# The Brothers Karamazov, A Lady of Little Faith

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c4. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c4.json.


Приезжая дама помещица, взирая на всю сцену разговора с простонародьем и благословения его, проливала тихие слезы и утирала их платочком.  
The visiting landowner lady, watching the whole scene of his talk with the common folk and his blessing of them, shed quiet tears and wiped them away with her little handkerchief.
> A gerund framing two imperfectives: «взирая» is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие»), 'while gazing', sharing the subject of the main clause and setting a simultaneous background. Against it the two past-tense verbs «проливала» and «утирала» are imperfective, painting the tears and the wiping as an ongoing, repeated process rather than single acts.
> «взирать», a lofty 'to gaze': «взирать» is a bookish, elevated verb for 'to gaze upon', far weightier than the everyday «смотреть». It carries a faintly solemn, contemplative tone fitting the lady's emotional, almost devotional watching of the scene.
> «простонародье», the common folk: «простонародье» is a collective noun (in the instrumental after «с») for the common people, the lower classes — слегка condescending from a landowner's mouth. It marks the social gulf the sentimental lady is tearfully crossing.
> «платочек», a little handkerchief: «платочком» (instrumental, the means of wiping) is the diminutive of «платок». The -очек suffix lends a dainty, genteel touch — exactly the affected delicacy of a 'society lady' dabbing her eyes.

Это была чувствительная светская дама и с наклонностями во многом искренно добрыми.  
She was a sentimental society lady, with inclinations that were in many ways sincerely kind.
> Past «была» with a nominative complement: The summarising «это была…» uses the past of «быть»; here the predicate noun phrase «чувствительная светская дама» stands in the nominative because «это» is the impersonal subject and «дама» is its identifying complement, not a role taken on. Contrast the instrumental that would appear in «она была дамой».
> «чувствительная», sentimental: «чувствительный» here means 'sentimental, easily moved to feeling' rather than physically 'sensitive'. Paired with «светская» ('of high society'), it gently flags the lady's emotionality as fashionable sensibility — a type Dostoevsky views with irony.

Когда старец подошел наконец и к ней, она встретила его восторженно  
When the elder at last came up to her too, she met him rapturously.
> Prefixed motion verb «подойти»: «подошёл» is the perfective past of «подойти» ('to come up to, approach'), a prefixed motion verb: the prefix под- adds the sense of approaching, and pairs it as perfective against imperfective «подходить». It governs «к ней» in the dative ('up to her'), the case к always takes.
> «старец», the elder: «старец» is not merely an old man but a spiritual elder — a monk of recognised holiness and authority as a confessor and guide (here Zosima). The старчество tradition is central to the novel; the word carries deep reverence.

— Я столько, столько вынесла, смотря на всю эту умилительную сцену… — не договорила она от волнения.  
"I have borne so much, so much, watching this whole touching scene..." — she broke off, unable to finish from agitation.
> Imperfective gerund «смотря»: «смотря» is the imperfective present gerund of «смотреть», expressing the action accompanying «вынесла» — 'while watching'. It must share the main subject (она), the hallmark of the deepричastie in narrated and reported speech alike.
> Perfective «не договорить»: failure to complete: «не договорила» is the perfective past of «договорить» under negation — she did NOT finish speaking. The perfective is exactly right: it views the (non-)completion as a single bounded event, snapped off by emotion («от волнения»).
> «умилительный», touching to tears: «умилительный» describes something that stirs tender, melting emotion («умиление») — the soft, almost teary tenderness of a moving sight. The word itself signals the lady's gushing sentimentality.

— О, я понимаю, что вас любит народ, я сама люблю народ, я желаю его любить, да и как не любить народ, наш прекрасный, простодушный в своем величии русский народ!  
"Oh, I understand that the people love you; I love the people myself, I long to love them — and how could one not love the people, our splendid Russian people, so simple-hearted in their greatness!"
> Rhetorical «как не» + infinitive: «да и как не любить народ» is a rhetorical-exclamatory construction: «как не» plus an infinitive means 'how could one possibly not (love)…?'. The negated «не» here does not deny but, in this idiom, asserts the inevitability of loving.
> Genitive «его» as object of «любить»: «его» is the third-person pronoun in the accusative/genitive form serving as the object of «любить» ('to love it', i.e. the народ). Note how the unstressed pronoun precedes the infinitive — a natural Russian ordering driven by information weight, not by rule.
> «народ», the People: «народ» means both 'the people / the folk' and, in 19th-century Russian thought, the idealised peasant nation — the carrier of Russia's soul. The lady's rapturous «наш прекрасный… русский народ» parodies the fashionable narodnik adoration of the simple Russian people.
> «простодушный», simple-hearted: «простодушный» (literally 'simple-souled') means guileless, ingenuous, open-hearted. Applied to the народ it is high praise of an innocent, unspoiled nature — the very quality sentimental gentry liked to project onto the peasantry.

— Как здоровье вашей дочери? Вы опять пожелали со мною беседовать?  
"How is your daughter's health? You wished to speak with me again?"
> Zero copula and genitive of possession: The present-tense question has no verb 'to be' — Russian omits the copula in the present, so «как здоровье?» is literally 'how [is] the health'. «вашей дочери» is genitive ('of your daughter'), marking possession.
> Perfective «пожелали» + imperfective infinitive: «пожелали» is the perfective past of «пожелать» (a single act of wishing), governing the imperfective infinitive «беседовать» ('to converse, at length'). The aspect contrast is deliberate: one wish, an open-ended conversation.

— О, я настоятельно просила, я умоляла, я готова была на колени стать и стоять на коленях хоть три дня пред вашими окнами, пока бы вы меня впустили.  
"Oh, I begged insistently, I implored; I was ready to go down on my knees and to kneel for three days, if need be, before your windows, until you would let me in.
> Short adjective predicate «готова»: «готова» is the short (predicative) form of the adjective «готовый», agreeing with the feminine subject in gender and number. Short adjectives can only predicate, and they suit the temporary state ('I was ready') — a flavour very common in 19th-century prose.
> Conditional «бы» in a 'until' clause: «пока бы вы меня впустили» uses the past-form verb plus the particle «бы» to make the clause hypothetical — 'until you might let me in'. The «бы» leans on «пока», the mobile particle attaching to the first stressed word rather than the verb.
> «умолять», to implore: «умолять» is an intensive verb for begging — 'to implore, beseech', stronger than «просить». The triple climax «просила, умоляла, готова была на колени стать» dramatises the lady's theatrical fervour.

Мы приехали к вам, великий исцелитель, чтобы высказать всю нашу восторженную благодарность.  
We have come to you, great healer, to pour out all our rapturous gratitude.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы высказать…» expresses purpose ('in order to express'). When the subject is the same as the main clause, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive (as here) rather than a past-form verb; it answers 'why did we come?'.
> «исцелитель», healer: «исцелитель» is a solemn, almost scriptural word for a healer (from «исцелить», 'to heal, make whole'), with overtones of miraculous cure. The grandiose «великий исцелитель» is the lady's hyperbole — gently embarrassing to the elder, who will reject the title.

Ведь вы Лизу мою исцелили, исцелили совершенно, а чем? — тем, что в четверг помолились над нею, возложили на нее ваши руки.  
For you have healed my Liza, healed her completely — and by what means? By praying over her this Thursday and laying your hands upon her.
> The particle «ведь»: «ведь» is a modal particle appealing to shared knowledge — 'after all, why, you know'. It frames her claim as something self-evident the elder surely cannot deny, lending the speech its insistent, coaxing tone.
> Perfective «исцелить»: a completed result: «исцелили» is the perfective of «исцелить» — a single, completed cure with a result, reinforced by «совершенно» ('completely'). The repetition hammers the claim home; the elder's later objection turns on whether this perfective 'healing' really happened.
> «над нею» and «на нее»: prepositional vs accusative: «над нею» (instrumental after «над», 'over her') locates the praying above the sick girl; «на нее» (accusative after «на» for motion-onto) marks the laying-on of hands. The two prepositions and their cases sketch the gesture of blessing precisely.

Мы облобызать эти руки спешили, излить наши чувства и наше благоговение!  
We hurried here to kiss those hands, to pour out our feelings and our reverence!"
> Marked word order: infinitive fronted: Neutral order would be «мы спешили облобызать эти руки»; here the infinitive phrase «облобызать эти руки» is fronted before «спешили» for emphasis, throwing the rapturous goal first. Free word order lets Russian weight the new, emotional information forward.
> «облобызать», to kiss reverently: «облобызать» is an archaic, elevated, Church-Slavonic-tinged verb for kissing — to kiss devoutly or solemnly, as one kisses an icon or a holy hand. Its grandiloquence (versus plain «поцеловать») marks the lady's overwrought piety.
> «благоговение», reverence: «благоговение» is awe-filled religious reverence, a bookish noun of the high register (бого- 'God'). Heaping «чувства» and «благоговение» together, the lady casts her gratitude in devotional terms.

— Как так исцелил? Ведь она всё еще в кресле лежит?  
"How is it that I healed her? Why, she is still lying there in her chair."
> Incredulous «как так»: «как так?» is an idiomatic exclamation of disbelief — 'how do you mean?', 'how is that?'. The elder picks up her perfective «исцелил» and questions it, the bare verb (no pronoun) carrying his skeptical surprise.
> Imperfective «лежит» + «всё еще»: «лежит» is the present (imperfective) of «лежать», a state-verb of position, with «всё ещё» ('still') stressing the unchanged condition — she is still lying there. «в кресле» is prepositional after «в» (location). The «ведь» again appeals to the obvious.

— Но ночные лихорадки совершенно исчезли, вот уже двое суток, с самого четверга, — нервно заспешила дама.  
"But the night fevers have vanished entirely — for two whole days now, ever since Thursday," the lady hurried on nervously.
> Perfective «исчезнуть» with -ся-less change of state: «исчезли» is the perfective past of «исчезнуть» ('to vanish'), a completed change of state reinforced by «совершенно». The plural subject «лихорадки» takes the gender-neutral plural past in -и.
> «двое суток», two full days: «сутки» is the noun for a 24-hour day-and-night, used only in the plural; with the collective numeral «двое» it means 'two full days' (in the genitive «суток»). Russian counts whole days this way rather than with «день».

— Мало того: у ней ноги окрепли.  
"What is more, her legs have grown stronger.
> Possessive «у ней» + perfective «окрепнуть»: «у ней» is the «у» + genitive construction of possession ('she has / with her'); «ней» is a colloquial/19th-century variant of «неё». «окрепли» is the perfective past of «окрепнуть» ('to grow strong'), a completed change in her legs.

Сегодня утром она встала здоровая, она спала всю ночь, посмотрите на ее румянец, на ее светящиеся глазки.  
This morning she rose in good health; she slept the whole night through — look at the color in her cheeks, at her shining little eyes.
> Predicate adjective «здоровая» in the nominative: «встала здоровая» pairs the perfective «встала» ('got up') with the long-form nominative adjective «здоровая» predicating the subject's state — 'rose [as] healthy'. The nominative (not instrumental) here describes the manner/state at the moment of the action.
> Imperfective «спала» for duration: «спала» is imperfective ('was sleeping / slept'), and «всю ночь» ('the whole night') is exactly the kind of durative time phrase the imperfective takes — the action viewed as a process filling the night.
> «глазки», dear little eyes: «глазки» is the affectionate diminutive of «глаза» ('eyes'). With «светящиеся» ('shining'), it tenderly infantilises the recovering Lise — the mother's doting gaze rendered in the suffix.

То всё плакала, а теперь смеется, весела, радостна.  
She used to do nothing but weep, and now she laughs, cheerful and full of joy.
> Imperfectives of habit + contrastive «а»: «плакала» and «смеётся» are imperfectives of repeated/habitual state ('used to weep' vs 'now laughs'), with «всё» here meaning 'kept (weeping), did nothing but'. The conjunction «а» marks the gentle 'then… now' contrast, not flat opposition.
> Reflexive «смеяться»: «смеётся» is the present of «смеяться» ('to laugh'), a verb that exists only in the -ся form — there is no «смеять». Such inherently reflexive verbs are a class learners must simply know.

Сегодня непременно требовала, чтоб ее поставили на ноги постоять, и она целую минуту простояла сама, безо всякой поддержки.  
Today she absolutely insisted on being set on her feet to stand, and she stood for a whole minute on her own, without any support whatever.
> «чтобы» + past-form verb after demanding: After a verb of demanding, «чтоб(ы)» introduces a willed outcome with the past-form verb «поставили» — the irrealis/subjunctive use of «чтобы», not a plain report of fact. This is the key «что» vs «чтобы» distinction: she demanded THAT they set her on her feet.
> Perfective «простоять» for a bounded span: «простояла» is the perfective of «простоять», where the prefix про- means 'to spend (a span of time) doing'; «целую минуту» (accusative of duration) gives the bounded 'whole minute' it measures. The perfective frames the standing as a single completed feat.
> «безо всякой», without any whatever: «безо» is the variant of «без» used before certain consonant clusters (без + всякой → безо всякой), governing the genitive. «без всякой поддержки» means 'without any support at all' — the «всякий» strengthening the negation of help.

Она бьется со мной об заклад, что через две недели будет кадриль танцевать.  
She is wagering with me that in two weeks she will be dancing the quadrille.
> Compound imperfective future: «будет… танцевать» is the compound future: conjugated «быть» + imperfective infinitive, naming an ongoing/repeated future action ('will be dancing'). Note the object «кадриль» tucked between «будет» and «танцевать» — free word order placing the focus on the dance.
> «биться об заклад», to make a bet: «биться об заклад» is a set idiom meaning 'to wager, bet'; «заклад» is an old word for a stake or pledge. The phrase is lively and colloquial, conveying Lise's playful, recovered spirits.

Я призывала здешнего доктора Герценштубе; он пожимает плечами и говорит: дивлюсь, недоумеваю.  
I called in the local doctor, Herzenstube; he shrugs his shoulders and says: I marvel, I am at a loss.
> Historic present in narration: «пожимает» and «говорит» are imperfective presents used vividly for past events — the 'historic present', making the doctor's bafflement immediate. «плечами» is the instrumental ('shrugs with his shoulders'), the case the gesture-verb «пожимать» governs.
> «дивлюсь», «недоумеваю»: «дивлюсь» (from «дивиться», to marvel) is a somewhat bookish 'I marvel/am amazed', and «недоумеваю» means 'I am at a loss, cannot make sense of it'. The doctor's clipped first-person presents render his professional bewilderment.

И вы хотите, чтобы мы не беспокоили вас, могли не лететь сюда, не благодарить?  
And you would have us not trouble you, not fly here, not give thanks?
> «чтобы» + negated past-form verb: «хотите, чтобы мы не беспокоили» again uses «чтобы» + past-form verb for a willed (here, would-be forbidden) outcome — 'you want that we not trouble you'. The whole rests on the irrealis logic of «чтобы», not on reported fact.
> Stacked negated infinitives: The chain «не лететь… не благодарить» negates each infinitive with «не». «лететь» ('to fly') is the unidirectional motion verb used figuratively for rushing to him; the rhetorical cascade of negatives builds the lady's indignant 'how could we not?'.

Lise, благодари же, благодари!  
Lise, give thanks now, give thanks!"
> Imperative + insistent «же»: «благодари» is the imperative of imperfective «благодарить» (stem + stressed -и). The particle «же» adds urging insistence — 'go on, thank him!'. The imperfective imperative here presses for the immediate carrying-out of the act.

