weight.

— Но ведь вы по крайней мере не король, — пробормотал, сразу не удержавшись, Миусов.  
"But you, at any rate, are no king," muttered Miusov, unable to restrain himself at once.
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to what both parties supposedly know — 'but after all, you're no king.' It carries the dry, knowing edge of Miusov's jab, the kind of shared-knowledge marker English can only render with 'after all' or intonation.
> Negated perfective gerund «не удержавшись»: «удержавшись» is a perfective gerund of the reflexive «удержаться» (to restrain oneself); negated with «не», it gives 'unable to restrain himself.' The gerund marks the lapse of control as the circumstance under which he mutters.

— Да, это так, не король.  
"Yes, that's true, no king.
> Zero copula and bare negation: «это так» ('that's so') and «не король» ('not a king') both run with no present-tense verb — Russian omits the copula in the present, so agreement and meaning sit in the bare nominatives. «не» simply negates the predicate noun.

И представьте, Петр Александрович, ведь это я и сам знал, ей-богу!  
And just imagine, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, I knew that myself, by God I did!
> Stacked particles «ведь… и сам»: Fyodor crowds in particles: «ведь» (appealing, 'you know'), «и» (even/too), and the intensifier «сам» (myself) — 'why, I knew that myself, after all!' This density of modal particles is the very texture of his blustering, self-dramatizing speech.
> «ей-богу» — by God, honestly: «ей-богу» is a colloquial oath ('by God, honest to God'), an old affirmative interjection «ей» ('verily, indeed', cf. «ей-ей») plus the dative «богу» (of «Бог»). It is an everyday emphatic asseveration — slightly incongruous from Fyodor in the elder's holy cell, which is part of its comedy.

И вот всегда-то я так некстати скажу!  
And there — it's always like this, I always blurt something out at the wrong moment!
> The emphatic clitic «-то» and 'gnomic' perfective future: «всегда-то» uses the clitic -то to underline a known, recurring topic ('it's always like this with me'). The perfective future «скажу» here expresses habitual, characteristic behavior — a single typical instance standing for the rule, a common idiomatic use of the perfective.
> «некстати» — at the wrong moment: «некстати» (from «кстати», apropos) means 'out of place, inopportunely, at the wrong moment.' Fyodor's whole self-portrait turns on this word — he is the man who always says the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Ваше преподобие! — воскликнул он с каким-то мгновенным пафосом. — Вы видите пред собою шута, шута воистину!  
Your Reverence!" he exclaimed with a sudden flush of pathos. "You see before you a buffoon, a buffoon in very truth!
> «воистину» — verily, in very truth: «воистину» is the solemn, Church-Slavonic-flavored 'verily, truly' — famously the response in the Paschal greeting «Христос воскресе — Воистину воскресе.» Fyodor applies this sacred-sounding word to «шут» (buffoon), a deliberate, blasphemous bathos.
> Archaic «пред» + reflexive «собою»: «пред собою» pairs the elevated «пред» (= «перед», before) with the reflexive «себя» in its archaic instrumental «собою»: 'before yourself.' The lofty preposition heightens Fyodor's theatrical self-presentation as 'a buffoon before you.'

Так и рекомендуюсь.  
That's how I introduce myself.
> Reflexive «рекомендуюсь» + emphatic «так и»: «рекомендуюсь» is the reflexive 'I introduce/recommend myself.' «так и» emphasizes the manner: 'that's just how I present myself.' The reflexive -ся here is the true reflexive — the action turns back on the speaker.

Старая привычка, увы!  
An old habit, alas!
> «увы» — alas: «увы» is the literary interjection of regret, 'alas.' Set off as a one-word lament after «Старая привычка», it lends Fyodor's confession a mock-melancholy, stagey self-pity.

А что некстати иногда вру, так это даже с намерением, с намерением рассмешить и приятным быть.  
And if I sometimes tell lies out of place, why, I even do it on purpose, on purpose to make people laugh and to be agreeable.
> Topicalizing «А что…, так…»: «А что…, так…» fronts a whole clause as topic and resumes it with «так это»: 'And as for the fact that I sometimes lie out of place — why, I do it on purpose.' This colloquial topic-comment frame is a hallmark of lively spoken Russian.
> Infinitives of purpose + predicate instrumental: The infinitives «рассмешить» (to make laugh) and «быть приятным» state purpose. With «быть» the predicate adjective goes instrumental: «приятным быть» = 'to be agreeable,' the instrumental framing the role as one assumed for the occasion.

Надобно же быть приятным, не правда ли?  
One has to be agreeable, doesn't one?
> Archaic impersonal «надобно» + «же» + instrumental: «надобно» is the bookish/archaic equivalent of «надо» (one must), an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject. «же» insists ('one really must'), and «быть приятным» again puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental after «быть».
> Tag question «не правда ли?»: «не правда ли?» ('is it not true?') is the standard Russian tag seeking agreement — 'isn't it?' / 'don't you think?' The interrogative particle «ли» follows the focused «не правда», turning the statement into an appeal.

Приезжаю лет семь назад в один городишко, были там делишки, а я кой с какими купчишками завязал было компаньишку.  
Some seven years ago I turned up in a little town where I had some bits of business, and I'd got up a sort of paltry partnership with a few petty merchants.
> The dismissive suffix -ишк-: Unlike the tender diminutives above, the suffix -ишк- carries a belittling, contemptuous flavor: «городишко» is a wretched little town, «делишки» petty shady dealings, «купчишки» insignificant merchants, «компаньишку» a paltry little partnership. Fyodor Pavlovitch heaps them up to make his own anecdote sound shabby and self-mocking. English has no neat equivalent, so we lean on adjectives like 'paltry,' 'little,' and 'petty' to keep the sneer.
> The historical present «приезжаю»: Fyodor narrates a past anecdote in the vivid present — «приезжаю» (I arrive), «идём» (we go), «выходит» (out comes) — the so-called historical present that makes a story immediate. The imperfective present is doing the work of a past narrative.
> The particle «было» of a frustrated action: «завязал было» uses «было» after a perfective past to mark an action begun but not carried through — 'had got up a partnership (that came to nothing).' This special «было» quietly signals that the venture failed, foreshadowing the anecdote's flop.

Идем к исправнику, потому что его надо было кой о чем попросить и откушать к нам позвать.  
We go to the district police captain, because we needed to ask him about something and to invite him to dine with us.
> «откушать» — to partake of a meal (polite/archaic): «откушать» is a courteous, old-fashioned word for 'to dine, partake of food,' more deferential than «поесть». Used in inviting a superior to table, it carries the polite, slightly obsequious register of provincial manners.
> Impersonal «надо было» + indefinite «кой о чём»: «надо было» is the impersonal 'it was necessary,' with the infinitive «попросить» and the accusative object «его». «кой о чём» is a colloquial indefinite ('about something or other'), an older variant of «кое о чём», with the preposition «о» splitting the phrase.

Выходит исправник, высокий, толстый, белокурый и угрюмый человек, — самые опасные в таких случаях субъекты: печень у них, печень.  
Out comes the police captain — a tall, fat, fair-haired, sullen man, the most dangerous sort in such cases: the liver, you know, it's their liver.
> Verb-first historical present + heaped attributes: «Выходит исправник» (out comes the captain) leads with the present-tense verb for narrative immediacy, then loads four predicate-like adjectives — «высокий, толстый, белокурый и угрюмый» — onto «человек». Putting the verb first stages the entrance like a scene.
> «печень» — 'it's the liver': Fyodor's aside «печень у них, печень» (their liver, the liver) invokes the old folk-medical notion that a bad liver makes a man bilious and ill-tempered. The repetition is comic knowing-ness; «у них» (with them) is the «у» + genitive of possession.

Я к нему прямо, и знаете, с развязностию светского человека: «Господин исправник, будьте, говорю, нашим, так сказать, Направником!» — «Каким это, говорит, Направником?»  
I go straight up to him, and you know, with the easy air of a man of the world: 'Mr. Police Captain,' says I, 'be our, so to speak, Napravnik!' — 'What do you mean,' says he, 'Napravnik?'
> «развязность» + archaic instrumental: «развязность» is easy, unbuttoned familiarity of manner — here the self-assured air of a «светский человек» (man of the world). Note the archaic instrumental ending «развязностию» (modern «развязностью»), the bookish -ию on soft feminine nouns common in 19th-century prose.
> Imperative «будьте» + predicate instrumental: «будьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «быть» (be!), and its predicate noun goes in the instrumental: «нашим Направником» = 'be our Napravnik.' The instrumental after «быть» is the engine of the pun's grammar — take on this role.
> Parenthetical «говорю / говорит»: Fyodor narrates dialogue by embedding «говорю» (says I) and «говорит» (says he) right inside the quoted words, a hallmark of lively oral storytelling. «Каким… Направником?» echoes the predicate instrumental of the question back at him.

Я уж вижу с первой полсекунды, что дело не выгорело, стоит серьезный, уперся: «Я, говорю, пошутить желал, для общей веселости, так как господин Направник известный наш русский капельмейстер, а нам именно нужно для гармонии нашего предприятия вроде как бы тоже капельмейстера…»  
Within the first half-second I see the thing's gone flat: he stands there grave and immovable. 'I meant,' says I, 'to make a little joke, for the general good cheer, since Mr. Napravnik is our well-known Russian conductor, and what we need, precisely, for the harmony of our enterprise, is something of a conductor too…'
> Idiom «дело не выгорело»: «выгореть» literally means 'to burn out/away,' but the idiom «дело выгорело» means 'the matter came off, succeeded.' Negated — «дело не выгорело» — it means the thing flopped, didn't pan out. Fyodor sees in half a second that his joke has died.
> Present + perfective past, asyndeton: Two verbs sit comma-joined without a conjunction: the imperfective present «стоит» (stands) for the ongoing posture, and the perfective «уперся» (has dug in, planted himself) for the settled, immovable result. The mix of tense and aspect paints both the stance and its fixity.
> Impersonal «нужно» + genitive object + hedging: «нужно» ('one needs') is the impersonal need-predicate; what is needed, «капельмейстера», stands in the (animate) genitive/accusative. «вроде как бы» again stacks hedges — 'something like a conductor too' — Fyodor scrambling to explain his pun.
> «капельмейстер» — bandmaster/conductor: «капельмейстер» is a German loanword (Kapellmeister) for the leader of an orchestra or chapel — the very role Napravnik filled. Fyodor uses it to spell out his joke: the venture needs a 'conductor' to keep it in harmony.

И резонно ведь разъяснил и сравнил, не правда ли?  
And I explained and drew the comparison quite reasonably, didn't I?
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, you must agree' — soliciting the listener's assent rather than stating anything new. Fyodor wheedles for approval of his own joke; the English tag 'didn't I?' carries the same coaxing function.
> Perfective past pair: Both verbs are perfective past («разъяснил», «сравнил»), framing the explaining and comparing as two completed, accomplished acts — Fyodor presents them as finished feats of wit. The -л ending agrees with the masculine speaker.
> «резонно» — 'reasonably': A Gallicism from French raison, fashionable in the educated speech of the period, meaning 'reasonably, sensibly.' Fyodor's reach for a slightly highfalutin adverb is part of the performance of cleverness.

«Извините, говорит, я исправник и каламбуров из звания моего строить не позволю».  
'Excuse me,' says he, 'I am a police captain, and I will not allow puns to be made out of my rank.'
> «каламбур» — pun (genitive plural): «Каламбур» (from French calembour) is a play on words; here «каламбуров» is genitive plural governed by «строить» in the sense of 'making' puns. The whole anecdote turns on a near-homophone pun the next segment delivers.
> «из» + genitive of origin: «Из звания моего» ('out of my rank') uses «из» governing the genitive — the preposition's basic 'out of, from' meaning. The possessive «моего» follows its noun, a bookish-emphatic word order the captain adopts to stand on his dignity.

Повернулся и уходит.  
He turned and walked off.
> Perfective then historic present: Note the aspect-and-tense shift: «повернулся» is perfective past (a single completed turn), but «уходит» jumps to the present tense — the 'historic present' that makes the storytelling vivid and immediate, as if the captain is walking off before our eyes.
> Reflexive «-ся» as a middle voice: «Повернулся» ('he turned [himself] around') carries the reflexive clitic «-ся», here in its middle/intransitive sense: the turning is something the subject does to himself, with no separate object.

Я за ним, кричу: «Да, да, вы исправник, а не Направник!» — «Нет, говорит, уж коль сказано так, значит, я Направник»  
I went after him, calling out: 'Yes, yes, you are a police captain and not a Napravnik!' — 'No,' says he, 'now that it's been said, I am a Napravnik.'
> Verbless clause + historic present: «Я за ним» is a complete clause with no verb — Russian freely omits a verb of motion, leaving «за» + instrumental «ним» ('after him') to imply 'I [went] after him.' The following «кричу» is again the vivid historic present.
> Folksy «коль» and short passive participle: «Коль» is a colloquial/archaic shortening of «коли» ('if, since'), and «сказано» is the short-form past passive participle ('it has been said') used impersonally. Together with the particle «уж» they give the captain's reply a homespun, fatalistic ring.

И представьте, ведь дело-то наше расстроилось!  
And just imagine, the whole business of ours fell through!
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» tacked onto «дело» highlights it as the known topic — 'the business, you see' — rather than making it indefinite. It is one of Fyodor's verbal tics throughout this scene, lending his speech a buttonholing, confiding texture.
> «-ся» change-of-state verb: «Расстроилось» ('fell through, came undone') is a reflexive «-ся» verb in its middle sense: the business undid itself, with no agent named. The neuter -о ending agrees with «дело».
> Polite imperative «представьте»: «Представьте» ('imagine, just picture it') is the perfective imperative with the polite/plural «-те». Like «ведь», it is a conversational appeal that draws the listener into Fyodor's performance.

