# The Brothers Karamazov, So Be It! So Be It!

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c5. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c5.json.


Отсутствие старца из кельи продолжалось минут около двадцати пяти.  
The elder's absence from the cell lasted about twenty-five minutes.
> A chain of genitives: The abstract noun «отсутствие» ('absence') governs «старца» ('of the elder', genitive of possession) and is paired with «из кельи» ('from the cell', genitive after из). Stacking nominalized abstraction over genitives like this is a hallmark of the bookish, measured narrative voice.
> 'About twenty-five minutes' — approximation by inversion: Putting the noun «минут» before «около двадцати пяти» (rather than the plain около двадцати пяти минут) signals approximation: 'some twenty-five minutes or so'. The numeral phrase governs the genitive plural «минут», as numbers ending in five and above require.
> «келья» — a monk's cell: «келья» is the small private room of a monk in a monastery, here the elder Zosima's. The word comes through Church Slavonic from Greek/Latin cella and belongs to the monastic vocabulary that saturates this Book of the novel.

Было уже за половину первого, а Дмитрия Федоровича, ради которого все собрались, всё еще не бывало.  
It was already past half past twelve, and Dmitri Fyodorovich, for whose sake they had all assembled, still had not appeared.
> Relative «который» in the genitive after «ради»: «ради» ('for the sake of') governs the genitive, so the relative pronoun appears as «которого», agreeing in masculine singular with its antecedent Dmitri but taking the case its own preposition demands. The comma-set clause condenses 'for whose sake everyone had assembled'.
> Iterative «бывало» under negation: «бывало» is the past of «бывать», the iterative-frequentative partner of «быть»: 'still kept not appearing / was still not there'. The imperfective stresses a continuing state of absence rather than a single non-event, coloring the dragging wait.
> 'Past half-past twelve': «половина первого» literally means 'half of the first [hour]', i.e. 12:30; «за» here marks 'past, beyond'. Russian counts the half toward the coming hour, so 'half of the first' is half past twelve, not half past one — a recurring trap for English readers.

Но о нем почти как бы и забыли, и когда старец вступил опять в келью, то застал самый оживленный общий разговор между своими гостями.  
But they had almost as good as forgotten him, and when the elder stepped back into the cell he found the liveliest general conversation in progress among his guests.
> Subjectless 'they' with «как бы»: The bare third-person plural «забыли» with no stated subject means an unspecified 'they / people' — a common Russian way to background the agent. The hedge «как бы» ('as it were, as good as') softens it, and «о нем» shows that «забыть» governs «о» + prepositional ('forget about him').
> Correlative «когда... то» framing two perfectives: The literary correlative «когда... то» ('when... then') links the temporal clause to the main one. Both verbs are perfective — «вступил» (stepped in) and «застал» (found, came upon) — moving the narrative forward as two completed, sequenced events.

В разговоре участвовали прежде всего Иван Федорович и оба иеромонаха.  
Taking part in the conversation were, above all, Ivan Fyodorovich and the two hieromonks.
> Verb-first word order foregrounds the participants: By opening with the locative «В разговоре» and the verb «участвовали», and holding the subjects to the end, the sentence makes the participants the new, stressed information ('Taking part were, above all...'). This topic-then-comment ordering is how free Russian word order directs emphasis.

Ввязывался, и по-видимому очень горячо, в разговор и Миусов, но ему опять не везло; он был видимо на втором плане, и ему даже мало отвечали, так что это новое обстоятельство лишь усилило всё накоплявшуюся его раздражительность.  
Miusov too kept breaking in, and apparently with great heat, but again he had no luck; he was plainly relegated to the second rank, and they hardly even answered him, so that this new circumstance only intensified the irritation that had been mounting in him all along.
> Imperfective past for repeated breaking-in: «Ввязывался» (reflexive imperfective) describes Miusov's repeated attempts to break into the talk, not a single intrusion — 'kept getting himself entangled in the conversation'. The verb's fronting and the trailing subject «и Миусов» again carry the new information to the end.
> Dative-subject impersonal «не везло»: «везти» in the impersonal sense 'to have luck' takes the experiencer in the dative: «ему не везло» = 'he had no luck' (literally 'to him it was not carrying'). There is no nominative subject — a quintessentially Russian framing of fortune as something that happens to a person.
> Past active participle «накоплявшуюся»: «накоплявшуюся» is a reflexive active participle in -вш- functioning as an adjective: 'the irritation that had all along been accumulating'. With «всё» ('all the while') it compresses a whole который-clause into one bookish modifier — a signature of the literary register.