Миленькое, смеющееся личико Lise сделалось было вдруг серьезным, она приподнялась в кресле, сколько могла, и, смотря на старца, сложила пред ним свои ручки, но не вытерпела и вдруг рассмеялась…  
Lise's sweet, laughing little face suddenly turned grave; she raised herself in her chair as far as she could and, looking at the elder, folded her little hands before him — but she could not hold out, and all at once burst into laughter...
> The «было» of an interrupted action + predicate instrumental: «сделалось было серьёзным» pairs perfective «сделалось» ('became') with the special particle «было», which signals an action begun but at once reversed — her face started to turn grave, but didn't stay so. «серьёзным» is the predicate instrumental after «сделаться».
> Gerund + chain of perfectives: The gerund «смотря» ('looking') frames a rapid sequence of perfectives — «приподнялась», «сложила», «не вытерпела», «рассмеялась» — each a discrete, completed event moving the action forward, against the simultaneous backdrop the gerund supplies.
> Diminutives «личико», «ручки»: «личико» is the tender diminutive of «лицо» ('face'), «ручки» of «руки» ('hands'). These -ик/-к- diminutives convey warmth and smallness, coloring the narrator's fond view of the childlike Lise — why we render 'sweet little face' and 'little hands'.

— Это я на него, на него! — указала она на Алешу, с детской досадой на себя за то, что не вытерпела и рассмеялась.  
"It's because of him — him!" she said, pointing at Alyosha, vexed with herself, in a childlike way, for not having held out and for laughing.
> Reflexive «себя» and «за то, что»: «на себя» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» pointing back to the clause's subject (Lise) — 'annoyed at herself'. «за то, что…» ('for the fact that…') is the correlative «то» + «что» clause giving the cause of her vexation.
> «досада», vexation: «досада» is annoyance mixed with chagrin — frustration at oneself or at circumstance. «детская досада» ('childish vexation') captures Lise's half-comic self-reproach, a recurring note in her characterisation.

Кто бы посмотрел на Алешу, стоявшего на шаг позади старца, тот заметил бы в его лице быструю краску, в один миг залившую его щеки.  
Anyone who happened to glance at Alyosha, standing a step behind the elder, would have noticed on his face a swift flush that flooded his cheeks in an instant.
> Conditional «бы» in a correlative «кто… тот»: This is a hypothetical built twice with «бы»: «кто бы посмотрел… тот заметил бы» — 'whoever might have looked… would have noticed'. The correlative pair «кто… тот» links the indefinite relative to its resumptive demonstrative, and both verbs carry «бы».
> Past active participle «заливший»: «залившую» is the past active participle of perfective «залить» ('to flood'), in the feminine accusative agreeing with «краску» — 'the flush that had flooded his cheeks'. It condenses a «который»-clause into one bookish modifier, typical of literary description.
> Past active participle «стоявший»: «стоявшего» is the past active participle of imperfective «стоять», in the masculine accusative agreeing with «Алёшу» — 'Alyosha, who was standing a step behind the elder'. The imperfective stem gives ongoing past sense; the participle replaces a relative clause.

Глаза его сверкнули и потупились.  
His eyes flashed and then dropped.
> Perfective «сверкнуть»: the -ну- semelfactive: «сверкнули» is the perfective of «сверкнуть», whose -ну- suffix marks a single, instantaneous flash ('flashed once'). «потупились» is the -ся perfective of «потупиться» ('to drop one's gaze, look down') — a reflexive change of state. Two quick completed acts.

— У ней к вам, Алексей Федорович, поручение… Как ваше здоровье, — продолжала маменька, обращаясь вдруг к Алеше и протягивая к нему свою прелестно гантированную ручку.  
"She has a message for you, Alexei Fyodorovich... How is your health," the mother went on, turning suddenly to Alyosha and holding out to him her exquisitely gloved little hand.
> Two simultaneous imperfective gerunds: «обращаясь» (from reflexive «обращаться», 'turning to') and «протягивая» ('holding out') are imperfective present gerunds, both -сь/-я forms, describing what the mother is doing as she speaks. Stacked gerunds packing attendant actions into one sentence are a hallmark of the literary style.
> «гантированный», a Gallicism for 'gloved': «гантированную» is a fashionable French borrowing (from «ganté», gloved) instead of a plain Russian word — the kind of affected Gallicism a 'society lady' uses. «ручку» is the genteel diminutive of «рука» ('hand'); together they ooze drawing-room refinement.

Старец оглянулся и вдруг внимательно посмотрел на Алешу.  
The elder looked round and suddenly gazed attentively at Alyosha.
> Two perfectives of a single look: «оглянулся» (reflexive perfective of «оглянуться», 'looked round') and «посмотрел» (perfective 'looked / gazed') are discrete completed acts. The adverb «вдруг» ('suddenly') with the perfective marks the abrupt, pointed shift of the elder's attention to Alyosha.

Тот приблизился к Лизе и, как-то странно и неловко усмехаясь, протянул и ей руку Lise сделала важную физиономию.  
The young man approached Lise and, smiling somehow strangely and awkwardly, held out his hand to her as well. Lise put on a solemn expression.
> Anaphoric «тот» as subject: «тот» ('that one, the latter') is the demonstrative used here as a free-standing pronoun to refer back to Alyosha without naming him — a common device for tracking referents. «к Лизе» is dative after «к» (motion toward). «приблизился» is the reflexive perfective 'drew near'.
> Imperfective gerund «усмехаясь»: «усмехаясь» is the imperfective present gerund of reflexive «усмехаться» ('to smile faintly, smirk'), modified by the adverbs «странно и неловко». It paints Alyosha's awkward half-smile as the manner accompanying «протянул».

— Катерина Ивановна присылает вам чрез меня вот это, — подала она ему маленькое письмецо.  
"Katerina Ivanovna sends you this through me," she said, handing him a small note.
> Dative «вам» + the archaic preposition «чрез»: «вам» is the dative indirect object ('sends to you'); «чрез меня» uses «чрез», the bookish/archaic variant of «через» ('through, by way of'), governing the accusative «меня». «вот это» ('this here') points to the note she is handing over.
> «письмецо», a little note: «письмецо» is the diminutive of «письмо» ('letter'), with the -ецо suffix conveying smallness and a touch of intimacy — 'a little note'. Its slightness foreshadows the «коротенькую… записочку» described below.

— Она особенно просит, чтобы вы зашли к ней, да поскорей, поскорей, и чтобы не обманывать, а непременно прийти.  
"She particularly asks that you come to her, and soon, very soon, and not to deceive her, but to come without fail."
> «чтобы» of request: past-form vs infinitive: After «просит», «чтобы вы зашли» takes the past-form verb (different subjects), while «чтобы… прийти» switches to a bare infinitive once the subject is understood. Both express the willed content of her request — a clear case of «чтобы»'s irrealis use.
> The connective «да» and «поскорей»: «да» here is the folksy, additive 'and' (а not 'yes'), chaining on the urgency. «поскорей» is a colloquial comparative-imperative adverb ('quicker, as soon as possible'), its doubling conveying the breathless insistence of the message.

— Она меня просит зайти? К ней меня… Зачем же? — с глубоким удивлением пробормотал Алеша.  
"She asks me to come? To her, me... What for?" murmured Alyosha in deep astonishment.
> Object-first word order + «же»: Alyosha's broken «К ней меня…» fronts the goal «к ней» (dative) and object «меня» before any verb — fragmented, emphatic word order mirroring his confusion. «Зачем же?» adds the particle «же» to a 'why?' question, lending bewildered insistence.
> «пробормотать», to mutter: «пробормотал» (perfective of «бормотать», 'to mumble', with про- = 'utter under the breath') captures Alyosha's confused, low murmur «с глубоким удивлением». Dostoevsky's speech-verbs precisely shade each utterance's tone.

Лицо его вдруг стало совсем озабоченное.  
His face suddenly became utterly troubled.
> Perfective «стать» + predicate adjective: «стало» is the perfective of «стать» ('to become'), here linking the neuter subject «лицо» to the long-form nominative adjective «озабоченное». With «стать» a predicate noun would take the instrumental, but a long adjective complement stands in the nominative.

— О, это всё по поводу Дмитрия Федоровича и… всех этих последних происшествий, — бегло пояснила мамаша.  
"Oh, it is all on account of Dmitri Fyodorovich and... all these latest happenings," the mama explained hurriedly.
> «по поводу» + genitive: «по поводу» ('on account of, concerning') governs the genitive: «Дмитрия Фёдоровича» shows both the first name and patronymic declined into the genitive together. Note that even a person's full name fully inflects for case.
> «мамаша», «мамаша» vs «маменька»: The narrator calls her «мамаша» — a colloquial, slightly familiar word for 'mama/the mother', distinct from the daughter's tender «маменька» (s25) and the plainer «мама» (s32 elsewhere). Dostoevsky rings changes on the word, half-affectionate, half-ironic toward this fluttering mother.

— Катерина Ивановна остановилась теперь на одном решении… но для этого ей непременно надо вас видеть… зачем?  
"Katerina Ivanovna has now settled on a single resolution... but for that she absolutely must see you... what for?
> Dative-subject impersonal of necessity: «ей… надо… видеть» is a classic impersonal construction: the experiencer «ей» is in the dative, there is no nominative subject, and «надо» + infinitive expresses necessity ('she must see'). This dative-experiencer pattern pervades the inner life of Dostoevsky's characters.
> «остановиться на» + prepositional: «остановилась на одном решении» uses the perfective reflexive «остановиться» idiomatically ('to settle on') with «на» + prepositional «решении» ('a single resolution'). The literal 'stopped on' yields the figurative 'decided upon'.

Конечно не знаю, но она просила как можно скорей.  
I do not know, of course, but she asked that it be as soon as possible.
> Superlative-of-urgency «как можно» + comparative: «как можно скорей» is the fixed pattern «как можно» + comparative ('as … as possible') — here 'as soon as possible'. «скорей» is the comparative of «скорый/скоро», in its colloquial -ей form.

И вы это сделаете, наверно сделаете, тут даже христианское чувство велит.  
And you will do it, surely you will do it — here even Christian feeling commands it."
> Adjective–noun agreement and «велит»: «христианское чувство» shows neuter agreement (-ое) of adjective with noun in the nominative subject. «велит» is the present of «велеть» ('to command, bid'), governing here an understood infinitive — 'even Christian feeling commands [it]'.

— Я видел ее всего только один раз, — продолжал всё в том же недоумении Алеша.  
"I have seen her only once in all," Alyosha went on, still in the same bewilderment.
> Imperfective «видел» for experience: «видел» is the imperfective past, the natural choice for the experiential 'I have seen' totted up over time. «всего только один раз» ('only once in all') stacks limiting words to stress how slight his acquaintance is.
> «недоумение», bewilderment: «недоумение» is perplexity, the state of not understanding — the noun behind the doctor's «недоумеваю» (s18). «всё в том же недоумении» keeps Alyosha in his sustained bafflement; the word recurs as a leitmotif of his confusion in this scene.

— О, это такое высокое, такое недостижимое существо!.. Уж по одним страданиям своим… Сообразите, что она вынесла, что она теперь выносит, сообразите, что ее ожидает… всё это ужасно, ужасно!  
"Oh, what a lofty, what an unattainable being she is!.. If only for her sufferings alone... Just think what she has endured, what she endures now, think what awaits her... it is all terrible, terrible!"
> Aspect pair «вынести/выносить»: The two verbs are one aspect pair: perfective «вынесла» ('what she has endured', a completed sum) versus imperfective «выносит» ('what she is enduring now', an ongoing process). Set side by side they let the lady span past suffering and present trial.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + «по» + dative: «по… страданиям» is «по» + dative ('by, on the grounds of her sufferings'). «своим» is the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause's implicit subject — 'her own' sufferings, not another's. The particle «уж» adds emphatic 'if only for…'.
> «недостижимое существо», an unattainable being: «существо» means 'a being, creature' as a whole person; «недостижимое» ('unattainable, beyond reach') casts Katerina Ivanovna as an almost otherworldly ideal. The hyperbolic register marks the lady's romantic exaltation of her.

— Хорошо, я приду, — решил Алеша, пробежав коротенькую и загадочную записочку, в которой, кроме убедительной просьбы прийти, не было никаких пояснений.  
"Very well, I will come," Alyosha decided, having run his eye over the short, enigmatic little note, which, apart from an urgent plea to come, contained no explanation whatever.
> Perfective past gerund «пробежав»: «пробежав» is the perfective past gerund (-в form) of «пробежать», here idiomatic for 'having run one's eye over (a text)'. It expresses a prior, completed action before «решил», sharing Alyosha's subject — the classic 'having done X, he Y-ed'.
> Relative «который» + genitive of negation: «в которой» is the relative pronoun «который» in the prepositional after «в», agreeing in feminine gender with «записочку». «не было никаких пояснений» is the negated existential: «пояснений» stands in the genitive, the obligatory genitive of negation with «не было».
> Diminutives «коротенький», «записочка»: «коротенькую» is the diminutive-affectionate form of «короткий» ('short'), with the -еньк- suffix softening it; «записочка» is the diminutive of «записка» ('note'). The pile of diminutives makes the note seem touchingly small and slight.

— Ах, как это с вашей стороны мило и великолепно будет, — вдруг, вся одушевясь, вскричала Lise.  
"Ah, how kind and how splendid of you that will be," Lise cried out suddenly, all aglow.
> Perfective gerund «одушевясь»: «одушевясь» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «одушевиться» ('to become animated, light up'), the -сь form after a vowel. With «вся» ('all') it conveys 'having become all aglow' — the completed kindling of feeling just before she cries out.
> Short-form predicate adjectives in the future: «мило» and «великолепно» are the short (predicative) neuter forms of «милый» and «великолепный», agreeing with the neuter «это» and joined to the future «будет» ('how kind and splendid it will be'). Short forms can only predicate, as here.

— А я ведь маме говорю: ни за что он не пойдет, он спасается.  
"And here I was telling Mama: not for anything will he go, he is saving his soul.
> Topic «а» + particle «ведь» + dative «маме»: «а» opens with a topic-shift ('and here…'), «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('you know'), and «маме» is the dative indirect object of «говорю» ('I say to Mama'). Three small markers set the chatty, confiding tone of Lise's speech.
> Emphatic negation «ни за что… не»: «ни за что… не пойдёт» is negative concord: the intensifier «ни за что» ('not for anything') co-occurs with the verbal «не», two negatives for one strong denial. «пойдёт» is the perfective (simple) future of «пойти» — 'he won't go'.
> «спасаться», to save one's soul: «спасается» (imperfective reflexive «спасаться») here has its religious sense: 'he is saving his soul', i.e. pursuing salvation through monastic withdrawal. Lise teasingly applies the solemn spiritual verb to Alyosha the novice.

Экой, экой вы прекрасный! Ведь я всегда думала, что вы прекрасный, вот что мне приятно вам теперь сказать!  
What a splendid man you are, splendid! I always thought you were splendid, and how glad I am to be able to tell you so now!"
> The exclamatory «экой»: «экой» (variant of «экий») is a colloquial exclamatory determiner — 'what a…!', expressing lively admiration or astonishment. Its repetition and folksy ring give Lise's outburst a spontaneous, childlike warmth.
> Dative-experiencer «мне приятно»: «мне приятно… сказать» is an impersonal experiencer construction: «мне» dative, the invariable predicate «приятно» ('[it is] pleasant'), and an infinitive — 'it is pleasant for me to say'. «вам» is the dative indirect object of «сказать».

— Lise! — внушительно проговорила мамаша, впрочем тотчас же улыбнулась.  
"Lise!" the mama said impressively — though she smiled at once nonetheless.
> Perfective «улыбнуться» with «тотчас же»: «улыбнулась» is the perfective (-ну- semelfactive) of «улыбнуться» ('to give a smile'), a single bounded act; «тотчас же» ('at once', with insistent «же») marks its immediacy. «впрочем» ('however, nonetheless') concedes the contradiction with her stern «Lise!».