И всё-то я так, всегда-то я так.  
And it's always so with me, always so.
> Stacked emphatic «-то»: Fyodor doubles the clitic «-то» on both «всё» and «всегда» for a self-pitying, sing-song insistence — 'it's always so, always so with me.' The repetition with no verb (the copula 'is' is simply absent) leaves the bare adverb «так» to carry the whole rueful sense.

Непременно-то я своею же любезностью себе наврежу!  
I'm bound to do myself harm by my very own amiability!
> Reflexive «свой» + instrumental of means: «Своею любезностью» means 'by my own amiability,' with the reflexive possessive «свой» pointing back to the speaker-subject and the instrumental case marking the means by which he does himself harm. The particle «же» wedged in adds insistent emphasis ('my very own').
> Dative «себе» + perfective future: «Наврежу» is the perfective future ('I will do harm'), and «себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun — the verb «вредить/навредить» governs the dative ('to harm to whom'). So Fyodor will harm himself, the indirect object turned reflexive.
> «непременно» — 'inevitably, without fail': A strong adverb of certainty, 'unfailingly, for sure.' Coupled with the emphatic «-то» it dramatizes Fyodor's fatalistic claim that his charm is doomed to backfire every single time.

Раз, много лет уже тому назад, говорю одному влиятельному даже лицу: «Ваша супруга щекотливая женщина-с», — в смысле то есть чести, так сказать нравственных качеств, а он мне вдруг на то: «А вы ее щекотали?»  
Once, many years ago now, I said to a person of some influence: 'Your wife is a ticklish woman, sir' — meaning, of course, in the sense of honor, of moral qualities, so to speak — and he suddenly comes back at me: 'And did you tickle her?'
> The pun on «щекотливый»: «Щекотливая» means both 'ticklish' literally and 'delicate, touchy, sensitive' figuratively — the very ambiguity Fyodor exploits. He intends the abstract sense (a woman delicate in matters of honor); the husband seizes the literal one ('did you tickle her?').
> «супруга» — formal 'spouse/wife': A formal, deferential word for 'wife' (versus the plain «жена»), appropriate to addressing a 'person of influence.' Its decorous register makes the husband's crude literal retort all the more jarring.
> The deferential particle «-с»: The clipped «-с» appended to «женщина-с» (and to «щекотал-с», «Ну-с» later) is the «словоер» — a fossilized contraction of «сударь» ('sir') tacked on to signal servility or mock-deference. Fyodor sprinkles it to play the obsequious flatterer; it pervades the speech of Dostoevsky's social inferiors and ironists.
> Dative indirect object: «Одному влиятельному... лицу» is dative — the indirect object of «говорю» ('I say to a person of influence'). The intrusive «даже» ('even') and the agreeing adjective «влиятельному» all carry the dative ending, marking who the speech is addressed to.

Не удержался, вдруг, дай, думаю, полюбезничаю.  
I couldn't hold back; all of a sudden, I think, let me be charming.
> «дай» + perfective future as self-exhortation: «Дай... полюбезничаю» is an idiomatic self-urging: the imperative «дай» ('let [me]') plus the perfective future «полюбезничаю» ('I'll do a bit of charming') — literally 'give, I'll charm.' «Думаю» ('I think') inserted parenthetically reports the impulse. It is lively, colloquial inner speech.
> Reflexive «удержаться» under negation: «Не удержался» ('I couldn't restrain myself') is the negated perfective past of the reflexive «удержаться», where «-ся» turns the act of holding back inward on the subject. Subjectless and abrupt, it captures the helplessness of the impulse.
> «полюбезничать» — 'to do a little charming': The prefix «по-» on «любезничать» gives the perfective a 'do a bit of' nuance — a brief, light spell of flirtatious flattery. The verb itself derives from «любезный» (amiable, courteous), with a faintly self-mocking ring.

«Да, говорю, щекотал-с» — ну тут он меня и пощекотал.  
'Yes,' says I, 'I tickled her, sir' — well, then he gave me a tickling.
> Punchline «и» + perfective «по-»: The particle «и» before the verb ('and so he up and...') marks the expected, deserved outcome — the punchline. «Пощекотал» ('gave a tickling') is perfective with the delimitative «по-» ('a bit of'), here a euphemistic understatement for a thrashing.
> «пощекотал» — the literal tickling turned violent: By repeating the very verb of the pun, the husband 'tickles' Fyodor in earnest — i.e. roughs him up. The comic economy lies in answering a verbal liberty with the physical act its own words named.

Только давно уж это произошло, так что уж не стыдно и рассказать, вечно-то я так себе наврежу!  
Only it happened so long ago that I'm not even ashamed to tell it now — I'm forever doing myself harm like that!
> Dative-subject impersonal «стыдно»: «Не стыдно... рассказать» is an impersonal construction: the predicate adverb «стыдно» ('shameful, ashamed') takes no nominative subject — the experiencer would stand in the dative ('[to me] it is not shameful'). The infinitive «рассказать» supplies what is (not) shameful to do.
> Generalizing perfective future: Though «наврежу» is grammatically perfective future, with «вечно» ('forever, always') it reads as a habitual, generalizing statement — 'I'm forever doing myself harm.' Russian often uses the perfective future for a typical, repeatable outcome. Again the self-pitying «-то» and dative reflexive «себе».

— Вы это и теперь делаете, — с отвращением пробормотал Миусов.  
"You are doing it this very minute," muttered Miusov with disgust.
> «с» + instrumental of manner: «С отвращением» ('with disgust') is «с» governing the instrumental to express the manner of the action — how Miusov muttered. This instrumental-of-manner phrase is the standard Russian way to color a verb of speaking.
> Verb-before-subject in attribution: The dialogue tag inverts to verb-then-subject («пробормотал Миусов»), the unmarked order for Russian speech attributions. Fronting the perfective verb «пробормотал» keeps the new information — who spoke — in the weighty final position.

Старец молча разглядывал того и другого.  
The elder silently studied the one and the other.
> Imperfective of ongoing scrutiny: «Разглядывал» is imperfective past, presenting the elder's studying of the two men as a sustained, ongoing process — he kept looking them over. A perfective would have snapped it shut as a single completed glance; the imperfective lets the silent observation linger.
> «тот... другой» as animate accusative: «Того и другого» ('the one and the other') are the objects of «разглядывал» in the accusative; because they refer to people (animate), the accusative borrows the genitive form «-ого», keeping subject and object distinct.

— Будто! Представьте, ведь я и это знал, Петр Александрович, и даже, знаете, предчувствовал, что делаю только что стал говорить, и даже, знаете, предчувствовал, что вы мне первый это и заметите.  
"You don't say! Imagine, I knew that too, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, and what's more, you know, I even had a presentiment I was doing it the moment I began to speak, and even, you know, a presentiment that you would be the first to point it out to me.
> «Будто!» — 'You don't say!': «Будто» normally means 'as if,' but standing alone as an exclamation it voices mock-incredulous agreement — 'oh, really? you don't say!' Fyodor mockingly affirms Miusov's reproach, turning the accusation into another performance.
> «что»-clause of reported content: «Предчувствовал, что...» ('had a presentiment that...') opens a subordinate clause with «что» reporting a fact (or anticipated fact), set off by a comma. The imperfective «предчувствовал» frames the foreboding as a drawn-out inner state.

В эти секунды, когда вижу, что шутка у меня не выходит, у меня, ваше преподобие, обе щеки к нижним деснам присыхать начинают, почти как бы судорога делается; это у меня еще с юности, как я был у дворян приживальщиком и приживанием хлеб добывал.  
In those seconds when I see that my joke isn't coming off, Your Reverence, both my cheeks start sticking to my lower gums, almost as if a cramp were setting in; that's been with me since my youth, from when I was a hanger-on among the gentry and earned my bread by sponging.
> Phasal «начинать» + imperfective infinitive: «Присыхать начинают» ('begin to stick') pairs the phasal verb «начинают» with the imperfective infinitive «присыхать» — phasal verbs (begin, continue, stop) require the imperfective, since they describe entering an ongoing process. Word order puts the infinitive first for emphasis on the strange symptom.
> «приживальщик» — the hanger-on: A «приживальщик» (here instrumental «приживальщиком») is a dependent hanger-on who lives in a wealthy household as a kind of tolerated parasite — flattering, amusing, and sponging off the gentry. The matching verbal noun «приживание» names the very practice. The word fixes Fyodor's social origins: a buffoon by trade before he was a buffoon by nature.
> Instrumental of the predicate role: After «был» ('was'), the predicate noun «приживальщиком» takes the instrumental, not the nominative — the standard pattern for a role held in the past (он был... приживальщиком). The instrumental frames it as a temporary station in life, which suits a youth's situation.

Я шут коренной, с рождения, всё равно, ваше преподобие, что юродивый; не спорю, что и дух нечистый, может, во мне заключается, небольшого, впрочем, калибра, поважнее-то другую бы квартиру выбрал, только не вашу, Петр Александрович, и вы ведь квартира неважная.  
I am a buffoon to the marrow, from birth — just the same, Your Reverence, as a holy fool; I won't deny that maybe an unclean spirit lodges in me too, though of no great caliber — anything more important would have chosen better lodgings, only not yours, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, for you are poor lodging yourself.
> Conditional «бы» with an elided 'if': «Бы» + past «выбрал» builds the conditional ('would have chosen'), here without an explicit «если» — the comparative «поважнее» ('one more important') carries the hypothetical condition. This irrealis «бы» is the standard Russian 'would' construction.
> Comparative «поважнее»: «Поважнее» is the comparative of «важный» ('important') with the softening prefix «по-» ('somewhat more important'). The «по-» + comparative pattern is colloquial and idiomatic, and «поважнее» here stands as a substantivized comparative — 'something more important.'

Но зато я верую, в бога верую.  
But for all that I believe — I believe in God.
> «веровать в» + accusative: «Веровать в бога» ('to believe in God') takes «в» + the accusative — the construction of religious faith, distinct from «верить кому» ('to trust someone') with the dative. The fronting of «в бога» before the repeated verb gives the confession emphatic weight.
> «верую» — the solemn 'I believe': «Верую» (rather than the everyday «верю») is the elevated, liturgical first-person of «веровать» — the opening word of the Creed in Slavonic-Russian. Its solemn register lends Fyodor's sudden profession a startling, half-sincere gravity amid the buffoonery.
> Contrastive «зато»: «Зато» ('but on the other hand, to make up for it') sets a compensating contrast against what precedes — yes, I'm a fool, but for all that I do believe. It is a tighter, more pointed 'but' than «но», balancing a debit against a credit.

Я только в последнее время усумнился, но зато теперь сижу и жду великих словес.  
Only lately I've fallen into doubt, but now, to make up for it, I sit and wait for great words.
> «усумниться» — 'to fall into doubt': An archaic/bookish perfective (modern «усомниться») meaning to begin to doubt, with the «-ся» of an inward change of state. The older spelling «усумнился» and the elevated tone color Fyodor's confession of recent doubt with a literary patina.
> «словеса» — Slavonic 'words': «Словес» is the genitive plural of «словеса», an archaic, Church-Slavonic-flavored plural of «слово» ('word'). It carries a solemn, scriptural ring — 'great utterances, weighty words' — which Fyodor adopts half in earnest, half in mockery as he waits on the elder.
> «ждать» + genitive: «Ждать» ('to wait for, await') governs the genitive when the awaited thing is abstract or non-specific: «жду... словес» ('I await [some] great words'). This genitive-of-the-awaited is a classic government pattern, distinct from the accusative used for a definite, expected object.

Я, ваше преподобие, как философ Дидерот.  
I, Your Reverence, am like the philosopher Diderot.
> Zero copula in the present: 'I am like the philosopher Diderot' has no verb 'to be' in Russian — the present-tense copula is simply absent, and «как» + the noun does the comparing. This zero-copula present is the default; a verb appears only in past or future.

Известно ли вам, святейший отец, как Дидерот-философ явился к митрополиту Платону при императрице Екатерине.  
Are you aware, most holy father, how Diderot the philosopher came before Metropolitan Platon in the reign of the Empress Catherine?
> Yes/no question with «ли»: «Известно ли вам...?» fronts the focused word «известно» ('known') and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to form a neutral, somewhat formal yes/no question — 'Is it known to you...?' The dative «вам» is the experiencer of this impersonal 'it is known to you.'
> «святейший» — superlative 'most holy': «Святейший» is the bookish superlative of «святой» ('holy') in the suffix «-ейший» — 'most holy.' Strictly it is the style of a Patriarch, so Fyodor's lavishing it on the elder is flattery laid on with a trowel, comic in its excess.

Входит и прямо сразу: «Нет бога».  
He walks in and straight off declares: 'There is no God.'
> Historic present for vividness: «Входит» ('he walks in') is present tense in a past-time narration — the historic present that puts the scene before our eyes. Fyodor's anecdotes lean heavily on it, quickening the pace and heightening the theatrical immediacy.
> Genitive of negated existence: «Нет бога» ('there is no God') is the existential-negative construction: «нет» obligatorily takes the genitive of the thing absent («бога», genitive of «бог»). This genitive-of-negation is one of the case's most characteristic jobs.