Дело в том, что он и прежде с Иваном Федоровичем несколько пикировался в познаниях и некоторую небрежность его к себе хладнокровно не выносил: «До сих пор, по крайней мере, стоял на высоте всего, что есть передового в Европе, а это новое поколение решительно нас игнорирует», — думал он про себя.  
The thing was that even before this he had crossed swords once or twice with Ivan Fyodorovich over matters of learning, and he could not coolly endure a certain offhandedness in the man toward him: "Up to now, at the very least, I have stood at the height of everything most advanced in Europe, and yet this new generation flatly ignores us," he thought to himself.
> «пикироваться» — to spar verbally: A Gallicism from French se piquer / piquer, «пикироваться в познаниях» means to exchange sharp, fencing-like remarks, here 'crossing swords over matters of learning'. The borrowed, salon-flavored word fits Miusov, the Europeanized liberal of the 1840s generation.
> Negated verb still takes the accusative object: Here the negated «не выносил» keeps its object «небрежность» in the accusative rather than shifting to the genitive of negation — common with a concrete, specified object. Note «его к себе»: 'his offhandedness toward him', with reflexive «себе» pointing back to the subject Miusov.
> «хладнокровно» — coolly, with the Slavonic «хлад-»: 'Coolly, in cold blood', from «хладный», the Church-Slavonic high-style doublet of native «холодный» (note the non-pleophonic «хлад-» vs «холод-»). The elevated form lends a faint bookish irony to Miusov's wounded composure.
> Present tense in reported inner speech: Miusov's silent self-quotation slips into the imperfective present «игнорирует» ('ignores'), the tense of a live, ongoing grievance, set against the imperfective past «стоял» ('I have stood', from imperfective-only «стоять') for his settled past standing.

Федор Павлович, который сам дал слово усесться на стуле и замолчать, действительно некоторое время молчал, но с насмешливою улыбочкой следил за своим соседом Петром Александровичем и видимо радовался его раздражительности.  
Fyodor Pavlovich, who had himself given his word to sit still on his chair and hold his tongue, did indeed keep silent for a while, but he watched his neighbor Pyotr Alexandrovich with a mocking little smile and was plainly delighted by his irritation.
> «сам» plus two perfective infinitives: The intensifier «сам» ('himself, of his own accord') stresses that Fyodor Pavlovich had given his word voluntarily. He pledges two perfective infinitives — «усесться» (settle down) and «замолчать» (fall/stay silent) — each naming a single intended completed act.
> «улыбочка» — a sly little smile: The diminutive «улыбочка» (from «улыбка», 'smile') is not about size but tone: a 'little smirk', mocking and insinuating, perfectly suited to Fyodor Pavlovich's needling. Note also the old bookish instrumental ending «-ою» in «насмешливою», a 19th-century literary variant of modern «-ой».
> «следить за» plus instrumental: «следить за» ('to watch, keep an eye on') governs the instrumental: «за своим соседом». The reflexive possessive «своим» refers back to the subject ('his own neighbor'), the standard precision Russian draws between «свой» and «его».