— Вы и нас забыли, Алексей Федорович, вы совсем не хотите бывать у нас: а между тем Lise мне два раза говорила, что только с вами ей хорошо.  
"You have forgotten us too, Alexei Fyodorovich; you do not care to visit us at all — yet Lise has told me twice that only with you does she feel well."
> Iterative «бывать» of habit: «бывать» is the iterative/frequentative of «быть» — 'to frequent, be regularly at a place', distinct from one-time «быть» — 'you don't care to come round to us'. «у нас» is «у» + genitive ('at our place'). The imperfective is required by the habitual sense.
> Dative-experiencer «ей хорошо»: «ей хорошо» is the impersonal experiencer pattern: dative «ей» + the invariable «хорошо» — 'she feels good/well'. «с вами» ('with you') is «с» + instrumental. There is no nominative subject; the feeling simply happens to her.

— Алеша поднял потупленные глаза, опять вдруг покраснел и опять вдруг, сам не зная чему, усмехнулся.  
Alyosha lifted his downcast eyes, blushed again suddenly, and again suddenly, without himself knowing why, smiled.
> Past passive participle «потупленные»: «потупленные» is the past passive participle (long form, -енн-) of perfective «потупить», agreeing in the accusative plural with «глаза» — '[his] downcast eyes'. Built from a perfective verb, it states the resulting condition of the eyes.
> Negated gerund «не зная» + dative «чему»: «не зная» is the imperfective gerund of «знать» under negation ('not knowing'), framing the manner of «усмехнулся». «чему» is the dative — «усмехаться чему» takes the dative of what one smiles at — so 'not knowing at what'.

Впрочем, старец уже не наблюдал его.  
The elder, however, was no longer watching him.
> Imperfective «наблюдал» + «уже не»: «наблюдал» is the imperfective past of «наблюдать» ('to watch, observe'), an ongoing action; «уже не» ('no longer') negates the continuation. «его» is the accusative object. The imperfective fits the cessation of a sustained watching.

Он вступил в разговор с захожим монахом, ожидавшим, как мы уже говорили, подле кресел Lise его выхода.  
He had entered into conversation with the visiting monk who, as we have already said, had been waiting beside Lise's chair for him to come out.
> Past active participle «ожидавший» + instrumental: «с захожим монахом» is «с» + instrumental ('with the monk'); «ожидавшим» is the past active participle of imperfective «ожидать», agreeing in the instrumental with «монахом» — 'who had been waiting'. The participle governs the genitive «его выхода» ('for his coming out').
> «захожий», a wayfaring monk: «захожий» is a folk/colloquial adjective for one who has 'dropped in' from afar — a passing, wayfaring visitor. Applied to the monk it marks him as a stranger from outside the monastery, here come on pilgrimage from the far north.

Это был, по-видимому, из самых простых монахов, то есть из простого звания, с коротеньким, нерушимым мировоззрением, но верующий и в своем роде упорный.  
He was, by all appearances, one of the very plainest of monks — that is, of humble station — with a narrow, unshakable view of the world, yet a believer and, in his own way, stubborn.
> Present active participle «верующий»: «верующий» is the present active participle of «верить» ('believing'), here substantivised toward 'a believer' but functioning adjectivally beside «упорный». Such -ущ-/-ющ- participles are markedly bookish; «в своём роде» uses reflexive «свой» ('in his own way').
> «звание», station/rank: «звание» here means social rank or estate; «из простого звания» means 'of humble/common station', i.e. from the lower classes. Placing the monk socially (versus an educated or noble monk) underlines his rough simplicity.
> «мировоззрение», worldview: «мировоззрение» (literally 'world-viewing') is a weighty compound noun for one's whole outlook or philosophy of life. Calling the simple monk's worldview «коротенькое» (diminutive of «короткий») и «нерушимое» wryly notes that it is narrow but utterly unshakeable.

Он объявил себя откуда-то с дальнего севера, из Обдорска, от святого Сильвестра, из одного бедного монастыря всего в девять монахов.  
He announced that he came from somewhere in the far north, from Obdorsk, from St. Sylvester's, from a single poor monastery of only nine monks.
> Reflexive «себя» + indefinite «откуда-то»: «объявил себя» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» as object ('declared himself [to be]'). «откуда-то» is the indefinite adverb formed with the «-то» particle — 'from somewhere [specific but unnamed]', the speaker knowing a place exists but giving it vaguely.
> Numeral «девять» governing the genitive plural: «девять монахов»: the numeral 'nine' (five and above) takes the genitive plural «монахов». «всего» ('only, just') stresses the smallness of a monastery of just nine monks — a number Dostoevsky specifies precisely.

Старец благословил его и пригласил зайти к нему в келью, когда ему будет угодно.  
The elder blessed him and invited him to come to his cell whenever he pleased.
> Dative-experiencer «ему… угодно»: «ему будет угодно» is an impersonal dative construction in the future: «ему» dative + the predicative «угодно» ('pleasing') + «будет» — a polite, slightly formal 'whenever it pleases him / he wishes'. No nominative subject; the wish is framed as happening to him.

— Как же вы дерзаете делать такие дела? — спросил вдруг монах, внушительно и торжественно указывая на Lise.  
"How is it you dare to do such things?" the monk suddenly asked, pointing impressively and solemnly at Lise.
> Indignant «как же» + imperfective infinitive: «как же…?» fronts the modal particle «же» onto a 'how?' question for indignant force ('how dare you…?'). «дерзаете делать» pairs the present «дерзаете» ('you dare') with the imperfective infinitive «делать» ('to do, in general') — open-ended, habitual acts.
> «дерзать», to dare presumptuously: «дерзать» is an elevated, slightly archaic verb 'to dare, presume' (cf. «дерзкий», insolent). In the monk's solemn mouth it carries reproach — how dare a man presume to do God's healing work? — sharpening the theological challenge.

Он намекал на ее «исцеление»  
He was alluding to her "healing."
> Imperfective «намекал» + «на» + accusative: «намекал» is the imperfective past of «намекать» ('to hint, allude'), governing «на» + accusative «исцеление» ('alluding to her healing'). The quotation marks around «исцеление» mark the narrator's skeptical distance from the claimed cure.

— Об этом, конечно, говорить еще рано.  
"Of that, of course, it is still too early to speak.
> Impersonal «рано» + infinitive: «говорить… рано» is an impersonal predicate: the invariable word «рано» ('[it is] early/too soon') plus the imperfective infinitive «говорить', with no subject. «об этом» ('about this') is «о» + prepositional. A subjectless judgment typical of measured speech.

Облегчение не есть еще полное исцеление и могло произойти и от других причин.  
Relief is not yet a full healing and could have come about from other causes as well.
> The bookish copula «есть»: «не есть» retains the present-tense copula «есть» ('is') — normally dropped in Russian — for a formal, almost definitional statement: 'relief is not yet full healing'. Keeping «есть» lends the elder's distinction a measured, philosophical weight.
> Perfective «произойти» + «от» + genitive: «произойти» is the perfective infinitive ('to come about, occur') after the past «могло»; «от других причин» is «от» + genitive ('from other causes'). The particle «и» here means 'also, as well', conceding alternative explanations for the recovery.

Но если что и было, то ничьею силой, кроме как божиим изволением.  
But if anything did occur, it was by no power save the will of God.
> Instrumental of means + archaic ending «-ею»: «силой» and «изволением» are in the instrumental of means ('by what power… by God's will'). «ничьею» (negative 'by no one's', with negative concord against «кроме») shows the archaic/poetic feminine instrumental ending «-ею» for «-ей», common in the elevated 19th-century register.
> «изволение», (divine) will: «изволение» is an archaic, ecclesiastical word for 'will, good pleasure', here 'God's will' («божиим», possessive adjective from «Бог»). The Slavonic-flavoured phrase grounds the elder's caution in pious humility: any cure is God's doing, not his.

Всё от бога.  
Everything is from God.
> Verbless statement: zero copula + «от» + genitive: «Всё от бога» has no verb — the present copula is omitted, leaving the bare 'Everything [is] from God'. «от бога» is «от» + genitive ('from God'). The terse, copula-less form gives the line the ring of an aphorism or creed.

Посетите меня, отец, — прибавил он монаху, — а то не во всякое время могу: хвораю и знаю, что дни мои сочтены.  
Visit me, Father," he added to the monk, "for I cannot receive at every hour: I am ailing, and I know that my days are numbered."
> Polite imperative «посетите» + vocative «отец»: «посетите» is the perfective imperative ('do visit me') with the polite/plural -те ending. «отец» ('Father') is direct address to a monk — the standard form, here functioning as a vocative set off from the clause.
> Short-form passive participle «сочтены»: «сочтены» is the short (predicative) past passive participle of «счесть» ('to count'), agreeing with plural «дни» — 'my days are numbered'. The short participle + zero copula yields a stative passive, here a solemn idiom for approaching death.
> «хворать», to ail: «хвораю» (from «хворать») is a homely, folk word for being ill/ailing, gentler and more colloquial than «болеть». In the elder's mouth it sounds humble and unassuming, fitting his plain acceptance of his decline.

— О нет, нет, бог вас у нас не отнимет, вы проживете еще долго, долго, — вскричала мамаша.  
"Oh no, no, God will not take you from us, you will live a long, long while yet," the mama cried out.
> Perfective future «отнимет» + «у нас» of dispossession: «отнимет» is the perfective (simple) future of «отнять» ('to take away') — a single completed future act, negated by «не». «у нас» («у» + genitive) marks the ones from whom something is taken: 'God will not take you from us'.
> Perfective «прожить» for a measured span: «проживёте» is the perfective future of «прожить», where про- = 'to live through (a stretch of time)'. The doubled «долго, долго» ('a long, long while') gives the span; the perfective views the whole future lifetime as one bounded measure.

— Да и чем вы больны? Вы смотрите таким здоровым, веселым, счастливым.  
"And what is it you are ill with? You look so healthy, cheerful, happy."
> Short adjective «больны» + instrumental «чем»: «больны» is the short (predicative) plural form of «больной» ('ill') — short adjectives only predicate. «чем» is the instrumental of «что» ('with what'), since «болеть/быть больным чем» takes the instrumental of the ailment: 'with what are you ill?'.
> «смотреть» + instrumental of appearance: Here «смотреть» means 'to look, appear', and the predicate adjectives «таким здоровым, весёлым, счастливым» stand in the instrumental — the case for how someone appears or seems. So 'you look so healthy, cheerful, happy'.

— Мне сегодня необыкновенно легче, но я уже знаю, что это всего лишь минута.  
"Today I feel extraordinarily better, but I already know that it is only a moment.
> Dative-experiencer + comparative «легче»: «мне… легче» is the impersonal experiencer pattern: dative «мне» + the comparative predicate «легче» ('[it is] easier/better for me'), with no nominative subject. «легче» is the irregular comparative of «лёгкий/легко». The elder frames his relief as something felt, happening to him.
> Limiting «всего лишь» + zero copula: «это всего лишь минута» has no copula ('this [is] only a moment'); «всего лишь» ('merely, only') limits it. The bare nominative «минута» as predicate is the normal zero-copula present. The elder soberly discounts his good day.

Я мою болезнь теперь безошибочно понимаю.  
I now understand my illness without error.
> Object-first word order for emphasis: Neutral order would put the object after the verb; here «мою болезнь» is fronted before «понимаю», throwing weight onto exactly what he understands — his illness. «понимаю» is imperfective present, the verb of an ongoing, settled comprehension.
> «безошибочно», without error: «безошибочно» (без- 'without' + «ошибка» 'error' + adverbial -о) means 'unerringly, without mistake'. The elder's claim to read his own illness «безошибочно» quietly conveys his calm certainty of approaching death.

Если же я вам кажусь столь веселым, то ничем и никогда не могли вы меня столь обрадовать, как сделав такое замечание.  
And if I seem to you so cheerful, then by nothing, and at no time, could you have gladdened me so much as by making such a remark.
> Conditional «если» plus the particle «же»: «Если» opens a real (indicative, not «бы») conditional — 'if I seem'. The clitic «же» attached to it does not negate or question; it gently insists and links back to the prior turn, something like 'but if I do seem'. It is the texture of spoken concession, not a logical operator.
> Instrumental predicate after «казаться»: «Кажусь… веселым» — 'I seem cheerful' — puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental «веселым», the case verbs of seeming and becoming demand for their complement. «Вам» is a dative experiencer: it seems so to you.
> Negative concord with «ни»-words: «Ничем… никогда… не могли» stacks two «ни»-words around a «не»-verb — 'by nothing and at no time could you not...' in form, 'by nothing and never' in sense. Russian requires the verb to stay negated even when «ни»-words are present; the piled negatives reinforce, they do not cancel.
> Perfective gerund «сделав»: «Сделав» is a perfective adverbial participle (деепричастие), 'having made'. It compresses a whole clause ('by making such a remark') into one indeclinable form, sharing the subject «вы». The -в ending marks completed, prior action — the hallmark of literary narration.
> Bookish «столь» for 'so': «Столь» ('so, to such a degree') is the elevated, literary cousin of everyday «так». Repeated here ('столь веселым… столь обрадовать'), it lends the elder's speech a measured, almost sermonic gravity.

Ибо для счастия созданы люди, и кто вполне счастлив, тот прямо удостоен сказать себе: «Я выполнил завет божий на сей земле».  
For men are created for happiness, and whoever is fully happy is directly worthy to say to himself: 'I have fulfilled God's commandment on this earth.'
> Archaic «ибо» — 'for, because': «Ибо» is the bookish, scriptural conjunction for 'for / because', far more solemn than plain «потому что». It belongs to the register of sermon and Scripture and instantly colours the elder's pronouncement as gnomic truth.
> Short passive participle «созданы»: «Созданы» is the short-form past passive participle of «создать» ('created'), agreeing in plural with «люди». Such short passives, joined to an implied «быть», state a result — 'men are [have been] created'. The fronting of «для счастия» throws emphasis onto the purpose: for happiness.
> Correlative «кто… тот»: The relative «кто» ('whoever') is picked up by the demonstrative «тот» ('that one') in the main clause — a bookish correlative frame, 'whoever is happy, that one is...'. «Удостоен» is again a short passive participle, 'is deemed worthy'.
> Reflexive pronoun «себе»: «Себе» is the dative of the reflexive «себя» — 'to oneself', pointing back to the subject «тот». It has no nominative and works for any person; here it frames the happy man's inward declaration.
> «Завет» — covenant, commandment: «Завет» means 'covenant, testament' (as in Ветхий / Новый Завет, the Old / New Testament), and by extension God's commandment. «Божий» is the possessive adjective 'of God'. The phrase «на сей земле» uses the archaic «сей» for 'this', deepening the biblical tone.
> Older genitive «счастия»: «Счастия» is the 19th-century bookish genitive of «счастье» ('happiness'); modern Russian writes «счастья». The full -ия ending preserves the older, more solemn spelling typical of the elder's elevated diction.

Все праведные, все святые, все святые мученики были все счастливы.  
All the righteous, all the saints, all the holy martyrs were all happy."
> Anaphora and short adjective «счастливы»: The fourfold «все» ('all') hammers home a totality — праведные, святые, мученики all 'were all happy'. «Счастливы» is the short-form plural adjective, the predicate form that follows «были»; its bookish flavour suits the absolute, sweeping claim.
> Orthodox categories of holiness: «Праведные» (the righteous), «святые» (saints), and «мученики» (martyrs) are not loose synonyms but distinct ranks in Orthodox sanctity: the righteous lived holy lay lives, the martyrs died for the faith. The elder invokes the whole communion of the holy.

— О, как вы говорите, какие смелые и высшие слова, — вскричала мамаша.  
"Oh, how you speak — what bold and exalted words," the mama cried out.
> Exclamatory «какие» plus comparative «высшие»: «Какие» here is exclamatory — 'what bold words!', not a question. «Высшие» is the (originally comparative/superlative) form of «высокий», 'higher / loftiest', used attributively and agreeing in plural with «слова». The pairing of bold and lofty is the mama's gushing register.
> «Мамаша» — the affectionate-ironic 'mama': «Мамаша» is a familiar, slightly homely form of address/reference for a mother, warmer and more colloquial than «мать». In the narrator's mouth it carries a faint affectionate irony toward this excitable lady. «Вскричала» (perfective с-/вс- of «кричать») marks the single outburst: 'cried out'.