На что великий святитель подымает перст и отвечает: «Рече безумец в сердце своем несть бог!»  
To which the great prelate raises a finger and answers: 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God!'
> Church-Slavonic verb forms: «Рече» is the Slavonic aorist of «рещи» ('he said, spake'), and «несть» is the Slavonic negated copula ('there is not' = не + есть). Both are dead in modern Russian and survive only in scripture and liturgy; their use marks the prelate's speech as sacred utterance.
> «святитель» — 'prelate, holy hierarch': «Святитель» is the ecclesiastical term for a sainted bishop or hierarch of the Church, a more exalted word than the plain «епископ» (bishop). «Перст» ('finger') in the same sentence is likewise archaic-Slavonic for the everyday «палец» — the whole tableau is staged in elevated register.

Тот как был, так и в ноги: «Верую, кричит, и крещенье принимаю».  
And the other, just as he was, fell at his feet: 'I believe,' he cries, 'and I accept baptism.'
> «как... так и» + verbless punch: «Как был, так и в ноги» ('just as he was, [he threw himself] at his feet') uses the correlative «как... так и» and then drops the verb entirely — «в ноги» (accusative of motion) alone implies the prostration. The verbless dash gives the action breathless speed.

Так его и окрестили тут же.  
And so they christened him on the spot.
> Indefinite-personal 'they': «Окрестили» ('[they] christened him') is third-person plural with no stated subject — the indefinite-personal construction, equivalent to English 'they christened him' or a passive 'he was christened.' The unspecified 'they' is the church authorities. The particle «и» again marks the clinching outcome.
> Animate accusative «его»: «Его» here is the accusative object of «окрестили» ('christened him'). For the personal pronoun the accusative coincides with the genitive form «его», and after a preposition it would gain the н- prefix («у него») — but as a bare object it stays «его».

Княгиня Дашкова была восприемницей, а Потемкин крестным отцом…  
Princess Dashkova was his godmother, and Potyomkin his godfather…
> «восприемница» — sponsor at baptism: «Восприемник/восприемница» is the churchly term for the godparent who 'receives' the newly baptized from the font — godfather/godmother in the liturgical sense (versus the everyday «крёстный/крёстная»). Paired with «крёстным отцом» ('godfather'), it lends the spoof a precise ecclesiastical solemnity. Both stand in the instrumental as predicate roles after the elided 'was.'

— Федор Павлович, это несносно! Ведь вы сами знаете, что вы врете и что этот глупый анекдот неправда, к чему вы ломаетесь? — дрожащим голосом проговорил, совершенно уже не сдерживая себя, Миусов.  
"Fyodor Pavlovitch, this is unbearable! You yourself know perfectly well that you are lying, and that this stupid anecdote is untrue — what are you playing the fool for?" said Miusov in a trembling voice, no longer holding himself in at all.
> Coordinated «что»-clauses of fact: Two «что»-clauses depend on «знаете» ('you know that you are lying and that... is untrue'), each reporting a fact and joined by «и». «Что» is the neutral reporting conjunction, as opposed to «чтобы», which would signal a willed or hypothetical outcome.
> «ломаться» — to put on an act: «Ломаться» (here «ломаетесь») literally 'to break,' figuratively means to play-act, posture, make a show of oneself, put on affected airs. Miusov's «к чему вы ломаетесь?» ('why are you playing the fool?') names exactly Fyodor's whole performance — and Fyodor will throw the word back, owning it («Для того и ломаюсь»).
> Present active participle as modifier: «Дрожащим» ('trembling') is the present active participle of «дрожать», declined into the instrumental to agree with «голосом» ('in a trembling voice'). The participle in «-ащ-» condenses 'a voice that was trembling' into a single bookish adjective — a hallmark of literary narration.
> Imperfective gerund «не сдерживая»: «Не сдерживая себя» ('not holding himself in') is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») describing the attendant manner of Miusov's speaking — he spoke while no longer restraining himself. The reflexive object «себя» marks that it is himself he fails to hold back.

— Всю жизнь предчувствовал, что неправда! — с увлечением воскликнул Федор Павлович.  
"All my life I have had a presentiment that it was untrue!" Fyodor Pavlovitch exclaimed with enthusiasm.
> «с» + instrumental of manner: «С увлечением» ('with enthusiasm, carried away') is «с» + instrumental specifying how Fyodor exclaimed. The phrase, fronted before the verb, paints his relish before we even reach the verb «воскликнул».
> Accusative of duration: «Всю жизнь» ('all my life') is in the accusative with no preposition — the accusative of extent/duration of time. The imperfective «предчувствовал» fits the long span: a foreboding stretched across a lifetime.

— Я вам, господа, зато всю правду скажу: старец великий!  
"But I, gentlemen, will tell you the whole truth in return: the elder is great!
> Perfective future of completion: «Скажу» is the perfective future ('I will tell [the whole thing]') — a single, completed act of telling, fitting the totalizing object «всю правду» ('the whole truth'). An imperfective «буду говорить» would instead stress the process of speaking.
> Predicate-final word order: «Старец великий!» places the adjective after the noun as a ringing predicate — 'the elder [is] great!' With the zero copula and the inversion, «великий» lands as emphatic new information, an exclamation rather than a plain 'great elder.'

простите, я последнее, о крещении-то Дидерота, сам сейчас присочинил, вот сию только минуточку, вот как рассказывал, а прежде никогда и в голову не приходило.  
Forgive me — that last bit, about Diderot's baptism, I made up just now, this very minute, even as I was telling it, whereas before it had never once entered my head.
> Perfective «при-» of invention: «Присочинил» ('made up, added by invention') is perfective, the prefix «при-» giving 'to make up in addition, embellish.' Repeated across these segments, it confesses that the baptism ending was tacked on — a completed act of fabrication, just now performed.
> Idiom «приходить в голову»: «В голову не приходило» ('it never entered my head') is the impersonal idiom for an idea occurring to someone, here negated and imperfective ('it used never to come to mind'). The thing that doesn't come is the unstated subject; the experiencer would be dative «мне».
> Diminutive «минуточка»: «Сию... минуточку» uses the affectionate diminutive of «минута» ('minute') — 'this very tiny minute, this instant.' The «-очк-» suffix lends warmth and cozy immediacy, very much Fyodor's ingratiating register. «Сию» is the archaic demonstrative «сей» ('this'), bookish for 'this very.'

Для пикантности присочинил.  
I made it up for piquancy.
> «пикантность» — for spice, piquancy: «Пикантность» (from French piquant) means raciness, spice, a titillating edge. «Для пикантности» ('for piquancy') — «для» + genitive of purpose — admits with cheerful frankness that Fyodor lied simply to make the story tastier.
> «для» + genitive of purpose: «Для» always governs the genitive, and with an abstract noun expresses purpose — «для пикантности» ('for [the sake of] piquancy'). The whole one-word answer fronts the motive, the verb «присочинил» understood from the previous sentence.

Для того и ломаюсь, Петр Александрович, чтобы милее быть.  
I play the fool, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, precisely so as to be more endearing.
> Purpose with «чтобы»: «Для того... чтобы милее быть» ('precisely in order to be more endearing') is the full purpose construction: the correlative «для того» points ahead to the «чтобы»-clause. After «чтобы» the infinitive «быть» states the willed aim — the construction for a deliberate goal.
> Comparative «милее»: «Милее» is the predicative comparative of «милый» ('dear, endearing') — 'more endearing,' formed with the invariable «-ее» suffix. As the complement of «быть» it would naturally appear in the instrumental for a full adjective, but the comparative is fixed and uninflected.

А впрочем, и сам не знаю иногда для чего.  
Though sometimes, for that matter, I don't even know myself what for.
> Intensifier «сам» + embedded «для чего»: «Сам» ('[I] myself') intensifies the subject — even he doesn't know. «Для чего» ('what for') is the interrogative «что» under «для» (genitive), embedded as the indirect object of «не знаю». The dropped 'я' is recovered from the verb ending.
> Topic-shifting «а» + «впрочем»: «А впрочем» ('though, then again, for that matter') opens a self-correcting afterthought. The contrastive «а» here marks a gentle swerve of topic rather than opposition — Fyodor undercuts his own just-stated motive, a characteristic flicker of his restless self-awareness.

А что до Дидерота, так я этого «рече безумца» раз двадцать от здешних же помещиков еще в молодых летах моих слышал, как у них проживал; от вашей тетеньки, Петр Александрович, Мавры Фоминишны тоже, между прочим, слышал.  
As for Diderot, I heard that 'the fool hath said' a good twenty times from the local landowners here, back in my younger years, when I was living among them; and from your aunt too, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, from Mavra Fominishna, I heard it among the rest.
> Idiom «что до... [genitive]»: «Что до Дидерота» ('as for Diderot') is a set topic-marking idiom, «что до» + genitive, that lifts a subject to the front for comment — the Russian 'as for X.' It signals a deliberate change of focus, organizing Fyodor's rambling discourse.
> Imperfective of habitual residence: «Проживал» ('was living, used to reside') is imperfective past — a durative, habitual state, the years Fyodor dwelt among the gentry. The prefix «про-» adds a sense of living through a span of time.

Все-то они до сих пор уверены, что безбожник Дидерот к митрополиту Платону спорить о боге приходил…  
To this very day they are all convinced that the godless Diderot came to Metropolitan Platon to argue about God…
> «безбожник» — the godless one: «Безбожник» ('atheist, godless man') is built transparently from «без» (without) + «бог» (God) + the agent suffix «-ник» — literally 'a without-God-er.' It carries a faint note of folk condemnation, the village word for an unbeliever, fitting the landowners' naive view of Diderot.
> Short adjective «уверены» + «что»: «Уверены» is the short-form (predicative) plural of «уверенный» ('certain, sure') — the form an adjective takes as predicate after the elided 'are.' It governs a «что»-clause reporting what they are convinced of.
> Goal infinitive with a verb of motion: «Приходил... спорить» ('came in order to argue') pairs the motion verb with a bare infinitive of purpose — Russian needs no «чтобы» when the purpose follows a verb of motion. «О боге» is «о» + prepositional, the case for the topic of argument.

Миусов встал, не только потеряв терпение, но даже как бы забывшись.  
Miusov rose, having not only lost his patience but even seeming to forget himself.
> Two perfective past gerunds: «Потеряв» ('having lost') and «забывшись» ('having forgotten himself') are both perfective past gerunds («деепричастия»), naming the prior, completed states in which Miusov rose. They share the main subject and condense two circumstances into compact adverbials — dense literary syntax.
> Hedging «как бы»: «Как бы» ('as it were, as though') softens and hedges «забывшись» — Miusov seemed almost to forget himself. This «как бы» of approximation, distinct from a true conditional, lets the narrator report an impression without committing to it; it recurs as «как бы», «как был» throughout the chapter.
> Reflexive gerund «забыться»: «Забывшись» comes from the reflexive «забыться» ('to forget oneself, lose self-possession'), whose «-ся» (here «-шись» after the consonant) turns the forgetting inward. It is stronger than mere «забыть» ('to forget [a thing]') — a lapse of composure.

Он был в бешенстве и сознавал, что от этого сам смешон.  
He was in a fury, and he was aware that he himself looked ridiculous because of it.
> «в» + prepositional of state: «В бешенстве» ('in a fury') uses «в» + the prepositional to express a state one is in — the locative metaphor for an emotional condition, parallel to English 'in a rage.' «Бешенство» derives from «бешеный» ('rabid, mad').
> Short adjective «смешон»: «Смешон» is the masculine short form of «смешной» ('ridiculous, laughable') — the predicative form stating a current condition ('he was ridiculous'). With «сам» ('himself') it sharpens the painful self-awareness: he knows that he himself cuts a comic figure.
> Imperfective of inner awareness: «Сознавал» ('was aware, kept realizing') is imperfective past, presenting Miusov's self-consciousness as a continuous inner condition rather than a single realization. Aspect here does psychological work, holding his discomfort open across the moment.

Действительно, в келье происходило нечто совсем невозможное.  
Indeed, something altogether impossible was taking place in the cell.
> Subject-final word order: The verb «происходило» ('was taking place') precedes its subject «нечто... невозможное» ('something quite impossible'), holding the startling new information for the end — topic-comment word order at work. The imperfective verb frames the impossible scene as unfolding.

В этой самой келье, может быть уже сорок или пятьдесят лет, еще при прежних старцах, собирались посетители, но всегда с глубочайшим благоговением, не иначе.  
In this very cell, for perhaps forty or fifty years now, even in the time of the former elders, visitors had gathered, but always with the most profound reverence, never otherwise.
> Imperfective of habitual gathering: «Собирались» ('used to gather, would gather') is imperfective past with the reflexive «-ся», expressing a repeated, habitual action over the forty or fifty years. The «-ся» here is the middle-voice 'come together'; the imperfective carries the sense of customary practice.
> Superlative «-айший» + instrumental: «Глубочайшим» is the bookish superlative of «глубокий» ('deep') in «-айший» — 'most profound,' here in the instrumental of manner with «с» ('with the most profound reverence'). The synthetic superlative suffix belongs to the elevated narrative register.
> «благоговение» — reverent awe: «Благоговение» ('reverence, devout awe') is a solemn, Church-flavored compound (blago-, 'good/holy,' + a root of trembling/awe). It names exactly the reverent atmosphere the buffoonery profanes, and its lofty register marks the narrator's own pious cadence.

Все почти допускаемые, входя в келью, понимали, что им оказывают тем великую милость.  
Almost everyone admitted understood, on entering the cell, that a great favor was being shown them by it.
> Present passive participle «допускаемые»: «Допускаемые» ('[those] being admitted') is the rare present passive participle in «-емый», from «допускать» ('to admit, let in'). Used substantivally ('all those admitted'), it is markedly bookish — exactly the kind of dense participial modifier that thickens this descriptive passage.
> Imperfective gerund «входя»: «Входя» ('on entering, as they entered') is the imperfective present gerund of «входить», naming the simultaneous circumstance — they understood the favor at the moment of entering. It shares the subject of «понимали» and frames the realization in mid-action.
> Indefinite-personal + instrumental of means: «Оказывают» ('[they] show, render') is indefinite-personal (no subject), with «им» dative ('to them') and «тем» the instrumental of «то» ('by that, thereby'). «Оказывать милость» ('to show a favor/mercy') is a fixed collocation — a great favor was being done them.