Он давно уже собирался отплатить ему кое за что и теперь не хотел упустить случая.  
He had long been meaning to pay him back for one thing and another, and now he had no wish to let the chance slip.
> Imperfective intention + perfective goal: «собирался» (imperfective, 'had long been meaning/intending') frames a standing intention, while the dependent infinitive «отплатить» (perfective, 'to pay back [in full]') names the single completed act aimed at. Pairing an imperfective phase verb with a perfective infinitive is the normal way to express building intent.
> «кое за что» — 'for one thing or another': The indefinite prefix «кое-» on «за что» yields a vague, knowing 'for this and that', here split around the preposition («кое за что») as Russian allows. It hints that Fyodor Pavlovich has specific old scores in mind but coyly won't name them.

Наконец не вытерпел, нагнулся к плечу соседа и вполголоса поддразнил его еще раз:  
At last he could hold out no longer, leaned toward his neighbor's shoulder, and in an undertone needled him once again:
> A run of perfectives, subject dropped: Three perfective past verbs in sequence — «не вытерпел» (couldn't bear it), «нагнулся» (leaned over), «поддразнил» (needled) — drive the action forward in quick completed steps. The subject is omitted entirely, carried over from the prior sentence, which speeds the narrative tempo.
> «поддразнить» — to tease, with the under-handed «под-»: From «дразнить» ('to tease') plus prefix «под-», which adds a sly, sidelong, 'slightly from underneath' quality — to needle or goad covertly. «вполголоса» ('in a half-voice, undertone') reinforces the conspiratorial jab.

— Ведь вы давеча почему не ушли после «любезно-то лобызаше» и согласились в такой неприличной компании оставаться?  
"Now why didn't you leave just now, after that 'and lovingly did kiss him,' and instead consented to remain in such unseemly company?"
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all', 'you know' — coloring the taunt as a sly reminder of what both men know. Combined with «давеча» (folksy 'a while ago, earlier today') it gives Fyodor Pavlovich's needling its insinuating, buttonholing tone.
> A mocking Church-Slavonic tag: Fyodor Pavlovich quotes a liturgical-sounding scrap, 'and lovingly did kiss'; «лобызаше» carries the dead Slavonic past ending -аше (where modern Russian has «лобызал/целовал»). He weaponizes the sacred register to mock the monastery scene — the clitic «-то» on «любезно-то» adds a knowing, pointed emphasis.
> Imperfective infinitive after «согласиться»: «оставаться» is the imperfective infinitive ('to keep staying, remain') chosen because the staying is a continued state, not a single act; «согласиться оставаться» = 'consent to remain'. Russian regularly opposes such imperfective infinitives of duration to perfective ones of single completion.

А потому, что чувствовали себя униженным и оскорбленным и остались, чтобы для реваншу выставить ум.  
It was because you felt humiliated and insulted, and you stayed in order to display your wit by way of revenge.
> Short-form passive participles as predicate: «униженным и оскорбленным» are past passive participles ('humiliated and insulted') in the instrumental, the predicate complement after «чувствовать себя» ('to feel oneself [to be]...'). The pairing is the very title of Dostoevsky's earlier novel «Униженные и оскорблённые».
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + perfective infinitive: «чтобы» introduces purpose ('in order to') and here governs a bare perfective infinitive «выставить» ('to put on display') because the subject is the same throughout. «реваншу» shows an older/colloquial dative-style ending on this French loan; modern Russian would write «для реванша» (genitive after «для»).

Теперь уж вы не уйдете, пока им ума своего не выставите.  
Now you won't leave until you have paraded your cleverness before them.
> «пока... не» — 'until' with built-in negation: «пока... не» means 'until', and Russian leaves the «не» in place even though English drops it ('until you have displayed'). «выставите» is the perfective future ('will have displayed'); «ума своего» stands in the genitive — both the partial/quantified object and the reflexive «своего» ('your own wit').
> Perfective future «не уйдёте» with insisting «уж»: «уйдёте» is the simple (perfective) future of «уйти» — 'you won't leave [and be gone]'. The particle «уж» (a worn form of «уже») adds insistence and finality, 'now you certainly won't', tightening the goading.