— Вы скажете и как будто пронзите.  
"You say a thing, and it is as though you pierce one through.
> Perfective futures «скажете… пронзите»: Both verbs are perfective forms with present-tense endings, so they read as future-of-result, but in this generalizing, vivid context they describe a typical effect: 'you (will) say a thing and as if pierce one through'. «Как будто» ('as though') flags the figurative stab.
> «Пронзить» — to pierce through: «Пронзить» means to run through, transfix, as with a blade — a strong, almost physical metaphor for the wounding power of the elder's words. The lady experiences spiritual truth as bodily penetration.

А между тем счастие, счастие — где оно?  
And yet happiness, happiness — where is it?
> Contrastive «а» and «между тем»: «А» is the mild adversative 'and yet / but', shifting the topic against what was just said; «между тем» ('meanwhile, yet') reinforces the turn. The repeated «счастие» is topicalized, then the dash and «где оно?» deliver the comment — Russian's topic-first, focus-last rhythm.

Кто может сказать про себя, что он счастлив?  
Who can say of himself that he is happy?
> Reflexive «себя» and reported «что»: «Про себя» — 'about himself' — uses the accusative reflexive «себя» after «про»; it points back to the subject «кто». «Что он счастлив» is a plain reported-fact clause introduced by «что» (versus willed «чтобы»). «Счастлив» is the short predicate adjective.

О, если уж вы были так добры, что допустили нас сегодня еще раз вас видеть, то выслушайте всё, что я вам прошлый раз не договорила, не посмела сказать, всё, чем я так страдаю, и так давно, давно!  
Oh, since you have already been so kind as to admit us to see you once more today, then hear out everything that I did not finish saying to you last time, that I dared not say — everything by which I so suffer, and for so long, so long!
> «так… что» result clause with «уж»: «Так добры, что допустили» is a result construction — 'so kind that you admitted'. The particle «уж» (a worn-down «уже») adds an emotive 'already / after all', intensifying the lady's grateful pleading. «Добры» is a short predicate adjective.
> Polite imperative «выслушайте»: «Выслушайте» is the perfective imperative with the plural/polite ending -те, 'hear out (in full)'. The perfective prefix вы- stresses listening through to the end — she begs for a complete hearing.
> Imperfective negated past, 'failed to': «Не договорила» and «не посмела» are negated past-tense verbs whose negation conveys not-managing or not-daring: 'did not finish saying', 'dared not say'. «Договорить» (perfective до- 'finish speaking') and «посметь» ('dare') carry the woman's nervous reticence.
> Relative «чем» — instrumental of 'by which': «Чем» is the instrumental of «что», here a relative pronoun: 'everything by which I so suffer'. The verb «страдать» takes the instrumental of the thing one suffers by/from, so the case is governed by the verb, not the relative frame.

Я страдаю, простите меня, я страдаю…  
I suffer, forgive me, I suffer..."
> Imperfective «страдаю» — suffering as ongoing state: «Страдаю» is the imperfective present, naming an ongoing, unbounded condition — 'I am suffering', not a single event. Its repetition frames an enduring inner torment. «Простите» is the polite perfective imperative, 'forgive (me)'.

— И она в каком-то горячем порывистом чувстве сложила пред ним руки.  
And, in some kind of ardent, impetuous feeling, she folded her hands before him.
> Indefinite «какой-то» plus prepositional: «Каком-то» is «какой» + the indefinite clitic «-то», marking a specific but unnamed quality — 'some kind of'. The whole phrase sits in the prepositional after «в» (location/state): 'in some ardent, impetuous feeling'.
> «Сложить руки» — to fold the hands in entreaty: «Сложить руки (пред кем-то)» is the gesture of prayerful pleading, hands pressed together before another. The archaic «пред» (for «перед», 'before') heightens the supplicatory, almost liturgical posture of the lady before the elder.

— Чем же особенно?  
"By what in particular?"
> Instrumental «чем» plus insistent «же»: «Чем» is the instrumental of «что» — 'by what?' — picking up the instrumental sense of suffering 'by' something. The particle «же» presses the question, 'by what in particular, then?', a probing follow-up rather than a fresh query.

— Я страдаю… неверием…  
"I suffer... from unbelief..."
> Instrumental of cause «неверием»: «Неверием» is the instrumental of «неверие» ('unbelief'), the case «страдать» governs for what one suffers from: 'I suffer from unbelief'. The bare instrumental, set off by ellipsis, lands the confession with quiet weight.
> «Неверие» — unbelief, want of faith: «Неверие» is «вера» ('faith') with the negating prefix не-: not active denial of God but the inability to believe, doubt as affliction. It names the chapter's theme and the lady's titular condition — «маловерная» (of little faith).

— В бога неверием?  
"Unbelief in God?"
> Fronting and «в» + accusative: «Неверие в бога» — 'unbelief in God' — uses «в» + accusative «бога» (animate, so accusative = genitive form) for the object of belief, as «верить в бога» does. The elder fronts «в бога» before «неверием» to focus the precise target of her doubt.

— О нет, нет, я не смею и подумать об этом, но будущая жизнь — это такая загадка!  
"Oh no, no, I dare not even think of that — but the life to come, that is such a riddle!
> «И» as 'even' plus perfective infinitive: Here «и» is the emphatic particle 'even' — 'I dare not even think of it'. «Подумать» is the perfective ('to give it a thought'), where the imperfective «думать» would be habitual reflection; the perfective fits the single forbidden flicker of thought.
> «Будущая жизнь» — the life to come: «Будущая жизнь» (the future life) is the standard religious term for the afterlife, the existence beyond death. «Загадка» ('riddle, enigma') casts it not as doctrine but as the unsolved puzzle that torments her.

И никто-то, ведь никто на нее не отвечает!  
And no one, no one at all answers it!
> Emphatic «-то» and appealing «ведь»: «Никто-то» glues the emphatic clitic «-то» to the negative pronoun for an emotive 'no one at all'; «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge, 'no one, after all'. With «не отвечает» this is negative concord — the «ни»-pronoun keeps the verb negated.

Послушайте, вы целитель, вы знаток души человеческой; я, конечно, не смею претендовать на то, чтобы вы мне совершенно верили, но уверяю вас самым великим словом, что я не из легкомыслия теперь говорю, что мысль эта о будущей загробной жизни до страдания волнует меня, до ужаса и испуга…  
Listen — you are a healer, you are a knower of the human soul; I do not, of course, dare to claim that you should believe me completely, but I assure you by the most solemn word that it is not out of frivolity that I speak now, that this thought of the future life beyond the grave troubles me to the point of suffering, of terror and dread...
> «Целитель» and «знаток души»: «Целитель» is a 'healer' with sacred overtones (root цел-, 'whole / heal'), often applied to holy men who cure soul as well as body. «Знаток души человеческой» — 'a knower of the human soul' — casts the elder as spiritual diagnostician, his authority pastoral, not medical.
> «чтобы» plus past-form irrealis: «Чтобы вы… верили» uses «чтобы» with a past-tense verb to express a willed/hypothetical outcome — 'that you should believe me'. «Чтобы» fuses «что» + «бы», so the past form is obligatory; «верить» is imperfective, 'go on believing'.
> «до» + genitive of extent: «До страдания… до ужаса и испуга» uses «до» + genitive to mark the degree reached — 'to the point of suffering, of terror and dread'. The piling of genitives measures how far the agitation goes. «Волнует» is imperfective: an ongoing, present disturbance.
> «Загробный» — beyond the grave: «Загробный» is literally 'behind/beyond the coffin' (за- + гроб, 'coffin'), the adjective for what lies past death — «загробная жизнь», life beyond the grave. It sharpens «будущая жизнь» into the explicitly post-mortem realm that frightens her.

И я не знаю, к кому обратиться, я не смела всю жизнь… И вот я теперь осмеливаюсь обратиться к вам… О боже, за какую вы меня теперь сочтете!  
And I do not know to whom to turn — all my life I have not dared... And now here I am daring to turn to you... O God, what must you take me for now!"
> «к» + dative with «обратиться»: «Обратиться к кому-то» ('to turn to someone') governs «к» + dative; «к кому» is the dative interrogative. The reflexive -ся verb is intransitive — one turns oneself toward another for help.
> Reflexive «осмеливаюсь» — 'I bring myself to dare': «Осмеливаюсь» is a -ся verb, imperfective present, 'I am daring / venturing'. The reflexive marks the inward effort of working up the nerve; against her earlier «не смела» (dared not), this present-tense daring stages her breakthrough.
> Vocative «боже» and «счесть за»: «Боже» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «бог» — 'O God', the form of direct address in exclamation and prayer. «Счесть за кого» means 'to take/reckon someone for', so «за какую» asks 'what (sort of woman) will you take me for'; «сочтёте» is the perfective future.

— Она всплеснула руками.  
She clasped her hands together.
> «Всплеснуть руками» — to throw up the hands: «Всплеснуть руками» is the set gesture of sudden emotion — clasping or flinging up the hands in dismay or wonder, as one might 'throw up one's hands'. The single perfective «всплеснула» captures one abrupt theatrical motion.

— Не беспокойтесь о моем мнении, — ответил старец.  
"Do not be anxious about my opinion," the elder answered.
> Negated imperative of a -ся verb: «Не беспокойтесь» is the polite negated imperative of the reflexive «беспокоиться» ('to worry'), 'do not be anxious'. Russian prefers the imperfective for such soothing negative commands. «О моём мнении» takes the prepositional after «о», 'about my opinion'.

— Я вполне верую в искренность вашей тоски.  
"I fully believe in the sincerity of your anguish."
> «веровать в» plus genitive of possession: «Верую» is the elevated, bookish form of «верю» ('I believe'), here with «в» + accusative «искренность». «Вашей тоски» is the genitive 'of your anguish' modifying искренность — a chain of genitive dependence typical of measured prose.
> «Тоска» — the untranslatable Russian anguish: «Тоска» (here genitive «тоски») names a deep, aching spiritual longing or anguish with no single English equivalent — somewhere between yearning, melancholy, and dread. The elder credits the sincerity of precisely this restless ache for God.

— О, как я вам благодарна!  
"Oh, how grateful I am to you!
> Short adjective «благодарна» with dative: «Благодарна» is the short feminine predicate adjective, 'grateful', agreeing with the female speaker; «вам» is the dative of the one thanked — 'grateful to you'. The exclamatory «как» intensifies: 'how grateful I am!'.

Видите, я закрываю глаза и думаю: если все веруют, то откуда взялось это?  
You see, I close my eyes and think: if everyone believes, then where did this come from?
> Reflexive «взялось» — middle 'came from': «Взялось» is the neuter past of the -ся verb «взяться» ('to come from, arise'), a middle/inchoative use of «взять». With «откуда» it asks 'where did this come from?'. The neuter agrees with neuter «это». «Веруют» is again the bookish form of «верят».

А тут уверяют, что всё это взялось сначала от страха пред грозными явлениями природы и что всего этого нет.  
And then they assure us that it all arose in the first place out of fear before the menacing phenomena of nature, and that none of it exists at all.
> «от» + genitive of cause; «пред» + instrumental: «От страха» uses «от» + genitive for cause, 'out of fear'; the fear is «пред… явлениями», the archaic «пред» (for «перед») governing the instrumental 'before the menacing phenomena'. «Грозными явлениями» shows full adjective-noun agreement in the instrumental plural.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «Всего этого нет» — 'none of this exists' — puts the absent subject in the genitive «всего этого», as «нет» obligatorily demands. The existential negation drains being from the whole religious world she fears losing.

Ну что, думаю, я всю жизнь верила — умру, и вдруг ничего нет, и только «вырастет лопух на могиле», как прочитала я у одного писателя.  
Well then, I think, I have believed all my life — I shall die, and suddenly there is nothing, and only 'a burdock will grow on my grave,' as I read it in a certain writer.
> Imperfective past against perfective future: «Верила» is imperfective past — lifelong, habitual believing — set against «умру», the perfective future ('I shall die [once, completed]'). The aspect switch dramatizes a whole life of faith collapsing into a single terminal event and then «ничего нет», nothing.
> Colloquial framing «ну… думаю»: «Ну что» ('well now') and the inserted «думаю» ('I think', 'says I') are conversational fillers staging her inner monologue aloud. They drop the register sharply from the elder's gravity to the lady's anxious chatter.

Это ужасно!  
It is terrible!

Чем, чем возвратить веру?  
By what, by what is faith to be restored?
> Instrumental «чем» plus dative-of-task infinitive: «Чем» (instrumental of «что») asks 'by what means?'. The bare perfective infinitive «возвратить» with no subject reads modally — 'is faith to be restored?', a thing to be done by some unstated agent. The repetition «чем, чем» conveys her frantic searching.

Впрочем, я верила, лишь когда была маленьким ребенком, механически, ни о чем не думая… Чем же, чем это доказать, я теперь пришла повергнуться пред вами и просить вас об этом.  
And yet I believed only when I was a little child, mechanically, thinking of nothing... By what, then, by what is this to be proved? I have come now to cast myself down before you and to ask you about it.
> Imperfective gerund «не думая»: «(Не) думая» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «думать», 'thinking (of nothing)', expressing the manner accompanying her childhood belief. «Маленьким ребёнком» is an instrumental predicate after «была»; «ни о чём… не думая» shows negative concord (the «ни»-word keeps «не»).
> Reflexive «повергнуться» — to cast oneself down: «Повергнуться» is the -ся (middle) form, 'to throw oneself down, prostrate oneself'; the reflexive marks the subject acting upon herself. With archaic «пред вами» it evokes a posture of penitent supplication before the elder.

Ведь если я упущу и теперешний случай — то мне во всю жизнь никто уж не ответит.  
For if I let slip even this present chance, then in all my life no one will ever answer me.
> Appealing «ведь» plus «и» as 'even': «Ведь» opens with an appeal to shared sense, 'after all'; «и теперешний случай» uses «и» = 'even (this present chance)'. «Упущу» is the perfective future of «упустить» ('let slip'), one missed opportunity seen whole.
> Negative concord with «никто… не»: «Никто… не ответит» pairs the negative pronoun with the obligatory «не» on the verb — 'no one will (ever) answer'. The added «уж» ('any longer / at all') deepens the finality. «Мне» is the dative of the person answered.

Чем же доказать, чем убедиться?  
By what, then, is it to be proved, by what is one to be convinced?
> Subjectless infinitives, active vs reflexive: Two bare infinitives carry modal force: «доказать» ('[how] is it to be proved') is active-transitive, «убедиться» the -ся form ('[how] is one to be convinced / convince oneself'), the reflexive turning the proving inward. «Чем же» repeats the instrumental 'by what, then'.

О, мне несчастие!  
Oh, wretched me!
> Dative of the experiencer, no verb: A verbless impersonal cry: «мне несчастие» — literally 'to me [is] misfortune', the person affected in the dative «мне», the state simply named. English needs 'wretched me!' or 'woe is me!'. The construction is the very pattern of Russian's experiencer-first inner life.

Я стою и кругом вижу, что всем всё равно, почти всем, никто об этом теперь не заботится, а я одна только переносить этого не могу.  
I stand and look around me and see that to everyone it is all one, to almost everyone; no one troubles about it now, and I alone cannot bear it.
> Dative impersonal «всем всё равно»: «Всем всё равно» is a set impersonal — dative «всем» ('to everyone') plus invariable «всё равно» ('it is all one / makes no difference'). There is no nominative subject; the indifferent are the dative experiencers. The afterthought «почти всем» narrows it: 'to almost everyone'.
> Contrastive «а» and genitive of negation: «А» pivots to her against the indifferent crowd; «я одна только» isolates her, 'I alone'. «Этого… не могу [переносить]» shows the negated object slipping into the genitive «этого» — the genitive of negation operating across the modal «не могу».