Многие повергались на колени и не вставали с колен во всё время посещения.  
Many fell upon their knees and did not rise from them for the whole duration of the visit.
> Imperfective «-ся» of repeated prostration: «Повергались» ('would fall, threw themselves down') is imperfective past with reflexive «-ся» — many visitors, repeatedly, over the years, casting themselves down. «На колени» is «на» + accusative of motion ('onto their knees'); contrast «с колен» ('from their knees') in the next breath, «с» + genitive.
> Accusative duration «во всё время»: «Во всё время посещения» ('for the whole duration of the visit') uses «в(о)» + accusative «всё время» to span an extent of time, with «посещения» a genitive of 'of the visit.' The construction marks duration rather than a point.

Многие из «высших» даже лиц и даже из ученейших, мало того, некоторые из вольнодумных даже лиц, приходившие или по любопытству, или по иному поводу, входя в келью со всеми или получая свидание наедине, ставили себе в первейшую обязанность, все до единого, глубочайшую почтительность и деликатность во всё время свидания, тем более что здесь денег не полагалось, а была лишь любовь и милость с одной стороны, а с другой — покаяние и жажда разрешить какой-нибудь трудный вопрос души или трудный момент в жизни собственного сердца.  
Many even among the 'higher' persons, and even among the most learned, more than that, even some of the freethinkers among them, who came either out of curiosity or for some other reason, whether entering the cell with the rest or obtaining a private audience, made it their first duty, every single one of them, to show the most profound deference and delicacy throughout the meeting — all the more so since no money was involved here, but only love and mercy on the one side, and on the other repentance and the longing to resolve some difficult question of the soul, or some hard moment in the life of one's own heart.
> «вольнодумный» — freethinking: «Вольнодумный» ('freethinking') is a compound of «вольный» (free) + «дума» (thought) — the period's word for a religious-political skeptic or liberal. The narrator notes that even such «вольнодумцы» behaved with reverence in the cell, sharpening the contrast with Fyodor.
> Participle and gerunds chained: This long sentence stacks the past active participle «приходившие» ('[those] who came') with the imperfective gerunds «входя» ('entering') and «получая» ('obtaining') — a dense chain of non-finite forms folding several clauses into one. Such participial-gerundial accumulation is the signature of 19th-century literary syntax.
> Idiom «ставить себе в обязанность»: «Ставили себе в... обязанность» ('made it their duty') is a set idiom: «ставить» + dative reflexive «себе» + «в» + accusative «обязанность». «Себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun ('for/to themselves'), pointing back to the subject.
> Genitive of negated existence: «Денег не полагалось» ('no money was involved/expected') puts «денег» (genitive plural of «деньги») in the genitive under the negated impersonal «не полагалось» — the genitive demanded by negated existence/availability. The «-ся» verb «полагаться» here means 'to be due, to be the rule.'
> Superlative «первейший»: «Первейшую» is an emphatic superlative of «первый» ('first') in «-ейший» — 'their very first / foremost duty.' Forming a superlative from an ordinal is bookish and intensifying, heightening the sense of absolute obligation.

Так что вдруг такое шутовство, которое обнаружил Федор Павлович, непочтительное к месту, в котором он находился, произвело в свидетелях, по крайней мере в некоторых из них, недоумение и удивление.  
So that such buffoonery as Fyodor Pavlovitch suddenly displayed, irreverent toward the place in which he found himself, produced in the witnesses, in at least some of them, bewilderment and astonishment.
> Relative clause with «который»: «Которое обнаружил Федор Павлович» ('which Fyodor Pavlovich displayed') is a «который»-clause modifying «шутовство». «Которое» agrees with its antecedent in gender and number (neuter sing.) but takes the accusative its own role demands — the object of «обнаружил».
> «в» + котором (prepositional): «В котором он находился» ('in which he found himself') shows «который» in the prepositional after «в» — the relative pronoun bending to its own clause's case even as it agrees in gender/number with «месту». «Находился» is the reflexive 'to be located.'
> «шутовство» — buffoonery: «Шутовство» ('buffoonery, clowning') is the abstract noun from «шут» ('fool, jester'), in «-ство». It is the narrator's clinical name for Fyodor's whole performance — the very thing the chapter title «Старый шут» ('The Old Buffoon') announces.

Иеромонахи, впрочем нисколько не изменившие своих физиономий, с серьезным вниманием следили, что скажет старец, но, кажется, готовились уже встать, как Миусов.  
The monks, who had not altered their faces in the slightest, watched with grave attention to see what the elder would say, but seemed to be on the point of rising, as Miusov had done.
> Past active participle + genitive of negation: «Не изменившие» ('who had not altered') is the perfective past active participle of «изменить», modifying «иеромонахи». Under its negation the object «своих физиономий» ('their faces') shifts to the genitive — the genitive of negation. The reflexive possessive «своих» points to the monks themselves.
> Embedded question «что скажет»: «Следили, что скажет старец» ('watched [to see] what the elder would say') embeds an indirect question with «что» and the perfective future «скажет». Russian uses the future tense directly in such reported anticipation, where English needs 'would say.'

Алеша готов был заплакать и стоял, понурив голову.  
Alyosha was ready to burst into tears and stood with his head hung low.
> Short adjective «готов» + infinitive: «Готов был заплакать» ('was ready to burst into tears') uses the short-form predicative adjective «готов» ('ready') with «был» and an infinitive. «Заплакать» is the inceptive perfective ('to start crying'), the prefix «за-» marking the onset of weeping.
> Perfective gerund «понурив»: «Понурив голову» ('having hung his head, with head hung low') is a perfective past gerund («деепричастие») describing the completed posture in which Alyosha stood. It compactly adds the attendant circumstance to «стоял».

Всего страннее казалось ему то, что брат его, Иван Федорович, единственно на которого он надеялся и который один имел такое влияние на отца, что мог бы его остановить, сидел теперь совсем неподвижно на своем стуле, опустив глаза и по-видимому с каким-то даже любознательным любопытством ожидал, чем это всё кончится, точно сам он был совершенно тут посторонний человек.  
Strangest of all to him was that his brother Ivan Fyodorovitch — the only one he had counted on, the one man who had such influence over their father that he might have stopped him — now sat completely motionless on his chair, his eyes lowered, waiting with what looked like an inquisitive, even studious curiosity to see how it would all end, as though he himself were a complete stranger here.
> Two «который»-clauses, two cases: Ivan is described by paired relative clauses: «на которого он надеялся» ('on whom he relied,' «на» + accusative of the animate masculine) and «который... имел такое влияние» ('who had such influence,' nominative subject). Same antecedent, different case as each clause's grammar requires — «который» in two roles at once.
> Conditional «мог бы»: «Мог бы остановить» ('might have stopped, could have stopped') is the conditional — past «мог» + the particle «бы» — expressing an unrealized possibility. It is precisely the hypothetical intervention that did not happen, the source of Alyosha's dismay.
> Perfective gerund «опустив»: «Опустив глаза» ('with his eyes lowered, having lowered his eyes') is a perfective gerund of attendant state, stacked alongside «сидел... неподвижно». Such gerunds let the narrator paint Ivan's motionless detachment in a single subordinate stroke.
> Comparative «точно» as 'as if': «Точно» here is not 'exactly' but the conjunction 'as if, just as though,' introducing an unreal comparison — Ivan sat as though he were a complete stranger. «Посторонний человек» ('an outsider') stands in the nominative as the predicate of «был».

На Ракитина (семинариста), тоже Алеше очень знакомого и почти близкого, Алеша и взглянуть не мог: он знал его мысли (хотя знал их один Алеша во всем монастыре).  
At Rakitin (the seminarian), also well known to Alyosha and almost a close acquaintance, Alyosha could not even bring himself to glance: he knew his thoughts (though Alyosha alone in the whole monastery knew them).
> Negated modal + perfective infinitive: «Взглянуть не мог» ('could not bring himself to glance') pairs «мог» under negation with the perfective infinitive «взглянуть» ('to take a glance'). The perfective marks a single intended act of looking that Alyosha cannot perform — the negation falling on his very capacity.
> Emphatic «один» + inverted order: «Знал их один Алеша» ('Alyosha alone knew them') places «один» ('alone, only') and the subject after the verb and object, throwing the weight onto 'Alyosha alone.' «Один» as 'only/sole' agrees with the masculine subject; the inversion is the topic-comment engine focusing the news that he alone knew.

— Простите меня… — начал Миусов, обращаясь к старцу, — что я, может быть, тоже кажусь вам участником в этой недостойной шутке.  
"Forgive me," Miusov began, turning to the elder, "if I too may perhaps appear to you a participant in this unworthy jest.
> Polite imperative «простите»: «Простите меня» ('forgive me') is the perfective imperative with polite/plural «-те» plus the accusative object «меня». A formula of contrition opening Miusov's apology, it sets the courteous, self-abasing tone against which Fyodor's clowning has offended.
> Imperfective gerund «обращаясь»: «Обращаясь к старцу» ('turning to the elder') is the reflexive imperfective gerund of «обращаться», marking the simultaneous gesture as Miusov begins to speak. «К старцу» is «к» + dative, the case this preposition governs.

Ошибка моя в том, что я поверил, что даже и такой, как Федор Павлович, при посещении столь почтенного лица захочет понять свои обязанности…  
My mistake lay in believing that even a man like Fyodor Pavlovitch, on visiting so venerable a person, would want to recognize his obligations…
> Perfective future «захочет» + infinitive: «Захочет понять» ('would want to understand') is the perfective future of «захотеть» (the inceptive 'come to want') plus the perfective infinitive «понять». The reflexive possessive «свои» ('his own') ties the obligations back to the subject Fyodor.
> Bookish «столь» + genitive: «Столь почтенного лица» ('so venerable a person') uses the literary intensifier «столь» ('so') — more bookish than «такой» — modifying the adjective, with «лица» in the genitive after «при посещении» ('on visiting [of]'). The elevated «столь» suits Miusov's careful, formal diction.

Я не сообразил, что придется просить извинения именно за то, что с ним входишь…  
I did not reckon that I should have to ask pardon for the very fact of having come in with him…
> Impersonal «придётся» + dative experiencer: «Придётся просить» ('I should have to ask') is the impersonal «прийтись» ('to fall to one's lot, be obliged'), which takes no nominative subject — the obliged person stands in the dative (here implied 'мне'). «Просить извинения» governs the genitive «извинения» ('pardon').
> Generic second-person 'you': «С ним входишь» ('one comes in with him') uses the second-person singular «входишь» with no pronoun in a generalizing, impersonal sense — the Russian way of saying 'one,' addressed to no particular 'you.' «С ним» is «с» + instrumental ('with him'), the accompaniment use.

Петр Александрович не договорил и, совсем сконфузившись, хотел было уже выйти из комнаты.  
Pyotr Alexandrovitch did not finish and, thoroughly abashed, was already on the point of leaving the room.
> The particle «было» of an interrupted act: «Хотел было... выйти» ('was on the point of leaving [but didn't]') uses the special particle «было», which signals an action begun or intended and then checked or reversed. It is one of Russian's subtlest aspectual touches — here Miusov starts to go but is about to be stopped by the elder.
> Perfective gerund «сконфузившись»: «Сконфузившись» ('having grown thoroughly abashed') is a perfective past reflexive gerund describing the completed state in which Miusov breaks off and moves to leave. «Совсем» ('completely') intensifies his embarrassment.

— Не беспокойтесь, прошу вас, — привстал вдруг с своего места на свои хилые ноги старец и, взяв за обе руки Петра Александровича, усадил его опять в кресла.  
"Do not trouble yourself, I beg you," said the elder, suddenly rising to his feeble legs from his place and, taking Pyotr Alexandrovitch by both hands, seating him again in his chair.
> Perfective gerund «взяв» + «за» grasping: «Взяв за обе руки» ('having taken [him] by both hands') is the perfective past gerund of «взять», naming the completed act prior to seating Miusov. «За... руки» (за + accusative) is the idiom for grasping someone 'by' a body part — «взять за руку».
> Two perfectives advancing the action: «Привстал» ('half-rose') and «усадил» ('seated [him]') are both perfective past, two completed events that move the narrative forward step by step. The prefix «при-» on «встал» gives the partial, brief rising of a frail man; «у-» on «садил» makes the seating transitive and complete.
> «хилый» — frail, feeble: «Хилый» means sickly, frail, weak — «на свои хилые ноги» paints the elder's bodily feebleness, set tenderly against the spiritual authority of his gesture. The detail prepares the contrast of physical weakness and moral strength central to Zosima.

— Будьте спокойны, прошу вас. Я особенно прошу вас быть моим гостем, — и с поклоном, повернувшись, сел опять на свой диванчик.  
"Be at peace, I beg you. I particularly ask you to be my guest," and with a bow, turning back, he sat down again on his little sofa.
> Instrumental predicate after «быть»: «Быть моим гостем» ('to be my guest') puts the predicate noun «гостем» in the instrumental after the infinitive «быть» — the standard pattern with «быть» outside the present. The possessive «моим» agrees in the instrumental too.
> Perfective gerund «повернувшись»: «Повернувшись» ('having turned') is a perfective reflexive gerund of prior action, the completed turn that precedes «сел» ('sat down'). With «с поклоном» ('with a bow,' с + instrumental) it choreographs the elder's courteous movement.
> Diminutive «диванчик»: «Диванчик» is the diminutive of «диван» ('sofa') — 'little sofa, small couch.' The «-чик» suffix conveys the modest, even humble scale of the elder's furnishings, a quiet touch of his ascetic simplicity rather than mere smallness.