— Вы опять?  
"You again?
> Verbless exasperation: A complete utterance with no verb: 'You [at it] again?' Russian freely drops a recoverable verb, and the elliptical bark conveys Miusov's worn-out irritation more sharply than any full clause would.

Сейчас уйду, напротив.  
On the contrary, I am leaving this instant."
> Perfective future for an imminent act: «уйду» is the perfective future of «уйти», here with «сейчас» ('right now') to mean an immediate, decisive 'I am leaving this instant'. The perfective stresses the single, completed departure he threatens.

— Позже, позже всех отправитесь! — кольнул еще раз Федор Павлович.  
"Later, you'll be the last of all to go!" Fyodor Pavlovich jabbed once more.
> Superlative-by-genitive «позже всех»: The comparative «позже» ('later') plus the genitive «всех» ('than all') makes a superlative — 'latest of all, the very last'. Reduplicating «позже, позже» heaps on the taunt. «отправитесь» is the perfective future of «отправиться» ('to set off').
> «кольнуть» — to prick, to jab: From «колоть» ('to prick, stab'), the semelfactive «кольнуть» names a single sharp jab; figuratively, a verbal sting. Dostoevsky keeps the bodily metaphor of Fyodor Pavlovich's needling vivid — he doesn't 'say' but 'jabbed once more'.

Это было почти в самый момент возвращения старца.  
This was almost at the very moment of the elder's return.
> Intensifier «самый» plus genitives: «самый» here means 'the very' ('at the very moment'), intensifying the noun rather than forming a superlative. The phrase chains genitives: «возвращения старца» = 'of the return of the elder'.

Спор на одну минутку затих, но старец, усевшись на прежнее место, оглядел всех, как бы приветливо вызывая продолжать.  
The dispute died down for a minute, but the elder, having settled into his former place, looked round at them all as though cordially inviting them to continue.
> Perfective past gerund «усевшись»: «усевшись» is the perfective adverbial participle (деепричастие) of «усесться»: 'having settled himself down'. It names an action completed just before the main verb «оглядел» ('looked round'), sharing the same subject — the standard literary way to sequence 'having done X, he did Y'.
> Imperfective present gerund «вызывая»: «вызывая» is the imperfective present gerund ('inviting, summoning') expressing an action simultaneous with «оглядел» — the elder's look itself is the cordial invitation. «как бы» ('as though') hedges it as the narrator's interpretation of his expression.

Алеша, изучивший почти всякое выражение его лица, видел ясно, что он ужасно утомлен и себя пересиливает.  
Alyosha, who had studied almost every expression of his face, saw clearly that he was dreadfully worn out and was forcing himself.
> Past active participle as a relative clause: «изучивший» (from perfective «изучить») is a past active participle, 'who had studied / come to know'; it agrees with Алеша in masculine singular nominative and stands for a full который-clause. Perfective stem gives the sense of completed, settled knowledge of Zosima's every look.
> Short passive participle predicate; reflexive «себя»: «утомлён» is the short-form past passive participle ('worn out'), a predicate of state, while «пересиливает» governs the reflexive pronoun «себя» — 'forces himself, overpowers himself'. «себя» (not «-ся») is a full object pronoun pointing back to the elder.

В последнее время болезни с ним случались от истощения сил обмороки.  
Of late, in his illness, he had been subject to fainting fits brought on by exhaustion.
> Iterative imperfective for recurring fits: «случались» (imperfective past plural) describes fainting fits that 'kept happening' to him — a habit, not one event. The construction «с ним случались обмороки» ('fits used to befall him') makes the elder the location/experiencer («с ним») rather than agent of his own collapse.
> Causal «от» + genitive: «от» here marks cause, 'from / brought on by', and governs the genitive «истощения» ('exhaustion'), which in turn governs «сил» (genitive plural of «сила», 'of strength'). A tidy double genitive: 'from the exhaustion of [his] powers'.