Это убийственно, убийственно!  
It is killing, killing!"
> «Убийственно» — 'killing', deadly: «Убийственно» is the adverb/predicate from «убить» ('to kill') — literally 'murderously, in a killing way'. Used of a feeling it means unbearable, crushing. The doubling «убийственно, убийственно» mimics her hysterical escalation.

— Без сомнения, убийственно. Но доказать тут нельзя ничего, убедиться же возможно.  
"Without doubt, it is killing. But here nothing can be proved, though one can be convinced."
> Impersonal «нельзя/возможно» plus contrastive «же»: «Нельзя» and «возможно» are impersonal predicatives taking bare infinitives — 'one cannot prove… it is possible to be convinced'. «Ничего» is the genitive «ни»-object under negation. The «же» on «убедиться же» marks the antithesis, 'but to be convinced, that is possible' — the elder's pivotal distinction.

— Как? Чем?  
"How? By what?"
> Bare interrogatives 'how? by what?': Two stripped-down questions: adverbial «как» ('how') and instrumental «чем» ('by what means'). Russian can leave the verb wholly elided, the case ending on «чем» alone signalling 'by what'. The terseness conveys her breathless urgency.

— Опытом деятельной любви.  
"By the experience of active love.
> Bare instrumental of means: «Опытом» is the instrumental of «опыт» ('experience'), standing alone as the answer to «чем?» — 'by the experience [of active love]'. The instrumental of means needs no preposition; the case itself says 'by/with'. «Деятельной любви» is the genitive 'of active love'.

Постарайтесь любить ваших ближних деятельно и неустанно.  
Strive to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly.
> Polite imperative «постарайтесь» + infinitive: «Постарайтесь» is the perfective polite imperative of the -ся verb «постараться» ('to try, make an effort'), governing the imperfective infinitive «любить» — try to go on loving. «Ваших ближних» is animate accusative plural (= genitive form), 'your neighbours'.
> «Ближний» — the neighbour of Scripture: «Ближний» (literally 'the near one') is the New Testament 'neighbour' of the commandment 'love thy neighbour' (возлюби ближнего твоего). A substantivized adjective, it carries the full Gospel weight the elder intends.

По мере того как будете преуспевать в любви, будете убеждаться и в бытии бога, и в бессмертии души вашей.  
In the measure that you advance in love, you will become convinced both of the existence of God and of the immortality of your soul.
> Compound future twice; correlative «по мере того как»: «Будете преуспевать» and «будете убеждаться» are imperfective compound futures (быть + infinitive), naming gradual, ongoing processes — 'you will [keep] advancing… will [keep] becoming convinced'. The correlative «по мере того как» ('in the measure that') ties the two growths together.
> Prepositional «в бытии… в бессмертии»: «Убеждаться в чём-то» governs «в» + prepositional: «в бытии», «в бессмертии». «Бытие» ('being, existence') and «бессмертие» ('immortality') are bookish neuter -ие nouns; «души вашей», genitive 'of your soul', with the inverted possessive lending solemnity.

Если же дойдете до полного самоотвержения в любви к ближнему, тогда уж несомненно уверуете, и никакое сомнение даже и не возможет зайти в вашу душу.  
And if you reach the point of complete self-renunciation in love for your neighbor, then you will undoubtedly believe, and no doubt will even be able to enter into your soul.
> Real conditional with perfective future: «Если… дойдёте» is an open conditional ('if you reach'), the perfective future «дойдёте» (от «дойти») marking attainment of a point. «До полного самоотвержения» is «до» + genitive, the goal reached. «Же» softly links to the preceding promise.
> Negative concord and archaic «возможет»: «Никакое сомнение… не возможет» keeps the verb negated beside the «ни»-determiner «никакое» — 'no doubt will be able to'. «Возможет» is an archaic/elevated perfective future of «возмочь», loftier than «сможет»; «даже и» piles on emphasis, 'will not even be able'.
> «Самоотвержение» — self-renunciation: «Самоотвержение» (сам + отвергнуть, 'to reject oneself') is the spiritual ideal of complete self-denial, the giving-over of self in love. A bookish -ие compound, it names the summit of the elder's path toward faith.

Это испытано, это точно.  
This has been tested; this is certain."
> Short passive participle «испытано»: «Испытано» is the short neuter past passive participle of «испытать» ('to test, prove'), agreeing with «это»: 'this has been tested'. The implied «быть» makes it a result-stating passive. «Точно» here is the predicate 'it is certain / exact'.

— Деятельной любви? Вот и опять вопрос, и такой вопрос, такой вопрос!  
"Active love? There again is the question — and such a question, such a question!
> Echoing genitive and presentative «вот»: She echoes the elder's «деятельной любви» in the genitive, picking up his phrase as if turning it over. «Вот и опять вопрос» uses presentative «вот» ('there/here is') — 'there's the question again'; the doubled «такой вопрос» conveys her agitation.

Видите, я так люблю человечество, что, верите ли, мечтаю иногда бросить всё, всё, что имею, оставить Lise и идти в сестры милосердия.  
You see, I love humanity so much that — would you believe it — I sometimes dream of giving up everything, everything I have, of leaving Lise and going off to become a sister of mercy.
> «так… что» result clause: «Так люблю… что мечтаю» is a degree-result construction, 'I love humanity so much that I dream'. «Мечтаю» (imperfective) frames the dreaming as habitual fantasy — the very abstraction the elder will gently puncture.
> Interrogative particle «ли» — 'would you believe': «Верите ли» fronts the verb and adds the enclitic «ли» to make a yes/no question, here rhetorical and parenthetical — 'would you believe it?'. The «ли» question is more literary and emphatic than mere rising intonation.

Я закрываю глаза, думаю и мечтаю, и в эти минуты я чувствую в себе непреодолимую силу.  
I close my eyes, I think and dream, and in those minutes I feel within myself an irresistible strength.
> Reflexive «в себе» plus accusative object: «В себе» ('within myself') is the prepositional reflexive «себя», pointing back to the subject «я». «Непреодолимую силу» is the accusative direct object of «чувствую», with full adjective agreement — 'an irresistible strength'.

Никакие раны, никакие гнойные язвы не могли бы меня испугать.  
No wounds, no festering sores could frighten me.
> Conditional «бы» plus negative concord: «Не могли бы… испугать» is the conditional/subjunctive — past-form verb + «бы», 'could not frighten'. The doubled «никакие» keeps the verb negated (negative concord). The whole is irrealis: in her imagined heroism, no horror could frighten her.
> «Гнойные язвы» — festering sores: «Язва» is an ulcer or open sore (also, figuratively, a plague); «гнойный» means 'purulent, suppurating' (from «гной», pus). The graphic phrase makes her romantic fantasy of nursing concrete and repellent — the test the elder is about to name.

Я бы перевязывала и обмывала собственными руками, я была бы сиделкой у этих страдальцев, я готова целовать эти язвы…  
I would bind and bathe them with my own hands, I would be a nurse to these sufferers, I am ready to kiss those very sores..."
> Conditional «бы» of imagined action: «Бы перевязывала… обмывала» and «была бы сиделкой» are conditionals (past form + «бы»), 'I would bandage and bathe… I would be a nurse'. The imperfectives picture sustained, repeated devotion; «сиделкой» is an instrumental predicate after «была бы», framing the assumed role.
> Instrumental of means «собственными руками»: «Собственными руками» — 'with my own hands' — is a bare instrumental of means/instrument, the case naming the bodily tool of the action. «Собственными» ('one's own') intensifies the hands-on self-sacrifice she imagines.
> «Сиделка» and «страдалец»: «Сиделка» is a sick-nurse, one who 'sits with' (сидеть) the ailing. «Страдалец» (genitive plural «страдальцев») is a 'sufferer' with a faintly sentimental, hagiographic ring — the patient as long-suffering martyr. Both feed her romanticized vision of charity.

— И то уж много и хорошо, что ум ваш мечтает об этом, а не о чем ином.  
"It is already much, and good, that your mind dreams of this and not of something else.
> Impersonal evaluative plus «что»-clause: «То… много и хорошо, что…» is an impersonal evaluation — '[it is] already much and good that…', with «много/хорошо» as invariable predicatives and a «что»-clause as the real subject. «Уж» adds 'already'; «ум ваш» inverts the possessive for a measured, faintly formal cadence.

Нет-нет да невзначай и в самом деле сделаете какое-нибудь доброе дело.  
Now and then, quite by chance, you will in fact do some good deed."
> Indefinite «какое-нибудь» and perfective future: «Какое-нибудь» uses the clitic «-нибудь» for a non-specific 'some… or other', any good deed at all — contrast «-то», which would mark a particular one. «Сделаете» is the perfective future, 'you will [actually] do'; the elder gently promises a real, if accidental, deed.
> Idiom «нет-нет да (и)» — every now and then: «Нет-нет да (и)» is a fixed colloquial idiom meaning 'every now and then, despite everything', describing something that happens occasionally and unexpectedly. With «невзначай» ('inadvertently, by chance') it gives the elder's reassurance a wry, folksy warmth.

— Да, но долго ли бы я могла выжить в такой жизни? — горячо и почти как бы исступленно продолжала дама.  
"Yes, but how long could I survive in such a life?" the lady continued, ardently and almost as though in a frenzy.
> «ли» plus «бы» — hypothetical question: This rare pairing stacks the interrogative «ли» onto a conditional: «долго ли бы я могла выжить» — 'how long could I [hypothetically] survive?'. «Ли» follows the focused «долго»; «бы» + past «могла» supplies the irrealis. Together they pose a doubtful, self-questioning 'would I be able?'.
> Adverbs of manner with hedging «как бы»: «Горячо… исступлённо» are manner adverbs ('ardently, frenziedly') modifying «продолжала». «Как бы» ('as if, sort of') hedges the second — 'almost as though in a frenzy' — the narrator softening his own characterization.
> «Исступлённо» — in a frenzy: «Исступление» is a state of frenzy, rapture, or being beside oneself; the adverb «исступлённо» means 'frantically, ecstatically'. A favourite Dostoevskian word, it marks the overheated, near-hysterical pitch of the lady's self-dramatizing emotion.

— Вот главнейший вопрос! Это самый мой мучительный из вопросов.  
"There is the chief question! It is the most tormenting of my questions.
> Superlative «самый» plus partitive «из»: «Самый мучительный» forms the superlative with «самый» ('the most tormenting'), which declines with the adjective. «Из вопросов» is «из» + genitive plural, the partitive 'of [my] questions' — 'the most tormenting of my questions'.

Я закрываю глаза и спрашиваю сама себя: долго ли бы ты выдержала на этом пути?  
I close my eyes and ask myself: how long would you hold out on this path?
> Intensive «сама себя» and the «ли… бы» self-question: «Сама себя» joins the intensifier «сама» ('myself, in person') to the reflexive object «себя» — she questions her very self. The quoted question «долго ли бы ты выдержала» again uses «ли» + «бы» for a hypothetical, now addressed to «ты», her inner self.

И если больной, язвы которого ты обмываешь, не ответит тебе тотчас же благодарностью, а, напротив, станет тебя же мучить капризами, не ценя и не замечая твоего человеколюбивого служения, станет кричать на тебя, грубо требовать, даже жаловаться какому-нибудь начальству (как и часто случается с очень страдающими) — что тогда?  
And if the sick man, whose sores you are bathing, does not answer you at once with gratitude, but, on the contrary, begins to torment you with his whims, neither valuing nor noticing your charitable service, begins to shout at you, to demand rudely, even to complain to some authority (as so often happens with those who suffer greatly) — what then?
> Relative «которого» — genitive of possession: «Язвы которого» — 'whose sores' — puts the relative «который» in the genitive to show possession within its clause, while agreeing in masculine singular with «больной». The case is set by its own role (of-whom), not by the antecedent.
> Imperfective gerunds plus genitive of negation: «Не ценя… не замечая» are imperfective present gerunds (деепричастия), 'neither valuing nor noticing', expressing attendant circumstance. Under negation the object slides into the genitive «твоего… служения» — the genitive of negation governed by the negated gerunds.
> Inchoative «станет» plus chained infinitives: «Станет… мучить… требовать… жаловаться» uses «стать» as a perfective-future inchoative, 'will begin to', governing a string of imperfective infinitives. «Тебя же» fronts the object with insistent «же» ('you of all people'); «капризами» is the instrumental of means, tormenting 'with whims'.

Продолжится твоя любовь или нет?  
Will your love endure or not?
> Reflexive «продолжится» — middle 'will endure': «Продолжится» is the perfective future of the -ся verb «продолжиться» ('to continue, go on'), intransitive/middle — love as the thing that does or does not endure, with no external agent. «Или нет» tags the alternative: 'or not?'.

И вот — представьте, я с содроганием это уже решила: если есть что-нибудь, что могло бы расхолодить мою «деятельную» любовь к человечеству тотчас же, то это единственно неблагодарность.  
And so — imagine — I have already decided this, with a shudder: if there is anything at all that could chill my 'active' love for humanity on the spot, it is, solely, ingratitude.
> Indefinite «что-нибудь» and conditional «бы»: «Что-нибудь» is the non-specific 'anything at all'; the following relative «что… могло бы расхолодить» uses «бы» for a hypothetical capacity, 'that could chill'. The scare-quotes on «деятельную» turn the elder's own term back ironically on herself.
> Instrumental of manner «с содроганием»: «С содроганием» — 'with a shudder' — is «с» + instrumental, the standard way to express manner/accompaniment. «Решила» is the perfective past: she has, once and for all, decided. «Содрогание» (a shuddering) names the bodily recoil accompanying her self-knowledge.
> «Расхолодить» — to cool, dampen: «Расхолодить» (раз- + холод, 'cold') means to cool someone's ardour, to dishearten or put off. The thermal metaphor — passion cooled to indifference — captures exactly how ingratitude would quench her self-warming 'love'.

Одним словом, я работница за плату, я требую тотчас же платы, то есть похвалы себе и платы за любовь любовью.  
In a word, I am a hireling working for wages; I demand my wages at once — that is, praise for myself and love repaid for love.
> Instrumental of exchange «любовью»: «Платы за любовь любовью» — 'payment for love with love' — ends on the bare instrumental «любовью», the means of repayment. «За плату / за любовь» use «за» + accusative for 'in exchange for'. The chiasmus (love for love) sharpens her mercenary self-accusation.
> «Работница за плату» — a hireling: «Работница» is a (female) labourer/worker; «за плату» means 'for pay, for wages'. She brands herself a hireling — echoing the Gospel hireling who, unlike the good shepherd, serves only for wages — a stinging act of self-exposure.

Иначе я никого не способна любить!  
Otherwise I am capable of loving no one!"
> Negative concord with «никого»: «Никого… не способна любить» keeps «не» on the predicate beside the negative pronoun «никого» (animate genitive/accusative of «никто») — 'capable of loving no one'. «Способна» is the short feminine adjective 'capable'; «иначе» means 'otherwise'.

Она была в припадке самого искреннего самобичевания и, кончив, с вызывающею решимостью поглядела на старца.  
She was in a fit of the most sincere self-flagellation, and, having finished, she looked at the elder with a defiant resolve.
> Perfective gerund «кончив» and -ою instrumental: «Кончив» is the perfective past gerund, 'having finished', marking prior completed action before the main verb «поглядела». «С вызывающею решимостью» shows the older bookish instrumental ending -ою (for -ой), 'with a defiant resolve' — a period flavour.
> «Самобичевание» — self-flagellation: «Самобичевание» (сам + бичевать, 'to scourge') literally means self-scourging, and figuratively the theatrical self-reproach she is performing. «Припадок» is a 'fit, attack'; the narrator's dry phrasing exposes her penance as half-genuine, half-display.