— Великий старец, изреките, оскорбляю я вас моею живостью или нет? — вскричал вдруг Федор Павлович, схватившись обеими руками за ручки кресел и как бы готовясь из них выпрыгнуть сообразно с ответом.  
"Great elder, pronounce: do I offend you with my liveliness, or not?" cried Fyodor Pavlovitch suddenly, gripping the arms of his chair with both hands and as though ready to spring out of it according to the answer.
> «изречь» — Slavonic 'pronounce, utter': «Изреките» is the imperative of «изречь», an archaic, solemn verb 'to pronounce, utter [an oracle]' — far loftier than «скажите» ('say'). Fyodor mock-grandly demands the elder 'pronounce' judgment, parodying liturgical solemnity even as he pleads.
> Yes/no question by inversion: «Оскорбляю я вас... или нет?» ('do I offend you... or not?') forms a question by simple verb-first inversion and the «или нет» tag, without «ли». The imperfective «оскорбляю» asks about an ongoing state — am I, in the act, offending you?
> Stacked gerunds, perfective + imperfective: Two gerunds color the verb «вскричал»: perfective «схватившись» ('having gripped' the chair-arms, prior completed act) and imperfective «готовясь» ('getting ready,' simultaneous state), with «как бы» hedging it. «Выпрыгнуть» ('to spring out') is the perfective infinitive of the intended leap.
> «сообразно с» + instrumental: «Сообразно с ответом» ('according to the answer') is a bookish prepositional phrase, «сообразно с» governing the instrumental — Fyodor's leap calibrated to whatever the elder replies. The formal locution underscores the theatrical, calculated quality of his clowning.

— Убедительно и вас прошу не беспокоиться и не стесняться, — внушительно проговорил ему старец… — Не стесняйтесь, будьте совершенно как дома.  
"I earnestly beg you too not to be uneasy and not to feel constrained," the elder said to him impressively. "Do not be constrained, be entirely as if at home.
> Negated imperfective infinitives after «прошу»: «Прошу не беспокоиться и не стесняться» ('I beg you not to be uneasy or constrained') follows «прошу» ('I ask') with negated imperfective infinitives — the imperfective is the rule under a negative request, framing a general 'don't be in such a state.' Both are reflexive «-ся» verbs of inner condition.
> Negated imperfective imperative: «Не стесняйтесь» ('don't feel constrained') is the negated imperfective imperative with polite «-тесь». Russian almost always uses the imperfective for a negative command ('don't [be doing] X'); a perfective negative imperative would instead warn against an accidental single act.
> Idiom «как дома»: «Будьте... как дома» ('be as if at home') uses «дома», the fixed adverb 'at home' (a frozen old locative, not «в доме»). The whole phrase is the Russian 'make yourself at home,' which Fyodor will seize on and twist in the next lines.

А главное, не стыдитесь столь самого себя, ибо от сего лишь всё и выходит.  
And, above all, do not be so ashamed of yourself, for from that alone everything springs.
> «стыдиться» + genitive reflexive «себя»: «Не стыдитесь... самого себя» ('do not be ashamed of yourself') — the verb «стыдиться» governs the genitive of what one is ashamed of, here the reflexive «себя» intensified by «самого» ('your very self'). The negated imperfective imperative gives a gentle, general counsel.
> Archaic «ибо» and «сей»: The elder's speech turns markedly bookish: «ибо» is the archaic-literary 'for, because,' and «от сего» ('from this') uses the archaic demonstrative «сей» in the genitive after «от». This elevated register — period-solemn, not ordinary — sets the elder's grave wisdom apart from Fyodor's slangy patter.
> Emphatic «и» with the verb: «Всё и выходит» ('everything precisely springs [from that]') uses the particle «и» before the verb for emphasis — 'this is the very source of it all.' Combined with «лишь» ('only'), it concentrates the elder's diagnosis: shame is the root of everything.

— Совершенно как дома? То есть в натуральном-то виде? О, этого много, слишком много, но — с умилением принимаю!  
"Entirely as if at home? That is, in my natural state? Oh, that is much, too much, but — I accept it with deep emotion!
> «в» + prepositional with «-то»: «В натуральном... виде» ('in [my] natural state') is «в» + prepositional describing a condition, and the inserted «-то» on «натуральном» highlights the phrase as the very point at issue — Fyodor seizes on the elder's 'as if at home' and probes what 'natural' would mean for him.
> «с» + instrumental of feeling: «С умилением принимаю» ('I accept it with deep emotion') uses «с» + instrumental «умилением» for the manner/feeling accompanying the act. «Умиление» — a tender, melting emotion, often religious — is a key Dostoevskian word, here flourished half-theatrically by Fyodor.
> «умиление» — tender emotion: «Умиление» names a soft, melting tenderness of heart, often the emotion of religious feeling or pity — there is no clean English equivalent (we render 'deep emotion'). The word recurs as a touchstone of genuine spiritual feeling in the novel, which makes Fyodor's flourishing of it pointedly ambiguous.

Знаете, благословенный отец, вы меня на натуральный-то вид не вызывайте, не рискуйте… до натурального вида я и сам не дойду.  
You know, blessed father, you should not summon me to my natural state, don't risk it… to my natural state I would not go even of myself.
> Negated imperfective imperatives: «Не вызывайте... не рискуйте» ('don't summon... don't risk it') are negated imperfective imperatives — the expected aspect for a prohibition ('don't be doing X'). Fyodor mock-warns the elder off coaxing out his 'natural state.'
> Intensifier «сам» + «и»: «Я и сам не дойду» ('I myself would not go [there] even on my own') stacks the emphatic «и» with the intensifying «сам» ('myself') and negation — even left to himself he won't reach his 'natural state.' «Дойду» is perfective future of arriving at a point.

Это я, чтобы вас охранить, предупреждаю.  
I warn you of this in order to protect you.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы вас охранить» ('in order to protect you') is the purpose construction «чтобы» + perfective infinitive, used when the subject of the main and purpose clauses is the same (Fyodor warns in order that he himself protect). The fronted purpose clause throws emphasis onto his ironic protectiveness.
> Topicalizing «это» + final verb: «Это я... предупреждаю» ('this I warn [you] of') fronts «это» as the topic and holds the verb «предупреждаю» to the end — topic-comment ordering that frames the whole preceding warning as the thing now being labeled. «Это» is a frozen pointing word, not agreeing.

Ну-с, а прочее всё еще подвержено мраку неизвестности, хотя бы некоторые и желали расписать меня.  
Well, sir, as for the rest, it is all still wrapped in the dark of uncertainty, though some would like to paint me in full colors.
> «Ну-с» — 'Well, sir': «Ну-с» combines the filler «ну» ('well') with the deferential «-с» (the «словоер», from «сударь», 'sir'). It is Fyodor's mock-genteel throat-clearing as he changes tack — ingratiating servility worn as a costume.
> «мрак неизвестности» — the dark of uncertainty: «Мрак неизвестности» ('the gloom/darkness of the unknown') is a high-flown, almost parodically literary cliché — «мрак» ('murk, darkness') + «неизвестность» ('the unknown'). Fyodor reaches for grandiose phrasing to dress up the simple admission that the rest is unclear, the bombast itself part of the buffoonery.
> Concessive «хотя бы... и»: «Хотя бы... и желали» ('even though some might wish, do wish') is a concessive clause; «хотя бы» with the past-form verb and «бы» gives a hypothetical-concessive 'even if,' and the «и» reinforces it. «Расписать меня» here means to 'paint me up,' depict me in lurid full color.

Это я по вашему адресу, Петр Александрович, говорю, а вам, святейшее существо, вот что вам: восторг изливаю!  
That last I say at your address, Pyotr Alexandrovitch, but to you, most holy being, here is what I say to you: I pour out my rapture!
> «по» + dative idiom: «По вашему адресу» ('at your address, aimed at you') is «по» + dative in a figurative sense — a remark directed at someone. «По» governs the dative, here «вашему адресу», and the idiom means a barb 'meant for you,' which Fyodor flags he is firing at Miusov.
> «святейшее существо» — 'most holy being': «Существо» means 'being, creature'; «святейшее» is again the superlative «-ейший» of «святой». Lavishing 'most holy being' on the elder — even as he aims a barb at Miusov in the same breath — is Fyodor's gushing, excessive flattery, comically over the top.
> Object-first word order: «Восторг изливаю» ('my rapture I pour out') fronts the object «восторг» before the verb «изливаю» for rhetorical emphasis — the gushing emotion named first, the act of pouring it out following. Free case-marked word order lets Fyodor strike a declamatory, effusive pose.

— Он привстал и, подняв вверх руки, произнес: — Блаженно чрево, носившее тебя, и сосцы, тебя питавшие, — сосцы особенно!  
He half rose and, lifting his arms aloft, declared: "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck — the paps especially!"
> Church-Slavonic body words: Both «чрево» (womb, belly) and «сосцы» (paps, the archaic plural of сосок) are solemn Slavonicisms belonging to scripture and liturgy, not everyday speech, where you would hear живот and грудь. Their sacred register is precisely what makes Fyodor's lewd punchline a sacrilege.
> Past active participles do the work of relative clauses: «носившее» (that bore) and «питавшие» (that nourished) are past active participles in -вш-, agreeing with «чрево» (neuter sing.) and «сосцы» (plural) and standing in for который-clauses — the dense participial style of scripture and high prose.

Вы меня сейчас замечанием вашим: «Не стыдиться столь самого себя, потому что от сего лишь всё и выходит», — вы меня замечанием этим как бы насквозь прочкнули и внутри прочли.  
Just now, with your remark — "Above all do not be ashamed of yourself, for everything else springs from that" — with that remark you pierced me clean through, as it were, and read what is inside.
> Reflexive verb plus reflexive pronoun: «стыдиться» (to be ashamed) exists only in the -ся form, and here it takes the reflexive pronoun «самого себя» (oneself) as its object — the verb's -ся and the full pronoun себя layer the reflexivity, a hallmark of the elder's pointed phrasing.
> «сей» — bookish 'this': «от сего» ('from this') uses the archaic demonstrative «сей», a literary-elevated equivalent of этот that pervades 19th-century and ecclesiastical prose. The elder's aphorism is cast in this period-bookish register.
> Instrumental of means: «замечанием этим» ('with that remark') is in the instrumental — the case of the means or instrument by which an action is done. The agreeing demonstrative «этим» makes the case visible.
> «прочкнуть» — to pierce clean through: An expressive, colloquial perfective (roughly 'jabbed/pierced right through'), reinforced by «насквозь» ('all the way through'). The earthy verb against the lofty «сего» captures Fyodor's lurching register.

Именно мне всё так и кажется, когда я к людям вхожу, что я подлее всех и что меня все за шута принимают, так вот «давай же я и в самом деле сыграю шута, не боюсь ваших мнений, потому что все вы до единого подлее меня!»  
It really does seem to me, whenever I come among people, that I am the basest of them all and that everyone takes me for a buffoon, so I think, "well then, let me really play the buffoon — I am not afraid of your opinions, since every last one of you is baser than I am!"
> Comparative «подлее всех» = superlative: «подлее» is the predicative comparative of подлый (base, vile); followed by the genitive «всех» ('than all') it becomes a superlative — 'the basest of all'. The bare comparative + genitive is the ordinary Russian way to say 'the most …'.
> «давай» + perfective for self-exhortation, intensified by «же»: «давай … сыграю» ('let me go ahead and play') uses давай with a perfective future as a first-person exhortation. The particle «же» insists and goads ('well then, go on'), coloring the inner outburst with self-egging defiance.
> «принимать за» + accusative — 'to take for': «принимать за шута» means 'to take (someone) for a buffoon'. «шута» is animate-masculine accusative borrowing the genitive form, and the preposition за governs the accusative here in the idiom 'mistake X for Y'.

Вот потому я и шут, от стыда шут, старец великий, от стыда.  
That is why I am a buffoon, a buffoon out of shame, great elder, out of shame.
> «от» + genitive of cause; emphatic repetition: «от стыда» ('out of shame') uses от + genitive to give the cause of a state — a frequent pattern (от страха, от радости). The phrase frames the whole confession and is repeated for rhetorical insistence, bracketing the vocative «старец великий».

От мнительности одной и буяню.  
It is sheer mistrustfulness that makes me act up.
> Subject pronoun dropped; present tense: «буяню» ('I act up, kick up a row') is 1st-sing. present with no pronoun — the ending alone marks the person, so я is freely omitted. The fronted «От мнительности одной» ('out of sheer mistrustfulness') is the emphasized cause.
> «мнительность» — suspicious self-doubt: A telling word: not simple mistrust but anxious, hypochondriac suspiciousness — the habit of imagining slights and watching for them. It names exactly the offense-inventing psychology the elder will go on to dissect.

Ведь если б я только был уверен, когда вхожу, что все меня за милейшего и умнейшего человека сейчас же примут, — господи! какой бы я тогда был добрый человек!  
Why, if only I could be certain, when I walk in, that everyone would at once take me for the kindest and cleverest of men — Lord! what a good man I would be then!
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: Both halves are irrealis: «если б … был уверен» (if only I were certain) and «какой бы … был добрый человек» (what a good man I would be) pair the past-tense verb «был» with the particle «бы» (here clipped to б) to build a hypothetical about an unreal present.
> Superlative suffix -ейший: «милейшего» and «умнейшего» use the bookish superlative suffix -ейш- ('kindest', 'cleverest'), declined to accusative after «принять за». This synthetic superlative is more emphatic and literary than the everyday самый + adjective.