Почти такая же бледность, как пред обмороком, распространялась и теперь по его лицу, губы его побелели.  
Almost the same pallor as before a fainting fit was spreading over his face even now, and his lips had turned white.
> Reflexive intransitive «распространялась»: The «-ся» verb «распространяться» is a middle/intransitive: the pallor 'spread itself' over his face, with no external agent. The imperfective past renders the spreading as an ongoing process unfolding before Alyosha's eyes.
> Archaic «пред» for «перед»: «пред» ('before') is the bookish/Church-Slavonic short form of the preposition «перед», governing the instrumental «обмороком». Dostoevsky's narration favors such elevated reduced forms, lending gravity to the description of Zosima's failing body.

Но он, очевидно, не хотел распустить собрание, казалось, он имел притом какую-то свою цель — какую же?  
But he evidently did not wish to break up the gathering; it seemed, moreover, that he had some purpose of his own in this — but what could it be?
> Negated wish + perfective infinitive: «не хотел» negates the wish, while the perfective infinitive «распустить» ('to break up, dismiss') names the single completed action not desired. The object «собрание» stays accusative — negation of the matrix verb doesn't pull the infinitive's object into the genitive.
> Indefinite «-то» answered by insisting «же»: «какую-то» marks a specific-but-unknown 'some purpose of his own'; the narrator then turns it into a question «какую же?» where «же» presses the puzzle — 'but what [purpose], exactly?'. The two particles together stage the narrator's curiosity.

Алеша пристально следил за ним  
Alyosha watched him intently.
> Imperfective «следил» of sustained watching: «следил» (imperfective past of «следить за» + instrumental) frames Alyosha's watching as a continuous, attentive process — 'kept watching him intently' — rather than a single glance. «пристально» ('fixedly') reinforces the duration.

— О любопытнейшей их статье толкуем, — произнес иеромонах Иосиф, библиотекарь, обращаясь к старцу и указывая на Ивана Федоровича.  
"We are discussing a most curious article of his," said the hieromonk Iosif, the librarian, turning to the elder and pointing to Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Suffixal superlative «любопытнейшей»: «любопытнейшей» is the bookish suffixal superlative in -ейш- ('a most curious'), here in prepositional case after «о». This synthetic superlative is more literary than the everyday «самый любопытный» and recurs as a near-leitmotif in this scene's praise of Ivan's article.
> «толковать» — to discuss, expound: «толковать о чём-то» means to talk over, interpret, or hold forth about something — slightly more bookish and deliberative than просто «говорить». It suits the monks' learned exegesis of Ivan's article.
> Two simultaneous present gerunds: «обращаясь» (к + dative, 'turning to') and «указывая» (на + accusative, 'pointing to') are imperfective present gerunds describing Iosif's accompanying gestures as he speaks — the literary way to bundle attendant action onto the main verb «произнёс».

— Нового много выводят, да, кажется, идея-то о двух концах.  
"He draws a great deal that is new, but the idea, it seems, cuts both ways.
> Partitive genitive «нового» after «много»: «много» ('much, a lot') governs the genitive, and the neuter adjective «нового» is substantivized: 'a great deal of what is new'. Fronting it before «выводят» ('they draw/derive') puts the weight on the novelty of Ivan's conclusions.
> «о двух концах» — 'cuts both ways': The idiom «палка о двух концах» ('a stick with two ends') means a double-edged thing; here «идея... о двух концах» = the idea cuts both ways. The clitic «-то» on «идея» topicalizes it ('the idea, now...'), gently flagging a caveat amid the praise.