— Это точь-в-точь как рассказывал мне, давно уже впрочем, один доктор, — заметил старец.  
"That is precisely what a certain doctor once told me, a long while ago now," the elder remarked.
> Imperfective «рассказывал» of a recalled telling: «Рассказывал» is imperfective past, here recalling the general fact of a past telling rather than a single completed report. «Мне» is the dative recipient; «один доктор» uses «один» as the indefinite article 'a certain doctor'. «Впрочем» softens with 'though, by the way'.
> «Точь-в-точь» — exactly, to a T: «Точь-в-точь» is an emphatic colloquial reduplication meaning 'exactly, precisely the same'. The elder uses it to align the lady's confession with the doctor's — a small folksy touch that levels his speech to hers before the parable that follows.

— Человек был уже пожилой и бесспорно умный.  
"He was already an elderly man and indisputably intelligent.
> Long-form predicate adjectives after «был»: «Пожилой… умный» are long-form adjectives in the nominative, used predicatively after «был» — common in describing a lasting characterization ('he was an elderly and… intelligent man'). The adverb «бесспорно» ('indisputably') vouches for the trait.

Он говорил так же откровенно, как вы, хотя и шутя, но скорбно шутя; я, говорит, люблю человечество, но дивлюсь на себя самого: чем больше я люблю человечество вообще, тем меньше я люблю людей в частности, то есть порознь, как отдельных лиц.  
He spoke just as frankly as you, though in jest — yet a mournful jest: I, he said, love humanity, but I marvel at myself; the more I love humanity in general, the less I love people in particular — that is, separately, as distinct individuals.
> Imperfective gerund «шутя»: «Шутя» is the imperfective present gerund of «шутить» ('joking'), an adverbial 'in jest' attending «говорил». «Хотя и… но» frames a concession, 'though… yet'; «скорбно шутя» — 'jesting mournfully' — is the oxymoron at the heart of the doctor's confession.
> Correlative comparatives «чем больше… тем меньше»: «Чем… тем» plus comparatives sets up a proportional correlation — 'the more… the less'. «Больше» and «меньше» are the invariable predicative comparatives of «много / мало». The construction crystallizes the doctor's (and the lady's) paradox of abstract love.
> Reflexive verb plus emphatic «себя самого»: «Дивлюсь» is the -ся verb «дивиться» ('to marvel, wonder'); «на себя самого» joins the reflexive object «себя» with the intensifier «самого» — 'I marvel at my very self'. The reflexive verb and reflexive object together turn his astonishment fully inward.

В мечтах я нередко, говорит, доходил до страстных помыслов о служении человечеству и, может быть, действительно пошел бы на крест за людей, если б это вдруг как-нибудь потребовалось, а между тем я двух дней не в состоянии прожить ни с кем в одной комнате, о чем знаю из опыта.  
In my dreams, he said, I often went so far as passionate visions of serving humanity, and perhaps I really would have gone to the cross for people, had it suddenly been required somehow — and yet I am incapable of living two days in the same room with anyone, as I know from experience.
> Full conditional: «если б» plus «бы»: A textbook irrealis pair: main clause «пошёл бы» (would have gone) and protasis «если б… потребовалось» (had it been required). «Если б» is the clipped «если бы»; «потребовалось» is a reflexive impersonal, 'it were demanded'. «Как-нибудь» adds vague 'somehow'.
> Genitive «двух дней» and negative concord «ни с кем»: «два дня» has the genitive singular «дня» after «два»; here the whole numeral phrase is itself put in the genitive (of negation, 'not [even] two days'), so the noun appears as the genitive plural «дней». «Ни с кем» keeps the verb negated via «не в состоянии» — 'with no one'; the preposition «с» splits the negative pronoun («ни с кем»), a distinctive Russian pattern.

Чуть он близко от меня, и вот уж его личность давит мое самолюбие и стесняет мою свободу.  
The moment he is close to me, his personality already crushes my self-esteem and cramps my freedom.
> Verbless «чуть… и вот» — 'the moment… already': «Чуть… и вот уж» is a vivid colloquial frame: «чуть» ('the moment, as soon as') sets a verbless condition, «и вот уж» ('and already') springs the consequence. «От меня» is «от» + genitive, 'from me'. The clipped, copula-less syntax mimics instant recoil.
> «Самолюбие» — self-love, amour-propre: «Самолюбие» (сам + любить) is 'self-regard, pride, vanity' — the touchy ego, French amour-propre. «Давит» ('crushes, presses') and «стесняет» ('cramps, constrains') are vivid present-tense imperfectives; the other's mere nearness oppresses his pride and freedom — the deflating last word of the parable.

В одни сутки я могу даже лучшего человека возненавидеть: одного за то, что он долго ест за обедом, другого за то, что у него насморк и он беспрерывно сморкается.  
In the span of a single day I can come to detest even the finest of men: one because he is slow over his dinner, another because he has a head cold and is forever blowing his nose.
> «сутки» — the 24-hour day: «сутки» is a plurale tantum: it exists only in the plural and names a full day-and-night, a 24-hour period, with no singular form. Here «в одни сутки» («in a single day-and-night») uses the numeral «одни», the plural of «один», precisely because the noun has no singular.
> «за то, что» — cause clause: «за то, что» («for the fact that, because») uses the demonstrative «то» as a placeholder governed by the preposition «за», then unpacked by a «что»-clause. It is a bookish, explicit way of giving the ground of an emotion, and the parallel «одного… другого…» («one man… another…») balances the two pretexts.
> «у него» — possession without 'have': Russian states possession with «у» + genitive and a bare nominative for the thing possessed: «у него насморк» literally 'by him [there is] a head-cold'. There is no verb 'to have'; the possessor sits in the genitive after «у».
> Inceptive «воз-» perfective: «возненавидеть» is the perfective of «ненавидеть» (to hate), the prefix «воз-» here marking the entry into the state — 'to come to hate, conceive a hatred'. With the modal «могу» it frames a single completed possibility ('I can come to detest'), not an ongoing one.

Я, говорит, становлюсь врагом людей, чуть-чуть лишь те ко мне прикоснутся.  
I become, he says, an enemy of people the moment they so much as brush against me.
> «говорит» — reported-speech marker: Dropped into the middle of a quotation, «говорит» ('says he/she') is a parenthetical evidential that signals the words are being relayed at second hand — the elder quoting a male doctor's confession (the masculine «ненавидел» in the next segment confirms the speaker is the doctor), not the lady quoting words said to her. It is colloquial and very frequent in Dostoevsky's reported speech.
> «становлюсь врагом» — predicate instrumental: «становиться» ('to become') takes its predicate noun in the instrumental, hence «врагом» rather than nominative «враг». The instrumental frames the role as one assumed or moved into, the natural complement of a verb of becoming.
> «прикоснутся» — perfective future as 'the moment…': The perfective «прикоснутся» (from «прикоснуться», to touch lightly) is conjugated like a present but means future/conditional time: 'the moment they so much as brush against me'. The reduplicated «чуть-чуть» ('ever so slightly') plus the particle «лишь» ('only, merely') stresses how slight the trigger is.

Зато всегда так происходило, что чем более я ненавидел людей в частности, тем пламеннее становилась любовь моя к человечеству вообще.  
Yet it has always turned out that the more I hated people in particular, the more ardent grew my love for mankind in general.
> «чем… тем…» — correlative comparatives: The «чем более… тем пламеннее…» frame ('the more… the more…') pairs two comparatives in a proportional correlation. «более» is the analytic comparative ('more') and «пламеннее» the synthetic comparative of «пламенный» ('ardent') in -ее; both are predicative and invariable.
> Inverted, postposed possessive: The natural order would be «моя любовь становилась…»; placing «любовь» before the verb and «моя» after it («становилась любовь моя») is rhetorical inversion that throws weight onto 'love' and lends the sentence an elevated, almost scriptural cadence.
> «зато» — compensating 'but on the other hand': «зато» (one word, 'but to make up for it, on the other hand') opens the sentence with a contrastive that offsets the preceding admission: the misanthropy is balanced by a swelling love of mankind. Distinguish it from «за то» (two words, 'for that') seen in s121.

— Но что же делать? Что же в таком случае делать? Тут надо в отчаяние прийти?  
"But what is one to do? What is one to do in such a case? Must one fall into despair over it?"
> «же» — the insistent particle: The modal particle «же» here intensifies the helpless question: «что же делать?» is 'but what on earth is one to do?', the «же» carrying the exasperation English would mark only by stress. It leans on the preceding «что».
> «надо» — impersonal necessity: «надо» + infinitive is a subjectless construction of necessity; there is no nominative subject, the doer is left general ('must one…'). This experiencer-light impersonal framing, so common in Dostoevsky, lets the question hang over no one in particular.
> «прийти в отчаяние» — to fall into despair: A fixed idiom: «прийти в» + accusative of an emotion means 'to come into / fall into' a state — «прийти в отчаяние» (despair), «прийти в ярость» (rage). The motion verb «прийти» is bleached of literal movement here.

— Нет, ибо и того довольно, что вы о сем сокрушаетесь.  
"No, for it is enough that you grieve over it.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for': «ибо» ('for, because') is an archaic, elevated causal conjunction, the mark of Scripture, sermon, and high prose. The elder uses it repeatedly in this passage; a plain speaker would say «потому что». Its recurrence stamps his speech as that of a churchman.
> «сем» and «сокрушаться» — archaic register: «о сем» is the prepositional of the archaic demonstrative «сей» ('this'), in place of modern «об этом»; «сокрушаться» ('to grieve, be contrite over') is bookish and devotional. Together they pitch the elder's reassurance in a deliberately old, churchly key.
> «довольно» + genitive correlative: «того довольно, что…» — 'it is enough that…', where «довольно» ('enough, sufficient') governs the genitive demonstrative «того», which is then spelled out by the «что»-clause. The reflexive «-ся» on «сокрушаетесь» makes the verb intransitive, the grief turned inward.

Сделайте, что можете, и сочтется вам.  
Do what you can, and it will be reckoned to you.
> «сделайте» — polite imperative: «сделайте» is the perfective imperative of «сделать» with the polite/plural ending «-те». The perfective fits the single decisive deed ('do [and accomplish] what you can'), against an imperfective «делайте» which would mean keep on doing.
> «сочтётся» — reflexive-passive with dative: «сочтётся» is the «-ся» middle/passive of «счесть» ('to reckon, count'): 'it will be reckoned'. The beneficiary stands in the dative «вам» ('to you'), and there is no expressed subject — an impersonal, biblical 'it shall be counted unto you'.

У вас же много уже сделано, ибо вы могли столь глубоко и искренно сознать себя сами!  
Much has already been done by you, for you have been able to know yourself so deeply and so sincerely!
> «сделано» — short passive participle, agentless: «сделано» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle of «сделать»: 'much has been done'. The neuter short form states a result with no auxiliary, and «у вас» ('by you / on your part') supplies the doer obliquely rather than as an instrumental agent.
> «себя… сами» — reflexive object and intensifier: «сознать себя» is 'to know/recognize oneself', with the objective reflexive pronoun «себя» (which has no nominative). «сами» is the emphatic «сам» ('yourselves'), reinforcing that the self-knowledge was the lady's own act. «столь» ('so') and «искренно» are the bookish variants of «так» and «искренне».

Если же вы и со мной теперь говорили столь искренно для того, чтобы, как теперь от меня, лишь похвалу получить за вашу правдивость, то, конечно, ни до чего не дойдете в подвигах деятельной любви; так всё и останется лишь в мечтах ваших, и вся жизнь мелькнет как призрак.  
But if you have spoken so sincerely with me even now only in order, as just now from me, to win some praise for your truthfulness, then of course you will achieve nothing in the deeds of active love; everything will simply remain confined to your daydreams, and your whole life will flit past like a phantom.
> «для того, чтобы» — purpose clause: «для того, чтобы» + infinitive ('in order to') states purpose; «чтобы» already contains the irrealis particle «бы», which is why purpose clauses pair with the infinitive or a past-form verb. Here it frames the suspect motive: to speak only so as to win praise.
> «ни до чего не» — negative concord: «ни до чего не дойдёте» stacks the intensifier «ни» on the genitive «чего» (after «до») with the verbal «не»: 'you will reach nothing at all'. Russian requires this double negative — the «ни»-word and «не» together carry one negation.
> «так… и» — 'just so it will remain': The «так… и» frame ('and so it will simply…') marks an outcome that stays exactly as it was; «и» here is not 'and' but an emphatic particle reinforcing «так». «мелькнёт как призрак» uses the perfective future of «мелькнуть» (to flash by) for the single, fleeting whole of a life.

Тут, понятно, и о будущей жизни забудете, и сами собой под конец как-нибудь успокоитесь.  
Then, naturally, you will forget the life to come as well, and in the end you will somehow lull yourself into calm of your own accord."
> «будущая жизнь» — the life to come: «будущая жизнь» ('the future life') is the standard Orthodox term for the afterlife, the life of the soul after death. The elder's warning is that a life lived for applause forgets eternity itself.
> «сами собой» — 'of one's own accord': «сам собой» (here plural «сами собой», instrumental of the intensifier + reflexive) is an idiom meaning 'by oneself, of its own accord, automatically'. The «-ся» verb «успокоитесь» ('you will settle into calm') is the reflexive future; together they suggest a drifting, effortless self-pacification.
> «как-нибудь» — 'somehow, anyhow': Formed with the indefinite clitic «-нибудь», «как-нибудь» means 'in some way or other, anyhow', with a dismissive shade of carelessness. The elder uses it to imply a slack, undirected calming, not a hard-won peace.

— Вы меня раздавили! Я теперь только, вот в это мгновение, как вы говорили, поняла, что я действительно ждала только вашей похвалы моей искренности, когда вам рассказывала о том, что не выдержу неблагодарности.  
"You have crushed me! Only now, at this very instant, while you were speaking, did I understand that I really was waiting for nothing but your praise of my sincerity when I told you that I could not bear ingratitude.
> «раздавить» — to crush: «раздавить» literally is 'to crush, squash flat' (a bug underfoot); used of a person here it is wholly figurative — the lady feels morally pulverized by being seen through. The perfective past states the blow as a single accomplished thing.
> «только… поняла» — perfective of sudden insight: «поняла» (perfective past, feminine, of «понять») marks the realization as a single completed event — 'only now did I understand'. The fronted «теперь только» ('only now') and the deictic «вот в это мгновение» ('at this very instant') pin the insight to the moment of speaking.
> Genitive of negation under «не выдержу»: The negated perfective future «не выдержу» ('I shall not endure') takes its object in the genitive: «неблагодарности» rather than accusative «неблагодарность». This is the genitive of negation, especially regular with abstract nouns.

Вы мне подсказали меня, вы уловили меня и мне же объяснили меня!  
You have prompted me to myself, you have caught me out and laid me bare to my own eyes!"
> «мне» dative beside «меня» accusative: The triad pivots on case: «мне» (dative, 'to me') is the person addressed, «меня» (accusative, 'me') the thing revealed — 'you prompted me to myself… and explained me to me'. The startling repetition of «меня» as object of self-revelation is the whole rhetorical point.
> «же» reinforcing the dative: The particle «же» here leans on «мне» to underline the paradox — 'and to me, of all people, you explained me'. It adds the emphatic insistence English would carry by stress on 'me'.

— Взаправду вы говорите? Ну теперь, после такого вашего признания, я верую, что вы искренни и сердцем добры.  
"Do you mean that in earnest? Well, now, after such a confession from you, I believe that you are sincere and good at heart.
> «взаправду» — colloquial 'for real': «взаправду» ('really, in earnest, truly') is a folksy, colloquial adverb, warmer and more childlike than the neutral «действительно». Its homeliness softens the elder's probing question after the lady's distress.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «искренни» and «добры» are short (predicative) forms of «искренний» and «добрый», used only as predicates after the implied copula. The short form gives an aphoristic, assessing ring ('you are sincere and good at heart'); «сердцем» is an instrumental of respect, 'in/by the heart'.
> «верую» — the creedal 'I believe': «верую» is the archaic, solemn first-person of «веровать», the very word that opens the Creed («Верую…»). Where «верю» would be everyday 'I believe / trust', «верую» carries a confessional, religious weight fitting the elder's mouth.