Учитель! — повергся он вдруг на колени, — что мне делать, чтобы наследовать жизнь вечную?  
"Master!" — he suddenly fell to his knees — "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
> Dative subject — 'what am I to do?': «что мне делать» is a dative-subject impersonal: the experiencer «мне» stands in the dative with a bare infinitive, with no nominative subject — 'what is there for me to do'. It is the standard Russian frame for obligation and helplessness.
> «чтобы» of purpose: «чтобы наследовать» ('in order to inherit') uses чтобы + infinitive to state purpose. With one shared subject it takes the infinitive (rather than the past-form irrealis used when subjects differ).

— Трудно было и теперь решить: шутит он или в самом деле в таком умилении?  
Even now it was hard to tell whether he was joking or really in such a fit of tenderness.
> Impersonal «трудно было решить»: A subjectless impersonal: the neuter «было» plus the predicative «трудно» plus an infinitive — 'it was hard to decide'. There is no nominative; the construction states a difficulty in the abstract.
> Embedded alternative question: An indirect 'whether … or' question after «решить»: «шутит он или … в умилении» weighs two possibilities. Note the zero copula — no verb 'is' before «в таком умилении» (in such tenderness), supplied only by the present-tense context.
> «умиление» — tender, melting emotion: A key Dostoevskian word: a soft, tearful tenderness shading into religious rapture and self-abasement. The narrator's doubt is whether Fyodor feels genuine «умиление» or is merely performing it.

Старец поднял на него глаза и с улыбкой произнес:  
The elder raised his eyes to him and said with a smile:
> Perfective verbs move the narration: «поднял» (raised) and «произнес» (uttered) are perfectives, each naming a single completed act that advances the scene step by step — the perfective's narrative job against the imperfective backgrounding around it.

— Сами давно знаете, что надо делать, ума в вас довольно: не предавайтесь пьянству и словесному невоздержанию, не предавайтесь сладострастию, а особенно обожанию денег, да закройте ваши питейные дома, если не можете всех, то хоть два или три.  
"You have long known yourself what you must do; you have wit enough for it: do not give yourself over to drunkenness and loose talk, do not give yourself over to lust, and above all to the worship of money — and close your taverns; if you cannot close them all, then at least two or three."
> Negated imperative + dative object: «не предавайтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of the reflexive предаваться ('give yourself over to'), which governs the dative: «пьянству» (drunkenness), «сладострастию» (lust), «обожанию денег» (worship of money) all stand in the dative case. Imperfective aspect under the negated imperative warns against the whole activity, not a single act.
> Numerals and the case of the noun: «два или три» take the genitive singular of what is counted (the implied «дома» — taverns), the rule for 2–4. «всех» is the genitive object under the negated «не можете» (cannot [close] them all).
> «словесное невоздержание» — verbal incontinence: A formal, near-clerical phrase: 'verbal intemperance', i.e. loose, unbridled talk. The elevated diction lets the elder name Fyodor's compulsive buffoonery in the dignified vocabulary of the sins of the tongue.

А главное, самое главное — не лгите.  
"But the main thing, the chief thing of all — do not lie."
> Neuter superlative as a noun; negated imperfective imperative: «самое главное» ('the very chief thing') is a neuter substantivized adjective in the superlative самый. «не лгите» is the negated imperfective imperative of лгать — under negation the imperfective is the default for a blanket prohibition, 'do not lie' as a standing rule.

— То есть это про Дидерота, что ли?  
"You mean about Diderot, is that it?"
> The tag «что ли» and the particle ли: «что ли» is a colloquial questioning tag ('is that it?', 'or what?') built on the interrogative particle ли; it softens a guess into a half-question. Fyodor uses it to fish for confirmation.

— Нет, не то что про Дидерота. Главное, самому себе не лгите.  
"No, not about Diderot. The main thing is: do not lie to yourself."
> Reflexive pronoun in the dative: «самому себе» is the dative of the reflexive себя intensified by сам — 'to your own self'. лгать governs a dative person (lie TO someone), so the reflexive marks that the lying turns back on the speaker himself.

Лгущий самому себе и собственную ложь свою слушающий до того доходит, что уж никакой правды ни в себе, ни кругом не различает, а стало быть, входит в неуважение и к себе и к другим.  
A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie reaches the point where he can no longer make out any truth either within himself or around him, and so he loses respect both for himself and for others.
> Substantivized present active participles: «Лгущий» (one lying) and «слушающий» (one listening), present active participles in -щ-, here stand alone as nouns — 'the man who lies … and listens'. Imperfective stems give the sense of an ongoing, habitual lying. Condensing whole relative clauses into single agent-nouns is the elder's grave, sermon-like style.
> Negative concord and the genitive of negation: Three negatives carry one meaning: «никакой … ни … ни … не различает». The negated object «никакой правды» stands in the genitive (genitive of negation), and «ни … ни» pairs the negation across 'within himself' and 'around him'.
> «стало быть» — 'and so, consequently': A fixed, slightly old-fashioned discourse connective meaning 'therefore, it follows that'. It threads the elder's reasoning, marking each step of the moral chain he is laying out.

Не уважая же никого, перестает любить, а чтобы, не имея любви, занять себя и развлечь, предается страстям и грубым сладостям и доходит совсем до скотства в пороках своих, а всё от беспрерывной лжи и людям и себе самому.  
Respecting no one, he ceases to love, and to keep himself occupied and amused in the absence of love he gives himself over to passions and coarse pleasures, sinking utterly to brutishness in his vices — and all of it comes from the unceasing lie he tells to others and to himself.
> Gerund of attendant circumstance: «Не уважая» ('respecting no one') is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) sharing the main subject and giving the simultaneous condition under which 'he ceases to love'. The negated gerund plus «никого» (genitive/accusative of никто) keeps the negative concord running.
> «чтобы» + infinitive, with a nested gerund: Purpose clause «чтобы … занять себя и развлечь» ('in order to occupy and amuse himself'), into which is folded the gerund «не имея любви» ('having no love'). The reflexive себя is the shared object of both infinitives.
> Dative after «предаваться»: Again предаваться + dative: «страстям» (passions) and «грубым сладостям» (coarse sweetnesses/pleasures) are dative plural, the adjective «грубым» agreeing. The reflexive verb's lexical demand for the dative is the engine of the whole catalogue of vices.
> «скотство» — brutishness: From скот (cattle, beast): 'bestiality, brutishness'. The elder's diagnosis ends with the man sinking «до скотства» — to the level of a beast — the moral terminus of the self-deceiver's descent.

Лгущий себе самому прежде всех и обидеться может.  
He who lies to himself is also the readiest of all to take offense.
> Comparative-superlative «прежде всех»; the particle «и»: «прежде всех» ('before all', i.e. the first/readiest of all) is the comparative прежде + genitive всех, working as a superlative. The little «и» here is the emphatic particle 'also/even', not 'and' — 'is the readiest of all to take offense too'.
> Reflexive «обидеться» — to take offense: «обидеться» is the perfective reflexive 'to become offended' (middle/change-of-state -ся): the man does the taking-offense to himself. Word order puts the modal «может» last, throwing the weight onto the act of being offended.

Ведь обидеться иногда очень приятно, не так ли?  
After all, taking offense can sometimes be very agreeable, can it not?
> «ведь» appeal + impersonal «приятно» + tag «не так ли»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all, you know'). «обидеться … приятно» is an impersonal: the infinitive subject with the predicative «приятно» ('it is pleasant to take offense'), no nominative. «не так ли?» is the bookish tag 'is it not so?'.

И ведь знает человек, что никто не обидел его, а что он сам себе обиду навыдумал и налгал для красы, сам преувеличил, чтобы картину создать, к слову привязался и из горошинки сделал гору, — знает сам это, а все-таки самый первый обижается, обижается до приятности, до ощущения большого удовольствия, а тем самым доходит и до вражды истинной…  
And the man knows perfectly well that no one has wronged him, that he himself has invented the grievance and lied for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated to make a picture of it, fastened onto a word and out of a pea built a mountain — he knows it himself, and yet he is the very first to take offense, to take offense to the point of pleasure, to the point of a great gratification, and in this very way he arrives at genuine enmity…
> «ведь» + inverted word order; negative concord: «ведь» again presses shared awareness; «знает человек» inverts verb before subject for emphasis. The reported clause «никто не обидел его» keeps the obligatory не on the verb even with никто — Russian negative concord.
> «из горошинки сделал гору» — a mountain out of a pea: The Russian idiom 'to make a mountain out of a pea' (delать из мухи слона is the commoner form, 'a fly into an elephant'). The diminutive «горошинка» ('a little pea', from горох) heightens the contrast with «гору» — tiny grievance, vast invented mountain.
> Perfective prefixes pile up completed acts: A chain of perfectives — «навыдумал» (made up a whole lot of), «налгал» (told a heap of lies), «преувеличил» (exaggerated), «привязался» (fastened onto). The prefix на- adds the nuance 'a quantity of', so the verbs stack the self-deceiver's fabrications as discrete finished deeds.
> «до» + genitive — 'to the point of': Repeated «до приятности … до ощущения … до вражды» uses до + genitive to mark a degree reached, 'to the point of pleasure … of a sensation … of genuine enmity'. The escalating до-phrases trace the crescendo from pleasure to real hatred.

Да встаньте же, сядьте, прошу вас очень, ведь всё это тоже ложные жесты…  
But do get up, sit down, I beg you most earnestly — for all this too is so much false posturing…
> Imperatives framed by «да» and «же»: «встаньте», «сядьте» are perfective polite imperatives. The opening «Да» is here an urging particle ('do…!') and «же» intensifies the plea — together a coaxing, insistent 'do get up, sit down', softened by «прошу вас очень».

— Блаженный человек! Дайте ручку поцеловать, — подскочил Федор Павлович и быстро чмокнул старца в худенькую его руку.  
"Blessed man! Give me your little hand to kiss" — Fyodor Pavlovich darted forward and planted a quick kiss on the elder's thin hand.
> «ручку» — the diminutive of рука: «ручка» is the affectionate diminutive of рука (hand). Coupled with «худенькую» (a tender diminutive of худой, 'thin') it drips with mock-tender obsequiousness as Fyodor mauls the elder's hand — sentiment in the very suffixes.
> «чмокнуть» — to plant a smacking kiss: An onomatopoeic, slightly comic perfective for a loud, smacking kiss (чмок! is the sound). The word undercuts the show of reverence with a vulgar physical noise — pure Fyodor.
> Possessive «его» before the noun: «его» (his) is the invariable 3rd-person possessive, here placed before its noun and inside the adjective phrase «в худенькую его руку». Such word order — possessive sandwiched between adjective and noun — is a normal, faintly literary Russian rhythm.

— Именно, именно приятно обидеться.  
"Just so, just so, it is pleasant to take offense."
> Impersonal predicative «приятно» + infinitive: Echoing the elder, Fyodor repeats the impersonal frame: «приятно обидеться» — 'it is pleasant to take offense', the infinitive as subject with no nominative. The doubled «Именно» ('exactly, just so') is his gleeful agreement.

Это вы так хорошо сказали, что я и не слыхал еще.  
You put that so well that I have never heard the like before.
> Emphatic «и»; archaic «слыхал»: The particle «и» here means 'even' ('that I had never even heard'). «слыхал» is the colloquial-archaic iterative imperfective of слышать (to hear), flavoring the speech with old-fashioned, folksy color.

Именно, именно я-то всю жизнь и обижался до приятности, для эстетики обижался, ибо не токмо приятно, но и красиво иной раз обиженным быть; — вот что вы забыли, великий старец: красиво!  
Just so, just so — all my life I have taken offense for the pleasure of it, taken offense for the aesthetics of it, for it is not only pleasant but at times even beautiful to be a man aggrieved; that is what you forgot, great elder: it is beautiful!
> The emphatic clitic «-то» and topic-marking «и»: «я-то» uses the topic-emphasizing clitic «-то» — 'I, for one / it is precisely I'. Together with the focusing «и» before the verb, it spotlights Fyodor himself as the supreme practitioner of pleasurable grievance.
> «ибо» and «токмо» — archaic 'for' and 'only': «ибо» ('for, because') and «токмо» ('only', = только) are markedly archaic, bookish-ecclesiastical words. Fyodor lards his confession with this Slavonic-tinged diction to dress mere offense-taking in solemn philosophical robes.
> Instrumental of the predicate with быть: «обиженным быть» ('to be a man aggrieved') puts the predicate (the short-ish/long past passive participle «обиженным») in the instrumental after the infinitive быть — the regular rule for predicate complements of быть in the infinitive, future, and past.

Это я в книжку запишу!  
I shall write that down in my notebook!
> Perfective future «запишу»: «запишу» is the perfective verb записать conjugated with present-tense endings to mean a single completed future act — 'I shall write [it] down'. No auxiliary: the future sits in the ending. «книжку» is the diminutive of книга, a little notebook.

А лгал я, лгал, решительно всю жизнь мою, на всяк день и час.  
And I have lied, lied, positively all my life, every single day and hour.
> Imperfective past for lifelong habit: «лгал» (imperfective past, repeated) names lying not as one act but as a lifelong process and habit — exactly what the imperfective is for. The contrastive «А» opens with a topic-shift ('and as for lying…'), and the repetition hammers the confession home.
> «на всяк день» — archaic 'every day': «всяк» is the short, archaic form of всякий ('every'); «на всяк день и час» ('every day and hour') is a liturgical-sounding set phrase. The biblical cadence prepares the next line's outright scripture parody.