По поводу вопроса о церковно-общественном суде и обширности его права ответили журнальною статьею одному духовному лицу, написавшему о вопросе сем целую книгу...  
On the question of the ecclesiastical court and the scope of its jurisdiction, he answered in a journal article a certain churchman who had written a whole book on the matter..."
> Dative participle + archaic «сем»: «написавшему» is a past active participle (from perfective «написать») agreeing in the dative with «лицу» — 'a churchman who had written'. Embedded in it is the archaic demonstrative «сем» (prepositional of «сей», 'this'), a stock bookish marker of the period register.
> «духовное лицо» — a clergyman: «духовное лицо» (literally 'a spiritual person') is the formal term for a member of the clergy. «лицо» here means not 'face' but 'person/personage' — a recurring polysemy worth noting; the phrase recurs throughout the debate to name Ivan's anonymous clerical opponent.

— К сожалению, вашей статьи не читал, но о ней слышал, — ответил старец, пристально и зорко вглядываясь в Ивана Федоровича.  
"Unfortunately I have not read your article, but I have heard of it," replied the elder, gazing keenly and intently at Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Genitive of negation: «вашей статьи»: Under negation the object «вашу статью» shifts to genitive «вашей статьи» — 'I have not read your article' — the classic genitive of negation, here fronted for emphasis. Contrast the next clause «о ней слышал», where «о» + prepositional is unaffected.
> Present gerund «вглядываясь»: «вглядываясь» (в + accusative, 'peering into') is an imperfective present gerund giving the manner of the elder's reply: he speaks while gazing keenly at Ivan. The verb «вглядываться» is intensive — to look searchingly, to read a face.

— Они стоят на любопытнейшей точке, — продолжал отец библиотекарь, — по-видимому, совершенно отвергают в вопросе о церковно-общественном суде разделение церкви от государства.  
"He stands on a most curious point," the father librarian went on, "in that, on the question of the ecclesiastical court, he apparently rejects altogether the separation of Church from State."
> Plural «они» as deferential singular: The librarian refers to Ivan as «они» ('they') with plural verb «стоят» — an old, deferential third-person plural used of a single respected person (compare archaic English usage). It runs through his speech ('they answer', 'they stand'), marking obsequious courtesy toward the layman author.
> Genitive of separation «церкви от государства»: «разделение» ('separation') governs «церкви» (genitive, 'of the Church') and «от государства» ('from the State', «от» + genitive). The doubled genitive crisply names the very thing rejected: the separation of Church from State.

— Это любопытно, но в каком же смысле? — спросил старец Ивана Федоровича.  
"That is curious, but in what sense?" the elder asked Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Interrogative «какой» with pressing «же»: «в каком смысле» = 'in what sense', with the interrogative adjective «какой» agreeing in masculine prepositional with «смысле». The particle «же» here urges the question along — 'but in what sense, exactly?' — inviting Ivan to elaborate.

Тот наконец ему ответил, но не свысока-учтиво, как боялся еще накануне Алеша, а скромно и сдержанно, с видимою предупредительностью и, по-видимому, без малейшей задней мысли.  
At last the latter answered him, not with the condescending courtesy Alyosha had still been dreading the day before, but modestly and with restraint, with evident deference and, to all appearances, without the slightest ulterior motive.
> Demonstrative «тот» as 'the latter': «Тот» ('that one') stands in for Ivan to disambiguate after two referents — Russian's tidy way of saying 'the latter / the former'. It tracks the topic across sentences where English would repeat the name or risk an ambiguous 'he'.
> Contrastive «не... а» pivoting on manner: «не X, а Y» ('not X, but rather Y') sets the dreaded condescension against the actual modesty. The series of manner adverbs («скромно», «сдержанно») builds the contrast that surprises Alyosha.
> «без» + genitive superlative «малейшей»: «без» governs the genitive; «малейшей» is the suffixal superlative of «малый» ('slightest'), and «задняя мысль» is a calque of French arrière-pensée ('ulterior motive'). Together: 'without the slightest ulterior motive'.