Если не дойдете до счастия, то всегда помните, что вы на хорошей дороге, и постарайтесь с нее не сходить.  
If you do not attain happiness, still remember always that you are on a good road, and try not to leave it.
> «если… то…» — real conditional: A real (non-hypothetical) conditional: «если» + perfective future «не дойдёте» in the protasis, the «то» introducing an imperative apodosis «помните». No «бы» appears, so this is a factual 'if/then', not a contrary-to-fact wish. «счастия» is the archaic genitive of «счастье».
> «постарайтесь… не сходить» — imperative + imperfective infinitive: «постарайтесь» is the perfective imperative of «постараться» ('do try'); it governs the imperfective infinitive «не сходить» ('not to step off'), the imperfective being normal under a negated 'try not to' that means refrain from an ongoing action.

Главное, убегайте лжи, всякой лжи, лжи себе самой в особенности.  
Above all, flee from falsehood, every kind of falsehood, and the lie to oneself in particular.
> «убегайте» + genitive of avoidance: The imperative «убегайте» ('flee, shun') governs the genitive «лжи» (gen. of «ложь», the soft-sign feminine noun). Verbs of avoidance and fear in Russian take the genitive, not the accusative — the lie is the thing-fled-from. «всякой лжи» repeats it for emphasis.
> «лжи себе самой» — reflexive dative of the lie: «ложь себе» is 'the lie to oneself', with the indirect object «себе» (dative reflexive) and the agreeing intensifier «самой» (feminine, matching the female addressee). The whole phrase stands in the genitive «лжи» as another object of «убегайте».

Наблюдайте свою ложь и вглядывайтесь в нее каждый час, каждую минуту.  
Keep watch over your own lying, and look hard into it every hour, every minute.
> «свою» — reflexive possessive: «свою» is the reflexive possessive «свой» ('one's own'), pointing back to the clause's subject — your own lying, not someone else's. Using «вашу» would be possible but «свою» binds the lie tightly to the self under scrutiny.
> Imperfective imperatives of habit; accusative of duration: «наблюдайте» and «вглядывайтесь» are imperfective imperatives prescribing a continual, repeated practice — fitting the 'every hour, every minute' rhythm. «каждый час, каждую минуту» are accusatives expressing recurring time-spans (note feminine «минуту» vs masculine «час»).

Брезгливости убегайте тоже и к другим, и к себе: то, что вам кажется внутри себя скверным, уже одним тем, что вы это заметили в себе, очищается.  
Flee from squeamishness too, toward others and toward yourself: that which seems vile to you within yourself is already cleansed by the very fact that you have noticed it in yourself.
> «брезгливость» — fastidious disgust: «брезгливость» is squeamishness, a fastidious physical-moral revulsion at what one finds repugnant in others or oneself. Fronted to the head of the sentence as a genitive object of «убегайте», it gets full rhetorical stress — flee this above all.
> «одним тем, что» — instrumental of cause; «-ся» middle: «одним тем, что…» is an instrumental-of-means causal phrase: 'by the very fact that…'. The «-ся» verb «очищается» ('is cleansed, purifies itself') is a middle/passive — the vile thing cleanses by the mere act of being noticed.
> «кажется… скверным» — predicate instrumental with «казаться»: «казаться» ('to seem') takes its predicate in the instrumental, hence «скверным» ('vile') rather than nominative. The experiencer is dative «вам» ('to you'), giving the impersonal 'that which seems vile to you'.

Страха тоже убегайте, хотя страх есть лишь последствие всякой лжи.  
Flee from fear as well, though fear is only the consequence of every falsehood.
> Fronted genitive object «страха»: Again the verb of avoidance «убегайте» governs the genitive — «страха» (gen. of «страх», fear). Placing the object before the verb («страха… убегайте») parallels the previous commands and makes 'fear' the topic, the new instruction hanging on the familiar verb.
> «есть» — the retained copula: Russian normally drops the present copula, but bookish, definitional prose retains «есть» ('is') for a formal equation: «страх есть… последствие» ('fear is… a consequence'). It signals a sententious, almost catechetical definition.

Не пугайтесь никогда собственного вашего малодушия в достижении любви даже дурных при этом поступков ваших не пугайтесь очень.  
Never be frightened by your own faintheartedness in the attainment of love, and do not be too frightened even by your own evil deeds along the way.
> Negative imperative + negative concord + genitive: «не пугайтесь… никогда» pairs the verbal «не» with the «ни»-adverb «никогда» ('never') in obligatory negative concord. The «-ся» verb «пугаться» ('to be frightened of') governs the genitive «малодушия» ('faintheartedness'), the thing feared.
> «малодушие» — smallness of soul: «малодушие» is transparently «мало» (little) + «душа» (soul): faintheartedness, pusillanimity, a failure of spiritual courage. The calque-from-Greek formation (oligo-psychia) belongs to the moral-religious vocabulary the elder commands.

Жалею, что не могу сказать вам ничего отраднее, ибо любовь деятельная сравнительно с мечтательною есть дело жестокое и устрашающее.  
I am sorry I can tell you nothing more comforting, for active love, compared with love in dreams, is a harsh and terrifying thing.
> «ничего отраднее» — genitive of negation + comparative: Under the negated «не могу сказать» the object goes genitive: «ничего» (gen. of «ничто») governing the comparative «отраднее» ('more comforting', from «отрадный'). The whole is 'I can say [you] nothing more comforting', with negative concord between «не» and «ничего».
> Postposed adjectives and archaic «-ою» ending: The adjectives follow their nouns («любовь деятельная», 'active love') for elevated effect, and «мечтательною» shows the bookish instrumental feminine ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»). «есть» is again the retained copula of definition.
> Active love vs love-in-dreams: «деятельная любовь» ('active, working love') against «мечтательная любовь» ('dreamy, imagined love') is the thematic axis of the whole chapter and of Zosima's teaching: love proven in patient labour versus love savoured in fantasy. The pair recurs across the next segments.

Любовь мечтательная жаждет подвига скорого, быстро удовлетворимого и что бы все на него глядели.  
Love in dreams thirsts for some quick feat, swiftly accomplished and with everyone looking on.
> «жаждет» + genitive object: «жаждать» ('to thirst for, crave') governs the genitive: «подвига» ('a feat', gen. of «подвиг»), with the agreeing adjective «скорого» ('quick'). Verbs of desiring and craving regularly take the genitive of the thing longed for.
> «подвиг» — feat, spiritual exploit: «подвиг» is a heroic or self-sacrificing deed; in the religious register it also means an ascetic 'labour' or spiritual exploit (whence «подвижник», an ascetic). The lady's daydream craves the showy version, «подвиг скорый» — a quick, applauded feat.
> «чтобы… глядели» — irrealis purpose with «бы»: «что бы… глядели» (here «чтобы» spelt apart, with «бы» + past-form «глядели») expresses a wished-for purpose: 'and so that everyone would look on'. The past form after «бы» is the standard irrealis of such желательные clauses.

Тут действительно доходит до того, что даже и жизнь отдают, только бы не продлилось долго, а поскорей совершилось, как бы на сцене, и чтобы все глядели и хвалили.  
It truly goes so far that people will give up even their lives, so long as it does not drag on but is done quickly, as if on a stage, and so that everyone may watch and applaud.
> «отдают» — impersonal-plural 'they/people': «отдают» ('give up', 3rd-person plural) has no expressed subject — the generic 'people, one' rendered by a bare plural verb, a common Russian impersonal. «доходит до того, что…» is the idiom 'it goes/comes to the point that…'.
> «только бы» — 'so long as / if only': «только бы» + past-form perfectives («продлилось», «совершилось», both «-ся» middles) expresses an urgent proviso-wish: 'so long as it not drag on but be done quickly'. The «бы» marks the irrealis; «а» is the contrastive 'but rather'.
> «как бы» — 'as if': «как бы» ('as if, as it were') with «на сцене» ('on a stage') frames the theatricality the elder condemns — the deed performed for an audience. «чтобы все глядели и хвалили» again uses «чтобы» + imperfective past for the desired ongoing watching and praising.

Любовь же деятельная — это работа и выдержка, а для иных так, пожалуй, целая наука.  
Active love, on the other hand, is labor and endurance, and for some, perhaps, a whole science.
> «же» topic-shifting; dash for the dropped copula: «же» here is the contrastive 'as for / on the other hand', pivoting from dreamy love to active. The dash stands in for the absent present-tense copula in an equational sentence ('active love [is] labour and endurance'); «это» reinforces the equation.
> «иные» — 'some people'; «целая наука» — 'a whole science': Substantivized «иные» means 'some (people), certain ones'. «целая наука» ('a whole science') is idiomatic for something demanding real mastery — active love as a discipline to be learned. «пожалуй» softens it to 'perhaps, I daresay'.

Но предрекаю, что в ту даже самую минуту, когда вы будете с ужасом смотреть на то, что, несмотря на все ваши усилия, вы не только не подвинулись к цели, но даже как бы от нее удалились, — в ту самую минуту, предрекаю вам это, вы вдруг и достигнете цели и узрите ясно над собою чудодейственную силу господа, вас всё время любившего и всё время таинственно руководившего.  
But I foretell that at the very moment when you look with horror upon the fact that, for all your efforts, you have not only failed to draw nearer to the goal but seem even to have drawn away from it — at that very moment, this I foretell to you, you will suddenly reach the goal, and see clearly above you the miraculous power of the Lord, who has loved you all the while and all the while led you on in secret.
> «предрекаю», «узрите» — prophetic register: «предрекаю» ('I foretell, prophesy') and «узрите» (archaic future of «узреть», 'you shall behold') lift the passage into oracular, scriptural speech, matched by «чудодейственная сила господа» ('the miraculous power of the Lord'). The elder speaks as a prophet here.
> Compound imperfective future «будете смотреть»: «будете смотреть» is the analytic imperfective future (future of «быть» + imperfective infinitive), naming a drawn-out future act of looking. It contrasts with the perfective futures «достигнете», «узрите» later, which name the sudden completed turn.
> Past active participles modifying «господа»: «любившего» and «руководившего» are past active participles (from «любить», «руководить») in -вш-, agreeing with «господа» in the genitive — 'the Lord who had loved you and led you'. They condense two который-clauses into modifiers, a hallmark of literary syntax. «руководить» governs the instrumental, hence «вами» (here implicit / the object 'you').
> «достигнете цели» — perfective future + genitive object: «достигнуть/достичь» ('to attain, reach') governs the genitive: «цели» ('the goal', gen. of «цель»). The perfective future «достигнете» names the single completed arrival, set against the long imperfective striving just described.

Простите, что пробыть не могу с вами долее, ждут меня. До свидания.  
Forgive me that I cannot stay longer with you; I am awaited. Until we meet again."
> «долее» — archaic comparative; «пробыть» perfective: «долее» is the bookish comparative of «долго» ('long'), the everyday form being «дольше». «пробыть» ('to stay, spend [time]') is perfective, viewing the whole intended stay as a single bounded thing he cannot complete.
> «ждут меня» — impersonal plural: «ждут» ('[they] are waiting'), bare 3rd-plural with no subject, is the generic-impersonal 'I am awaited / they are expecting me'. «меня» is the accusative object. The terse, subjectless form fits the elder's hurried farewell.
> Formulas of leave-taking: «простите» ('forgive [me]', polite imperative) is the conventional apology for departing; «до свидания» literally 'until [our next] meeting' is the standard goodbye, its genitive «свидания» governed by «до».

Дама плакала.  
The lady was weeping.
> Imperfective past «плакала» — ongoing state: «плакала» is the imperfective past of «плакать» (to weep), feminine -ла, presenting the weeping as an ongoing background condition rather than a single act — 'the lady was weeping'. Aspect alone, with no auxiliary, carries the 'was -ing' sense.

— Lise, Lise, благословите же ее, благословите! вдруг вспорхнулась она вся.  
"Lise, Lise, bless her, do bless her!" she suddenly fluttered up with her whole being.
> «благословите же» — imperative urged by «же»: «благословите» is the polite imperative of «благословить» ('to bless'), and the particle «же» turns the command into an urgent plea — 'do bless her!'. The repetition heightens the entreaty.
> «вспорхнуться» — to flutter up: «вспорхнуть(ся)» is properly of a bird startling into flight; applied to the mother ('she fluttered up with her whole being') it is a vivid, slightly comic metaphor of agitation. «вся» ('all of her, her whole self') intensifies the bodily flutter.

— А ее и любить не стоит. Я видел, как она всё время шалила, — шутливо произнес старец.  
"She isn't worth loving. I saw how she was playing the fool the whole time," the elder said playfully.
> «не стоит» + infinitive; emphatic «и»: «не стоит» + infinitive is the impersonal 'it isn't worth (doing)'; «ее любить не стоит» = 'she isn't worth loving'. The particle «и» before «любить» is emphatic ('not even worth loving'), and «а» opens the line with a teasing contrastive.
> Imperfective «шалила» — sustained mischief: «шалить» (to be naughty, play pranks) in the imperfective past «шалила» depicts continuous, repeated misbehaviour across «всё время» ('the whole time'). «шутливо произнёс» ('said playfully') colours the elder's reproach as gentle teasing.

— Вы зачем всё время смеялись над Алексеем?  
"Why have you been laughing at Alexei all this while?"
> «смеяться над» + instrumental: «смеяться над» ('to laugh at, mock') governs the instrumental — «над Алексеем». The «-ся» verb is one that exists only reflexively, and «над» fixes the instrumental case. Fronting «зачем» ('why, what for') after «вы» is the colloquial reproachful word order.

A Lise и вправду всё время занималась этою проделкой.  
And Lise had indeed been busy the whole time with this prank.
> «проделка» — a prank, «и вправду» — 'indeed': «проделка» is a trick, prank, escapade. «заниматься» ('to be occupied with') governs the instrumental «этою проделкой» (note the archaic feminine ending «-ою»). «и вправду» confirms the narrator's aside — 'and indeed she really had been at this prank'.
> «заниматься» + instrumental: «заниматься/заняться» ('to busy oneself with, engage in') takes its complement in the instrumental: «проделкой». The «-ся» verb plus instrumental object is a fixed government pattern, here imperfective past for the sustained 'had been busy the whole time'.

Она давно уже, еще с прошлого раза, заметила, что Алеша ее конфузится и старается не смотреть на нее, и вот это ее ужасно стало забавлять.  
She had noticed long ago, ever since the last visit, that Alyosha grew bashful before her and tried not to look at her, and this had begun to amuse her terribly.
> Pluperfect sense from perfective past «заметила»: Russian has no separate pluperfect; the perfective past «заметила» ('had noticed'), with «давно уже» ('long ago already') and «еще с прошлого раза» ('ever since last time'), conveys prior completed time relative to the main narrative — English's 'had noticed'.
> «конфузиться» + genitive object: «конфузиться» ('to be embarrassed, shy of') is a «-ся» verb governing the genitive of the person before whom one is abashed: «её» (gen.) — 'Alyosha grew bashful of her'. The reflexive form turns the embarrassment inward.
> «Алёша» — the diminutive of Alexei: «Алёша» is the affectionate diminutive of Алексей (Alexei), the form by which the narrator and intimates name the youngest Karamazov. Its warmth contrasts with the formal «Алексей» the lady used, and signals the narrator's tenderness toward him.
> «стало забавлять» — inceptive «стать» + infinitive: «стать» + imperfective infinitive («забавлять», to amuse) means 'to begin to…': «стало забавлять» = 'began to amuse'. «её» is the accusative object ('to amuse her'); «это» the nominative subject. The phrasal past «ужасно стало забавлять» reads 'began terribly to amuse her'.