Воистину ложь есмь и отец лжи!  
Verily I am a lie and the father of lies!
> «есмь» — archaic 1st-sing. of 'to be': «есмь» ('I am') is the Church-Slavonic/Old-Russian first-person form of быть, long dead in the living language (modern Russian drops the present copula entirely). Its solemn ring, with «Воистину» ('verily'), apes liturgical speech.

Впрочем, кажется, не отец лжи, это я всё в текстах сбиваюсь, ну хоть сын лжи, и того будет довольно.  
Though, it seems, not the father of lies — I keep getting my texts muddled — well, the son of lies, then; that will do well enough.
> Reflexive «сбиваться»; emphatic «всё»: «сбиваюсь» is the reflexive imperfective сбиваться, 'I keep getting muddled / losing my place' (in the scriptural texts). The adverbial «всё» here means 'keep on, all the time', stressing the recurring confusion.
> Genitive «того» with «довольно»: «довольно» ('enough') governs the genitive: «того будет довольно» — 'that will be enough'. The neuter demonstrative того stands for 'son of lies', the lesser title Fyodor settles for.

Только… ангел вы мой… про Дидерота иногда можно!  
Only… my angel… about Diderot one may speak now and then!
> Impersonal «можно» + omitted infinitive: «можно» ('one may, it's permitted') is an impersonal predicative; here the infinitive (говорить, 'to speak') is left understood — 'about Diderot one may [speak] now and then'. Such elision of the infinitive after можно is idiomatic.
> «ангел вы мой» — flattering address: 'My angel' as wheedling endearment, with the inserted polite «вы» (ангел вы мой). The cloying flattery is Fyodor's standard tactic for disarming the man he is needling.

Дидерот не повредит, а вот иное словцо повредит.  
Diderot will do no harm, but there is many another little word that will.
> «словцо» — a pointed little word: «словцо» is the diminutive of слово (word), but here it carries the sense of a sly, telling 'little word' or barbed remark. Fyodor distinguishes harmless Diderot-talk from the 'other little word' that can really do damage.

Старец великий, кстати, вот было забыл, а ведь так и положил, еще с третьего года, здесь справиться, именно заехать сюда и настоятельно разузнать и спросить: не прикажите только Петру Александровичу прерывать.  
Great elder, by the way — I nearly forgot, and yet I had resolved, two years ago now, to inquire here, to come by this very place and make a thorough investigation and ask: only do not let Pyotr Alexandrovich interrupt.
> «положил» — 'resolved'; «с третьего года» — 'two years ago': «положил» here is the old sense 'made up my mind, resolved' (положить себе). «с третьего года» literally 'since the third year [back]' is an idiom for 'two years ago' — Russian counts inclusively, hence the slippage with «четвертого года» ('three years ago') a few lines on.
> Imperative with dative; negated request: «не прикажите … Петру Александровичу прерывать» — 'do not bid Pyotr Alexandrovich interrupt'. приказать takes a dative person («Петру Александровичу», name + patronymic in the dative) plus an infinitive. The polite negated imperative makes it a deferential request.

Вот что спрошу: справедливо ли, отец великий, то, что в Четьи-Минеи повествуется где-то о каком-то святом чудотворце, которого мучили за веру, и когда отрубили ему под конец голову, то он встал, поднял свою голову и «любезно ее лобызаше», и долго шел, неся ее в руках, и «любезно ее лобызаше».  
Here is what I wish to ask: is it true, great father, what is told somewhere in the Chetyi-Minei about some saint and wonder-worker who was tortured for the faith, and when at last they cut off his head, he stood up, took up his own head, and 'lovingly kept kissing it,' and walked a long way carrying it in his hands, and 'lovingly kept kissing it'?
> Question particle «ли» + reflexive passive «повествуется»: «справедливо ли» fronts the focus and adds «ли» for a yes/no question, 'is it true that…'. «повествуется» ('is narrated') is an imperfective reflexive passive in -ся — the -ся makes the verb passive without an agent, a bookish narrative passive.
> «лобызаше» — Church-Slavonic 'kept kissing': «лобызаше» is a Church-Slavonic imperfect-tense verb form (лобызать, to kiss; cf. лобзание, 'a kiss'), a tense long lost in Russian. Quoting it twice in archaic dress, Fyodor mocks the pious hagiographic style — solemn grammar wrapped around a grotesque image.
> Relative «который» and the dative of the possessor: «которого мучили» is the relative pronoun in the accusative (animate, = genitive form) for its object role in the clause. Then «отрубили ему … голову» uses the dative «ему» as the affected possessor — 'cut off the head FROM him', Russian's way of marking whose head it is.

Справедливо это или нет, отцы честные?  
Is this true or not, honorable fathers?

— Нет, несправедливо, — сказал старец.  
"No, it is not true," said the elder.

— Ничего подобного во всех Четьих-Минеях не существует. Про какого это святого, вы говорите, так написано? — спросил иеромонах, отец библиотекарь.  
"Nothing of the sort exists anywhere in the Chetyi-Minei. Which saint do you say it is written of?" asked the hieromonk, the father librarian.
> Genitive of negation with «не существует»: «Ничего подобного … не существует» — 'nothing of the sort exists'. The negated existential «не существует» forces its subject into the genitive («Ничего подобного»), and ничего keeps the negative concord with the verb's не.

— Сам не знаю про какого. Не знаю и не ведаю.  
"I do not know myself which one. I neither know nor have any notion."
> «ведать» — archaic 'to know': «ведать» is an archaic, bookish synonym of знать (to know); the doublet «не знаю и не ведаю» ('I neither know nor have any notion') is a folkloric set pairing. Fyodor reaches for the antique tone to dress up his shrug.

Введен в обман, говорили.  
I was deceived, that is what I was told.
> Short-form past passive participle: «Введен» is the short-form past passive participle of ввести ('led, brought'); «введён в обман» is the set phrase 'deceived, led into error', with the быть understood in the past. The short participle is the standard predicate of the periphrastic passive.

Слышал, и знаете кто рассказал?  
I heard it, and do you know who told me?
> Interrogative «кто» in an embedded question: «знаете кто рассказал» folds an indirect question into the main clause — 'do you know who told [it]'. The interrogative «кто» (who) takes masculine agreement on the past verb «рассказал», as кто always does regardless of the real referent.

А вот Петр Александрович Миусов, вот что за Дидерота сейчас рассердился, вот он-то и рассказал.  
Why, it was Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov, the very man who flew into a temper over Diderot just now — he is the one who told it.
> Pointing «вот», clitic «-то», focusing «и»: Three little focusing devices stack up: «вот» points ('there he is'), «он-то» singles him out with the emphatic clitic «-то», and «и» before the verb means 'is the very one who'. Together: 'he is the one who told it' — Fyodor pinning the blame theatrically on Miusov.

— Никогда я вам этого не рассказывал, я с вами и не говорю никогда вовсе.  
"I never told you any such thing — I never speak to you at all."
> Negative concord with «никогда»: Both clauses run the obligatory не on the verb alongside «никогда» ('never') — «никогда … не рассказывал», «не говорю никогда» — the Russian double negative as a single emphatic denial. «этого» is the genitive object under negation.

— Правда, вы не мне рассказывали; но вы рассказывали в компании, где и я находился, четвертого года это дело было.  
"True, you did not tell it to me; but you told it in company where I happened to be present — it was three years ago."
> Imperfective «находился» for a background state: «находился» (imperfective past of находиться, 'to be located/present') sets the standing background — 'where I too happened to be present'. The reflexive verb plus the additive «и» ('also I') frames Miusov's incidental presence at the telling.
> «четвертого года» — 'three years ago': Like «с третьего года» earlier, this genitive time-phrase ('in the fourth year [back]') means 'three years ago' by inclusive reckoning — and quietly contradicts Fyodor's own '«с третьего года»', part of the running joke about his slippery memory.

Я потому и упомянул, что рассказом сим смешливым вы потрясли мою веру, Петр Александрович.  
I bring it up precisely because with that laughable tale you shook my faith, Pyotr Alexandrovich.
> Instrumental of means; archaic «сим»: «рассказом сим смешливым» ('with that laughable tale') is the instrumental of means, the adjective and demonstrative agreeing. «сим» is the archaic instrumental of сей ('this'), and its post-posed position lends a bookish, oratorical weight.

Вы не знали о сем, не ведали, а я воротился домой с потрясенного верой и с тех пор всё более и более сотрясаюсь.  
You knew nothing of this, had no inkling of it, yet I went home with my faith shaken, and from that day on I am shaken more and more.
> «о сем» / «не ведали» — archaic doubling: «о сем» ('of this', prepositional of сей) and «не ведали» (archaic 'knew not') again pile up bookish-ecclesiastical forms. The deliberate antique register inflates Fyodor's complaint into mock-tragic grandeur.
> Reflexive «сотрясаюсь»; intensifying «всё более и более»: «сотрясаюсь» is the reflexive/middle imperfective 'I am shaken, I tremble' (change of state turned inward by -ся). «всё более и более» ('more and more') with the imperfective present paints an ongoing, worsening condition.

Да, Петр Александрович, вы великого падения были причиной!  
Yes, Pyotr Alexandrovich, you were the cause of a great fall!
> Instrumental predicate «причиной» with past быть: «были причиной» ('were the cause') puts the predicate noun «причиной» in the instrumental after past-tense быть — the regular rule. «великого падения» ('of a great fall') is the genitive complement of причина (cause of …).

Это уж не Дидерот-с!  
And that is no mere Diderot, sir!

Федор Павлович патетически разгорячился, хотя и совершенно ясно было уже всем, что он опять представляется.  
Fyodor Pavlovich was working himself into a pathetic heat, though it was already perfectly plain to everyone that he was play-acting again.
> Impersonal «ясно было всем» + dative experiencer: An impersonal: «ясно было … всем» ('it was clear to everyone'), the dative «всем» as experiencer and a neuter «было», with no nominative subject. «представляется» is the reflexive imperfective 'he is play-acting / putting it on'.

Но Миусов все-таки был больно уязвлен.  
But Miusov was stung all the same, and stung to the quick.
> Short-form passive participle as predicate: «уязвлен» is the short-form past passive participle of уязвить ('to wound, sting'); «был … уязвлен» is the periphrastic passive past, 'was stung'. The adverbial «больно» ('painfully, to the quick') intensifies it.

— Какой вздор, и всё это вздор, — бормотал он.  
"What nonsense — it is all nonsense," he muttered.
> Exclamatory «какой»; zero copula: «Какой вздор» ('what nonsense') uses the exclamatory interrogative какой, and like «всё это вздор» it has no verb 'is' — Russian omits the present copula, leaving noun against noun.

— Я действительно, может быть, говорил когда-то… только не вам.  
"I may indeed have told it at some time… only not to you."
> Imperfective «говорил» for a vague past; indefinite «когда-то»: Miusov hedges with the imperfective «говорил» ('may have said/told') — an unbounded, unspecific past act, not a single completed one. «когда-то» ('at some time', with the specific-but-unknown clitic -то) deepens the vagueness.

Мне самому говорили.  
It was told to me as well.
> Dative experiencer with an unstated agent: «Мне самому говорили» — 'it was told to me too', literally 'they told to me myself'. The dative «мне самому» marks the recipient; the 3rd-pl. «говорили» with no subject is Russian's impersonal 'they/people said', a passive-like dodge of responsibility.

Я это в Париже слышал, от одного француза, что будто бы у нас в Четьи-Минеи это за обедней читают…  
I heard it in Paris, from a Frenchman, who claimed that here among us it is read out at Mass from the Chetyi-Minei…
> Reportative «будто бы»; impersonal «читают»: «будто бы» ('supposedly, as if') flags the claim as second-hand and dubious, fusing the comparative будто with the irrealis бы. «читают» is the impersonal 3rd-pl. ('they read it out / it is read'), agentless, again distancing Miusov from the tale.

Это очень ученый человек, который специально изучал статистику России… долго жил в России…  
He is a very learned man, one who made a special study of the statistics of Russia… he lived in Russia a long time…
> Relative «который» as subject of its clause: «который» here is nominative — the subject of «изучал» ('who studied') — agreeing with «человек» in masculine singular. «статистику России» is the accusative object, the imperfective «изучал» marking a long, ongoing study (reinforced by «долго жил» next).

Я сам Четьи-Минеи не читал… да и не стану читать… Мало ли что болтается за обедом?.. Мы тогда обедали…  
I have never read the Chetyi-Minei myself… nor do I intend to… All manner of things get chattered over dinner, do they not?.. We were dining at the time…
> Compound future «не стану читать»: «не стану читать» builds a future with the perfective of стать ('shall set about / will') plus the imperfective infinitive читать — 'nor will I read it'. It functions like the быть-future but adds a nuance of resolve/refusal, fitting Miusov's dismissive disdain.
> «Мало ли что» — 'all sorts of things': «Мало ли что» is an idiom built on the particle «ли»: literally 'is it little what…', it means 'all manner of things, who knows what'. «болтается» is a reflexive impersonal ('gets chattered about'), dismissing the dinner-table talk as idle.

— Да, вот вы тогда обедали, а я вот веру-то и потерял! — поддразнивал Федор Павлович.  
"Yes, there you were, dining away, while I lost my faith over it!" Fyodor Pavlovich taunted him.
> Contrastive «а», clitic «-то», focusing «и»: «а» opens with a pointed contrast ('whereas I…'), «веру-то» foregrounds 'faith' as the known topic with the emphatic clitic «-то», and «и потерял» ('went and lost') uses the focusing и before the perfective verb. The pile-up dramatizes Fyodor's mock-injured triumph.