— Я иду из положения, что это смешение элементов, то есть сущностей церкви и государства, отдельно взятых, будет, конечно, вечным, несмотря на то, что оно невозможно и что его никогда нельзя будет привести не только в нормальное, но и в сколько-нибудь согласимое состояние, потому что ложь лежит в самом основании дела.  
"I proceed from the position that this blending of the elements — that is, of the essences of Church and State taken separately — will of course be everlasting, despite the fact that it is impossible and that it can never be brought into a state that is normal, or even in any degree reconcilable, because a lie lies at the very foundation of the matter.
> Impersonal «нельзя будет» — no subject: «нельзя» ('it is impossible/not allowed') heads a subjectless impersonal construction; with «будет» it projects into the future ('it will never be possible'). The thing acted upon, «его», is the accusative object of the infinitive «привести» — the experiencer-less, modal framing typical of Russian.
> A pun in the grammar: «ложь лежит»: «ложь лежит» ('a lie lies') sets the noun «ложь» (falsehood) beside the verb «лежать» (to lie/recline) — the same etymological play English happens to share. «в самом основании» uses «самый» as intensifier ('at the very foundation'), prepositional case after «в».

Компромисс между государством и церковью в таких вопросах, как например о суде, по-моему, в совершенной и чистой сущности своей невозможен.  
A compromise between State and Church on questions such as, for example, that of jurisdiction, is in my view impossible in its perfect and pure essence.
> Short adjective predicate «невозможен»: «невозможен» is the short form of «невозможный», functioning as predicate ('is impossible'); the short form is the bookish, categorical choice for an absolute assertion. The reflexive «своей» ('its own') points back to the subject «компромисс».

Духовное лицо, которому я возражал, утверждает, что церковь занимает точное и определенное место в государстве.  
The churchman with whom I was taking issue maintains that the Church occupies a precise and definite place within the State.
> Relative «который» in the dative: «возражать» ('to object to') governs the dative, so the relative pronoun appears as «которому» — 'the churchman to whom I objected'. It agrees in neuter singular with «лицо» but takes the dative its verb requires, a textbook split of agreement vs. case.

Я же возразил ему, что, напротив, церковь должна заключать сама в себе всё государство, а не занимать в нем лишь некоторый угол, и что если теперь это почему-нибудь невозможно, то в сущности вещей несомненно должно быть поставлено прямою и главнейшею целью всего дальнейшего развития христианского общества.  
I objected to him that, on the contrary, the Church ought to contain the whole State within itself, and not merely occupy some corner of it, and that if at present this is for some reason impossible, then in the essence of things it must undoubtedly be set up as the direct and chief aim of all the further development of Christian society."
> Contrastive «же» on the pronoun: Here «же» follows «я» to mark a contrast of speakers — 'I, for my part, objected' — setting Ivan's view against the churchman's just-quoted one. Distinguish this contrastive-topic «же» from the emphatic question-particle «же» seen earlier.
> Intensive «сама» + reflexive «в себе»: «сама» intensifies the subject ('the Church itself'), and «в себе» is the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional ('within itself'). Together they stress that the Church should contain the State inside its own self — the crux of Ivan's thesis.
> Predicate instrumental: 'be set up as the aim': «поставлено... целью» puts the predicate noun in the instrumental — 'set up as the aim' — the regular instrumental-of-predicate after verbs of making/becoming/appointing. Note the archaic feminine instrumental endings «-ою» («прямою», «главнейшею»), 19th-century literary variants of «-ой».

— Совершенно справедливо! — твердо и нервно проговорил отец Паисий, молчаливый и ученый иеромонах.  
"Perfectly true!" said Father Paissy, the silent and learned hieromonk, firmly and nervously.
> Neuter short adverb as a verdict: «справедливо» ('justly, rightly so / true') is used predicatively with no subject — an impersonal verdict, 'Perfectly true!'. Such bare neuter short-form exclamations are a compact, emphatic way to assent in Russian.

— Чистейшее ультрамонтанство! — вскричал Миусов, в нетерпении переложив ногу на ногу.  
"The purest Ultramontanism!" cried Miusov, impatiently recrossing his legs.
> Perfective gerund of attendant action: «переложив» is the perfective past gerund of «переложить» — 'having shifted', here 'recrossing his legs' (ногу на ногу). It marks a completed gesture accompanying the cry «вскричал», sharing Miusov as subject; the body again betrays the mounting impatience.