Она пристально ждала и ловила его взгляд: не выдерживая упорно направленного на него взгляда, Алеша нет-нет и вдруг невольно, непреодолимою силой, взглядывал на нее сам, и тотчас же она усмехалась торжествующею улыбкой прямо ему в глаза.  
She watched intently and waited to catch his glance: unable to withstand her stare fixed stubbornly upon him, Alyosha, again and again, would suddenly and against his will, drawn by some irresistible force, glance at her himself, and at once she would smile straight into his eyes with a triumphant grin.
> Imperfective gerund «не выдерживая»: «не выдерживая» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «выдерживать»: 'not being able to withstand', an attendant circumstance sharing Alyosha's subject. It governs the genitive «взгляда» (gen. of negation under the negated verb of enduring).
> Past passive participle «направленного»: «направленного» is the past passive participle of «направить» ('to direct, fix'), declined in the genitive to agree with «взгляда» — 'a gaze fixed [upon him]'. The participial phrase «упорно направленного на него» packs a whole relative clause into a modifier.
> «нет-нет (да) и» — 'every now and then': «нет-нет и» (often «нет-нет да и») is an idiom meaning 'every so often, now and again' an action breaks through despite resistance. Here it captures Alyosha helplessly stealing glances 'again and again' against his will («невольно»).
> «усмехаться» + instrumental of manner: «усмехаться» ('to smirk, grin') is a «-ся» verb, and «торжествующею улыбкой» is an instrumental of manner ('with a triumphant smile') — the means by which she smiled. «торжествующею» is a present active participle ('triumphing') in the bookish «-ою» instrumental.

Алеша конфузился и досадовал еще более.  
Alyosha grew more bashful and more vexed still.
> Imperfective pair of states; «более» comparative: Both «конфузился» (was embarrassed) and «досадовал» (was vexed) are imperfective pasts of continuing emotional states. «ещё более» ('still more') is the analytic comparative intensifying the rising discomfort.
> «досадовать» — to feel vexed: «досадовать» is to feel annoyance, chagrin, irritation (the noun «досада» = vexation). It is a notch more inward and self-directed than plain anger — Alyosha is cross at his own helpless blushing as much as at Lise.

Наконец совсем от нее отвернулся и спрятался за спину старца.  
At last he turned away from her altogether and hid behind the elder's back.
> Perfective pasts move the action forward: «отвернулся» and «спрятался» are perfective «-ся» pasts ('turned away', 'hid'), each a single completed event advancing the narrative against the imperfective background of his squirming. «от неё» (gen. after «от») marks what he turned from.

После нескольких минут он опять, влекомый тою же непреодолимою силой, повернулся посмотреть, глядят ли на него или нет, и увидел, что Lise, совсем почти свесившись из кресел, выглядывала на него сбоку и ждала изо всех сил, когда он поглядит; поймав же его взгляд, расхохоталась так, что даже и старец не выдержал:  
After a few minutes, drawn once more by that same irresistible force, he turned again to see whether they were looking at him or not, and saw that Lise, having leaned almost entirely out of her chair, was peering at him from the side and waiting with all her might for him to look; and when she caught his glance she burst into such laughter that even the elder could not hold back:
> «влекомый» — rare present passive participle: «влекомый» is a present passive participle in -мый (from «влечь», to draw/pull) — 'being drawn' — agreeing with Alyosha (masc. nom.). The form is bookish and uncommon; «тою же… силою/силой» is its instrumental agent ('by that same force'), with archaic «-ою» endings.
> «ли… или нет» — embedded yes/no question: The particle «ли» builds an indirect yes/no question after the verb of looking: «глядят ли на него или нет» ('whether they were looking at him or not'). «ли» follows the focused word «глядят» and is the literary way to embed 'whether'.
> Perfective past gerund «свесившись»: «свесившись» is the perfective past gerund of «свеситься» ('to lean/hang out'), in -вшись, naming a prior completed action whose result attends the main verb — 'having leaned almost out of her chair, she was peering…'. The «-ся» makes it intransitive.
> Gerund «поймав» + inceptive «рас-» perfective: «поймав» is the perfective gerund of «поймать» ('having caught'); «расхохоталась» is the perfective «-ся» past of «расхохотаться», whose prefix «рас-» marks a sudden bursting-out into laughter. The «же» here is a mild narrative connective ('and when…').

— Вы зачем его, шалунья, так стыдите?  
"Why do you shame him so, you little rogue?"
> «шалунья» — little rogue: «шалунья» is the feminine of «шалун», a mischievous, naughty child — 'you little rogue / minx'. Set off in mid-sentence as a fond vocative-style address, it carries the elder's amused tenderness rather than rebuke.
> Imperfective «стыдите» — ongoing shaming: «стыдить» ('to shame, put to shame') in the imperfective present «стыдите» frames the action as ongoing and repeated — 'why do you keep shaming him so?'. «его» is the accusative object; the colloquial «зачем» reproach echoes s148.

Lise вдруг, совсем неожиданно, покраснела, сверкнула глазками, лицо ее стало ужасно серьезным, и она с горячею, негодующею жалобой вдруг заговорила скоро, нервно:  
Lise suddenly, quite unexpectedly, blushed, her eyes flashed, her face turned terribly serious, and with a heated, indignant complaint she suddenly began to speak quickly, nervously:
> Chain of perfectives + predicate instrumental: A rapid string of perfective pasts («покраснела», «сверкнула») fires off the sudden changes as discrete events. «стало… серьёзным» uses «стать» + instrumental predicate adjective ('became serious'), the instrumental marking the new, assumed state.
> «глазками» — diminutive of «глаза»: «глазки» is the diminutive of «глаза» (eyes), here in the instrumental «глазками» ('flashed [with] her [bright little] eyes'). The diminutive lends an affectionate, youthful note to Lise's flashing glance.
> Instrumental of manner + present active participle: «с… жалобой» ('with a complaint') is an instrumental governed by «с». «негодующею» is a present active participle ('indignant, fuming', from «негодовать») used adjectivally, in the bookish «-ею» instrumental agreeing with «жалобой».

— А он зачем всё забыл? Он меня маленькую на руках носил, мы играли с ним.  
"And why has he forgotten everything? When I was little he carried me in his arms, we used to play together.
> «а» + «зачем» — indignant retort: Lise opens with the contrastive «а» ('and/but — what about him?') turning the reproach back on Alyosha, plus colloquial «зачем» ('why on earth'). «забыл» is perfective ('has forgotten [it all]'), the single accomplished lapse she resents.
> «носил» — multidirectional/habitual carrying: «носил» is the imperfective, multidirectional member of the carry-pair («носить» vs «нести»), fitting repeated, habitual action — 'he used to carry me'. «меня маленькую» is 'me [when I was] little', the adjective agreeing with the accusative object.

Ведь он меня читать ходил учить, вы это знаете?  
Why, he used to come and teach me to read — did you know that?
> «ходил… учить» — habitual round-trips with purpose infinitive: «ходил» is the multidirectional motion verb (round trips, habit), here with a purpose infinitive «учить» ('used to come [round] to teach') and a further dependent infinitive «читать» ('to read'). The stacked infinitives read 'he used to come to teach me to read'.
> «ведь» — appeal to shared knowledge: «ведь» opens the line as an appeal to common knowledge — 'why, after all…, you do know this, don't you?'. It seeks the listener's complicity, a particle Dostoevsky's speakers lean on constantly.

Он два года назад, прощаясь, говорил, что никогда не забудет, что мы вечные друзья, вечные, вечные!  
Two years ago, taking his leave, he said he would never forget, that we were eternal friends, eternal, eternal!
> Gerund «прощаясь» + reported future: «прощаясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «прощаться» ('while taking his leave'), an attendant circumstance. «никогда не забудет» keeps the original perfective future inside reported speech — Russian does not back-shift tenses as English does, so 'he said he would never forget' stays «не забудет».
> «вечные» — emphatic reduplication: The repetition «вечные друзья, вечные, вечные!» ('eternal friends, eternal, eternal') is expressive reduplication, conveying childish, breathless insistence. Such triple repetition is a recurring marker of Lise's nervous, impassioned speech.

И вот он вдруг меня теперь боится, я его съем, что ли?  
And now all of a sudden he's afraid of me — am I going to eat him, or what?
> «бояться» + genitive: «бояться» ('to fear') is a verb that exists only with «-ся» and governs the genitive of what is feared — here «меня» (gen.). The clustered adverbs «вдруг… теперь» ('all of a sudden, now') heighten the affronted bafflement.
> «что ли?» — colloquial 'or what?': «что ли» is a colloquial tag question ('or what? eh?'), the particle «ли» giving a dubious, half-joking interrogation. «съем» is the perfective future of «съесть» ('I'll eat [him up]'), the indignant hyperbole — 'am I going to devour him?'.

Чего он не хочет подойти, чего он не разговаривает?  
Why won't he come over, why won't he talk?
> «чего» — colloquial 'why'; aspect contrast: «чего» here is colloquial for «почему/зачем» ('why, what for'), the bare genitive of «что» pressed into adverbial use. «подойти» is perfective (a single approach) under «не хочет», while «разговаривает» is imperfective (ongoing conversing) — the aspects sort one act from a continuing one.

Зачем он к нам не хочет прийти?  
Why won't he come to see us?
> «к нам» — dative of destination; «прийти» perfective: «к» governs the dative «нам» ('to us, to our place'), the goal of motion. «прийти» is the prefixed perfective of motion ('to arrive, come [the once]'), the single completed visit Lise wishes for. The «при-» prefix turns the motion pair into an ordinary perfective.

Разве вы его не пускаете: ведь мы же знаем, что он везде ходит.  
Surely you don't keep him from it: after all, we know he goes everywhere.
> «разве» — incredulous question particle: «разве» introduces a question coloured with surprise or disbelief — 'surely you don't…? you can't be…?'. «не пускаете» is imperfective ('keep him from [going]'), framing a habitual prohibition Lise suspects but doubts.
> Stacked «ведь… же»; multidirectional «ходит»: «ведь… же» piles two appealing particles ('after all, we do know, don't we'). «ходит» is the multidirectional motion verb for habitual going about — 'he goes everywhere [as a rule]', exactly the round-trip, generalized sense «ходить» carries against «идти».

Мне неприлично его звать, он первый должен бы был припомнить, коли не забыл.  
It isn't proper for me to summon him; he should have been the first to remember, if he hasn't forgotten.
> «мне неприлично» — dative-subject impersonal: «неприлично» ('it is improper') is an impersonal predicate with a dative experiencer «мне» and an infinitive «звать»: 'it isn't proper for me to summon [him]'. There is no nominative subject — the propriety presses on 'me'.
> «должен бы был» — conditional 'ought'; «коли» archaic 'if': «должен бы был» is the conditional of obligation ('he ought to have…'), with the irrealis «бы» plus past «был». «коли» is a folksy/archaic «если» ('if'), and «припомнить» is the perfective ('to recall, call to mind').

Нет-с, он теперь спасается!  
No, sir, now he is saving his soul!
> «-с» — the deferential «словоерс»: The clitic «-с» appended to «нет» (giving «нет-с») is the «словоерс», a contraction of «сударь» ('sir') once tacked onto words to mark deference or, by Dostoevsky's day, a faintly servile or ironic politeness. Here it gives Lise's 'No, sir!' a mock-formal, sarcastic edge.
> «спасаться» — the reflexive of salvation: «спасаться» (imperfective «-ся» of «спастись») literally 'to save oneself', in religious usage means 'to seek/work out one's salvation', the standard verb for a monastic life. Lise's sarcastic 'now he's saving his soul!' mocks Alyosha's pious withdrawal.

Вы что на него эту долгополую-то ряску надели… Побежит, упадет…  
Why did you put that long-skirted little cassock on him… He'll run, he'll trip…"
> «ряска» (dimin. of «ряса»); the «-то» topic clitic: «ряса» is the cassock, the long monastic robe; «ряску» is its mocking diminutive ('that little cassock'). «долгополую» ('long-skirted') is a compound adjective. The hyphenated «-то» is the topic-emphasizing clitic — 'that long-skirted little cassock [of all things]'.
> Perfective futures of vivid prediction: «надели» is perfective past ('you have put on him'). «побежит» and «упадёт» are perfective futures ('he'll run, he'll fall'), the conjugated perfective giving single, vivid completed future events — Lise teasingly forecasting the gawky monk-boy tripping over his hem.

И она вдруг, не выдержав, закрыла лицо рукой и рассмеялась ужасно, неудержимо, своим длинным, нервным, сотрясающимся и неслышным смехом.  
And suddenly, unable to hold back, she covered her face with her hand and laughed terribly, uncontrollably, with that long, nervous, shaking, soundless laughter of hers.
> Perfective gerund «не выдержав» + chain of perfectives: «не выдержав» is the perfective past gerund ('unable to hold back, having failed to restrain herself'), a prior cause of the main verbs. «закрыла… рукой» uses the instrumental «рукой» (with her hand), and «рассмеялась» (perfective «рас-» of bursting into laughter) caps the sequence.
> Instrumental of manner; present active participle in the chain: «своим… смехом» is an instrumental of manner ('with her own… laughter'), «своим» the reflexive possessive. Among the modifiers «сотрясающимся» is a present active participle (of «сотрясаться», to shake) used as an adjective, all agreeing in the instrumental.

Старец выслушал ее улыбаясь и с нежностью благословил; когда же она стала целовать его руку, то вдруг прижала ее к глазам своим и заплакала:  
The elder heard her out with a smile and blessed her tenderly; and when she began to kiss his hand she suddenly pressed it to her eyes and burst into tears:
> Gerund «улыбаясь» — simultaneous smiling: «улыбаясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «улыбаться» ('smiling'), an attendant circumstance running parallel to the main act — 'heard her out, smiling'. «выслушал» is perfective ('heard [her] out, to the end').
> Inceptive «стала целовать»; «за-» inceptive «заплакала»: «стала целовать» ('began to kiss', стать + imperfective infinitive) opens a durative act; then perfectives «прижала» ('pressed') and «заплакала» fire as completed events — the «за-» of «заплакала» marks the onset of weeping ('burst into tears'). «когда же… то…» frames the temporal correlation.

— Вы на меня не сердитесь, я дура, ничего не стою… и Алеша, может быть, прав, очень прав, что не хочет к такой смешной ходить.  
"Don't be angry with me, I'm a fool, I'm worth nothing… and Alyosha may be right, quite right, not to want to visit such a ridiculous creature."
> «сердиться на» + accusative: «сердиться» ('to be angry') is a «-ся» verb taking «на» + accusative for the person one is angry at: «на меня». Imperfective present here functions as a soft negative imperative — 'don't be angry with me'.
> Zero copula + negative concord: «я дура» ('I [am] a fool') shows the zero present copula with a nominative predicate. «ничего не стою» ('I'm worth nothing') joins the «ни»-word «ничего» (genitive) with verbal «не» in negative concord — 'I am worth nothing at all'.
> Substantivized adjective «такой смешной»; «ходить» habitual: «к такой смешной» is the dative of a substantivized adjective ('to such a ridiculous [creature/woman]'), with the noun left implicit. «ходить» is the multidirectional motion verb for habitual visiting ('to come [regularly] to see').

— Непременно пришлю его, — решил старец.  
"I will send him to you without fail," the elder decided.
> «пришлю» — perfective future of promise: «пришлю» is the perfective future of «прислать» ('to send'), conjugated like a present but future in meaning — 'I will send [him]'. The adverb «непременно» ('without fail, certainly') gives the elder's promise its firmness.
> «решил» — settled the matter: «решить» here is 'to decide, settle [it]', the perfective stamping the elder's word as a final resolution rather than a mere reply. The narrator's «решил старец» closes the scene on a note of quiet authority.
---

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.