— Какое мне дело до вашей веры! — крикнул было Миусов, но вдруг сдержал себя, с презрением проговорив: — Вы буквально мараете всё, к чему ни прикоснетесь.  
"What do I care about your faith!" Miusov was on the point of shouting, but suddenly checked himself and said with contempt: "You literally befoul everything you so much as touch."
> Dative idiom «какое мне дело до»: A fixed exclamatory frame: «какое мне дело до …» ('what do I care about…'), with the dative «мне» of the person concerned and до + genitive «вашей веры» (your faith) for the matter. No verb — the indignant copula-less exclamation.
> The particle «было»; gerund «проговорив»: «крикнул было» uses the special particle «было» to mark an action begun but cut short — 'was on the point of shouting'. «проговорив» ('having said') is a perfective past gerund giving the prior/attendant act as he checks himself.
> Concessive «к чему ни … прикоснетесь»: «к чему ни прикоснетесь» ('whatever you so much as touch') uses «ни» in its generalizing-concessive sense ('no matter what') with the relative что. прикоснуться governs к + dative (here чему), and the perfective future «прикоснетесь» reads as a general 'whenever you touch'.

Старец вдруг поднялся с места:  
The elder suddenly rose from his seat:
> Reflexive «подняться»; «с» + genitive: «поднялся» is the perfective reflexive подняться ('rose, got up'), the -ся marking the subject's own change of position. «с места» ('from his seat/place') uses с + genitive for motion away from.

— Простите, господа, что оставляю вас пока на несколько лишь минут, — проговорил он, обращаясь ко всем посетителям, — но меня ждут еще раньше вашего прибывшие.  
"Forgive me, gentlemen, for leaving you for just a few minutes," he said, turning to all his visitors, "but others who arrived before you are still waiting for me."
> Imperfective «оставляю» for the immediate present: «оставляю» (imperfective present of оставлять, 'I am leaving you') describes the act unfolding now; the imperfective is the only aspect with a present tense. «на несколько … минут» uses на + accusative for the intended span of time.
> Substantivized past active participle «прибывшие»: «прибывшие» ('those who arrived', perfective past active participle of прибыть) stands as a noun and is the subject of «ждут» — 'those who arrived before you are waiting for me'. «раньше вашего» ('earlier than yours [arrival]') is the comparative раньше + genitive.

А вы все-таки не лгите, — прибавил он, обратившись к Федору Павловичу с веселым лицом.  
"And you, all the same — do not lie," he added, turning to Fyodor Pavlovich with a cheerful face.
> Negated imperative; gerund «обратившись»: The elder's parting «не лгите» ('all the same, do not lie') reprises the imperfective negated imperative — the standing rule. «обратившись» ('having turned') is a perfective past gerund of attendant circumstance describing how he says it; обратиться governs к + dative «к Федору Павловичу».

Он пошел из кельи, Алеша и послушник бросились, чтобы свести его с лестницы.  
He started out of the cell, and Alyosha and the novice rushed to help him down the steps.
> Prefixed verb of motion «пошел»: «пошел» is the perfective of пойти, the prefixed (по-) motion verb marking the start of a single trajectory away — 'he set off out of'. «из кельи» (из + genitive) gives the source of the motion.
> Reflexive «бросились»; purpose «чтобы свести»: «бросились» (perfective reflexive 'rushed, flung themselves'). «чтобы свести его с лестницы» is a purpose clause with the infinitive — свести ('lead down') is itself a prefixed motion verb (с- = down/off), governing с + genitive «с лестницы» (down from the stairs).

Алеша задыхался, он рад был уйти, но рад был и тому, что старец не обижен и весел.  
Alyosha was breathless; he was glad to get away, but glad too that the elder was not offended and was in good spirits.
> Short adjective «рад» as predicate: «рад» (glad) is a short-form adjective, which exists only as a predicate and agrees in gender/number (рад, рада, рады). It takes an infinitive («рад уйти», glad to get away) or a dative correlative («рад тому, что…», glad of the fact that…).
> Short-form predicates «не обижен … весел»: «не обижен» (short past passive participle, 'not offended') and «весел» (short adjective of весёлый, 'cheerful') are both predicative short forms expressing the elder's present state. The short forms suit a momentary condition — a flavour very alive in 19th-century prose.

Старец направился к галерее, чтобы благословить ожидавших его.  
The elder made his way toward the gallery to bless those who were waiting for him.
> Reflexive «направился»; participial object «ожидавших»: «направился» (perfective reflexive 'made his way, set off'), with к + dative «к галерее» (toward the gallery). The purpose clause «чтобы благословить ожидавших его» substantivizes the past active participle «ожидавших» ('those who were waiting'), its animate accusative-genitive ending the object of благословить.

Но Федор Павлович все-таки остановил его в дверях кельи.  
But Fyodor Pavlovich stopped him all the same in the doorway of the cell.
> Perfective past: a single decisive act: «Остановил» (from perfective «остановить») reports one completed action — he stopped him, once, in the doorway. The perfective moves the narrative forward against the imperfective backdrop, where its imperfective partner «останавливал» would have meant a repeated or attempted stopping.
> «в» + prepositional for location: «В дверях» (in the doorway) uses the prepositional plural after «в» to mark location, not motion; «кельи» is the genitive 'of the cell' depending on «дверях». Contrast «в двери» (accusative) which would imply motion into the doorway.
> «всё-таки» — all the same: A concessive adverb meaning 'all the same, nevertheless, even so'. It quietly underlines that despite the dismissal, Fyodor Pavlovich could not resist one more performance.

— Блаженнейший человек! — вскричал он с чувством, — позвольте мне еще раз вашу ручку облобызать!  
"Most blessed of men!" he cried with feeling. "Let me kiss your little hand once more!"
> «Блаженнейший» — most blessed: A superlative in the bookish suffix -ейший built on «блаженный» (blessed, beatific), a word with a strong religious-Orthodox colouring ('the blessed'). In Fyodor Pavlovich's mouth it is gushing, theatrical flattery — sanctity mockingly overdone.
> Polite imperative «позвольте»: «Позвольте» (allow / permit) is the polite plural imperative of perfective «позволить», softened with -те. Followed by an infinitive it is a formal, deferential way to ask leave — 'allow me to…' — clashing comically with the absurd request that follows.
> Diminutive «ручка» — little hand: «Ручка» is the affectionate diminutive of «рука» (hand), here oily and obsequious rather than tender. The expressive suffix turns the kiss-the-hand gesture into mawkish theatre — exactly the unctuous register Fyodor Pavlovich is mocking.
> «облобызать» — to kiss (archaic, mock-solemn): A markedly archaic, Church-flavoured verb for 'kiss' (from «лобзать»), far loftier than the everyday «целовать». Applied to kissing the elder's hand it drips with parodic piety — Fyodor Pavlovich dressing buffoonery in liturgical clothes.
> «вскричал» — cried out: The prefix «вс-» on «кричать» gives a sudden, momentary onset — 'burst out crying / exclaimed'. It is a bookish narrative verb of speech, vivid and abrupt.

Нет, с вами еще можно говорить, можно жить!  
No, with you one can still talk, one can still live!
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «Можно» is an impersonal predicative ('it is possible / one can') with no nominative subject; the implied experiencer would stand in the dative. Here it governs the infinitives «говорить» and «жить» — 'one can still talk, one can live' — the subjectless frame that pervades Dostoevsky's inner speech.
> «с» + instrumental of accompaniment: «С вами» (with you) uses the preposition «с» governing the instrumental to mark accompaniment. The polite «вы» recurs as the whole speech is addressed up to the revered elder.

Вы думаете, что я всегда так лгу и шутов изображаю?  
Do you suppose I am always lying like this and playing the buffoon?
> Imperfective for habit: «Лгу» (I lie) is imperfective present, and «всегда» (always) makes it a habitual statement — the imperfective's home territory of repeated, general action: 'I am always lying'.
> Object before verb for focus: Object «шутов» (accusative plural of «шут», animate, hence genitive-like ending) precedes its verb «изображаю», throwing weight onto 'buffoons' as the news. Free word order lets Russian foreground what English keeps after the verb: 'and play the buffoon'.
> «изображать шутов» — to play the fool: Literally 'to portray/depict buffoons', i.e. to act the clown, put on a buffoon's part. «Шут» is the court fool or jester — the title of the chapter, «Старый шут», the old buffoon, is Fyodor Pavlovich's self-cast role.

Знайте же, что это я всё время нарочно, чтобы вас испробовать, так представлялся.  
Know, then, that I have been doing it on purpose the whole time, to put you to the test — that is why I was play-acting.
> Imperative with insistent «же»: «Знайте» is the polite imperative 'know (you)!', and the modal particle «же» drives it home — 'Know, then / mark you'. «Же» adds emphatic insistence that English can only render with stress or an added 'then'.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы» introduces purpose — 'in order to test you'. When the subject is the same as the main clause, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive («испробовать») rather than a past-form verb. It is the willed, goal-directed conjunction, distinct from plain reporting «что».
> Reflexive «-ся»: to feign, put on a show: «Представлялся» (imperfective past, masculine) carries the reflexive clitic «-ся», here giving the middle sense 'to pretend, put on an act, present oneself falsely'. The imperfective stresses the sustained pretence across «всё время» (the whole time).
> «нарочно» — on purpose: An adverb meaning 'deliberately, on purpose' — Fyodor Pavlovich's claim that the whole grotesque performance was a calculated test, not mere folly. The word reframes buffoonery as strategy.

Это я всё время вас ощупывал, можно ли с вами жить?  
I have been feeling you out all the while: is it possible to live with you?
> Imperfective: sustained 'feeling out': «Ощупывал» (imperfective past) names a drawn-out, repeated probing — 'I kept feeling you out', reinforced by «всё время» (all the while). The imperfective is exactly right for an ongoing process with no single end point.
> Embedded yes/no question with «ли»: «Ли» turns the impersonal «можно жить» into an indirect yes/no question — 'whether one can live with you'. The focused word «можно» is fronted and «ли» leans on it; this enclitic «ли» is the literary alternative to plain question intonation.
> «ощупывать» — to feel out, palpate: Literally to touch all over, palpate, grope; figuratively to size up or test someone covertly. The bodily metaphor — Fyodor Pavlovich running his hands over the elder's character — is deliberately a little indecent.

Моему-то смирению есть ли при вашей гордости место?  
Is there any room for my humility beside your pride?
> Existential «есть» with «ли» and dative possessor: The skeleton is «есть ли место смирению» — 'is there room for humility?'. «Есть» is the existential 'there is', «ли» makes it a question, and «смирению» is dative ('room FOR humility'). Word order has been recast for rhetoric, fronting the humility against your pride.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «моему» is the topic-emphasising clitic, not the indefinite suffix: 'my humility, for its part / as for my humility'. It sets Fyodor Pavlovich's professed meekness pointedly against the monk's «гордость» (pride).
> «при» + prepositional — 'beside / given': «При вашей гордости» uses «при» governing the prepositional to mean 'in the presence of / given / alongside your pride'. The needling implication: the elder's supposed humility is really pride, so there is no room for Fyodor Pavlovich's.
> «смирение» — humility (a monastic virtue): «Смирение» is humility, meekness, submission — a central Orthodox monastic virtue prized in the elder's order. Fyodor Pavlovich's claim to it is mockery; the word's spiritual weight makes the jab sharper.

Лист вам похвальный выдаю: можно с вами жить!  
I award you a certificate of merit: one can live with you!
> Split phrase and dative recipient: Normal order would be «выдаю вам похвальный лист»; here the object «лист» is fronted and its adjective «похвальный» stranded after «вам» for spoken emphasis. «Вам» is the dative recipient — 'I issue TO you a certificate'.

А теперь молчу, на всё время умолкаю.  
And now I am silent — for the whole rest of the time I hold my tongue.
> Imperfective present pair: state vs entering it: Both verbs are imperfective present: «молчу» states the condition ('I am silent / I keep quiet'), while «умолкаю» (prefixed «у-») leans toward 'I am falling silent, lapsing into silence'. The doubling — declaring and re-declaring the silence — is itself comic, since he keeps talking.
> «на» + accusative for duration: «На всё время» uses «на» with the accusative to mark intended duration — 'for the whole (remaining) time'. «На» + accusative answers 'for how long is the result meant to last', as opposed to mere extent.

Сяду в кресло и замолчу.  
I shall sit down in my chair and fall silent.
> Perfective present = future: «Сяду» (from «сесть') and «замолчу» (prefixed «за-» = onset of «молчать») are perfective verbs conjugated like a present, which yields simple future: 'I will sit down and fall silent'. There is no auxiliary — the future lives in the ending — and both name single completed acts.
> «в» + accusative for motion-toward: «Сяду в кресло» — sit down INTO the armchair — takes «в» with the accusative because the verb expresses motion to a destination. Were he already seated, location would call for the prepositional «в кресле».

Теперь вам, Петр Александрович, говорить, вы теперь самый главный человек остались, на десять минут.  
Now it is your turn to speak, Pyotr Alexandrovich; you are now the chief personage left, for ten minutes.
> Dative + infinitive: it's your turn: «Теперь вам ... говорить» is a subjectless dative-plus-infinitive construction — 'now it is for you to speak / your turn to speak'. The dative «вам» names the person whose turn it is, with no nominative subject and no copula.
> «самый» superlative + polite plural agreement: «Самый главный» is the periphrastic superlative ('the very chief / most important'). Note «остались» is plural though Miusov is one man: the verb agrees with the polite «вы», which always takes plural agreement even for a single addressee.
---

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.