— Э, да у нас и гор-то нету! — воскликнул отец Иосиф и, обращаясь к старцу, продолжал: — Они отвечают, между прочим, на следующие «основные и существенные» положения своего противника, духовного лица, заметьте себе.  
"Eh, but we have no mountains!" exclaimed Father Iosif, and, turning to the elder, went on: "They answer, among other things, the following 'fundamental and essential' propositions of their opponent, the churchman, mark you.
> Genitive of absence + folksy «нету» and «-то»: «нету» is the colloquial expanded form of «нет» ('there is no'), which forces its noun into the genitive: «гор» (genitive plural of «горы», 'mountains'). The clitic «-то» on «гор» adds wry emphasis to the joke — 'why, we haven't even got any mountains!' — Iosif's pun deflating Miusov's 'ultramontanism'.
> Imperative «заметьте» with ethical dative «себе»: «заметьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «заметить» ('note, mark'); «себе» is a dative reflexive used here as an 'ethical dative' — 'mark you', 'mind you' — adding an appeal to the listener's attention with no literal 'to yourself' meaning.

Первое: что «ни один общественный союз не может и не должен присвоивать себе власть — распоряжаться гражданскими и политическими правами своих членов».  
First: that 'no social union can or ought to arrogate to itself the power to dispose of the civil and political rights of its members.'
> Emphatic «ни один» with negative concord: «ни один» ('not a single') pairs with the negated verbs «не может и не должен» — Russian negative concord, where the ни-phrase and the не on the verb together make one negation ('no union can or ought'). «присвоивать себе» = 'arrogate to itself', with the dative reflexive «себе».

Второе: что «уголовная и судебно-гражданская власть не должна принадлежать церкви и несовместима с природой ее и как божественного установления, и как союза людей для религиозных целей» и наконец, в-третьих: что «церковь есть царство не от мира сего»..  
Second: that 'criminal and civil-judicial authority ought not to belong to the Church and is incompatible with its nature, both as a divine institution and as a union of men for religious ends,' and finally, in the third place: that 'the Church is a kingdom not of this world.'"
> Short adjective «несовместима» + instrumental of accompaniment: «несовместима» is the short feminine form ('is incompatible'), predicating of «власть»; «совместимый с чем-то» governs «с» + instrumental, hence «с природой» ('with its nature'). The postposed «ее» ('its') is the bookish word order favoring weight at the end.

— Недостойнейшая игра слов для духовного лица! — не вытерпел и прервал опять отец Паисий.  
"A most unworthy play on words for a churchman!" Father Paissy could not contain himself and broke in once more.
> Twin perfectives for a sudden interruption: «не вытерпел» ('could not endure it') and «прервал» ('broke in') are perfective pasts naming two abrupt completed acts. The omitted subject and the terse pairing convey Paissy bursting out — the same «не вытерпел» that opened Fyodor Pavlovich's earlier jab, now in the monk's mouth.
> «игра слов» — wordplay, and «недостойнейшая»: «игра слов» ('play of words') is the standard term for a pun or quibble; Paissy's point is that the cleric is merely quibbling with scripture. The suffixal superlative «недостойнейшая» ('a most unworthy') gives his rebuke its indignant, sermonic force.

— Я читал эту книгу, на которую вы возражали, — обратился он к Ивану Федоровичу, — и удивлен был словами духовного лица, что «церковь есть царство не от мира сего».  
"I have read the book you were taking issue with," he said, turning to Ivan Fyodorovich, "and I was astonished by the churchman's words, that 'the Church is a kingdom not of this world.'
> «возражать на» + accusative relative: Here «возражать» appears with «на» + accusative ('to object to / argue against'), so the relative is «на которую», agreeing feminine with «книгу». Compare s32, where the same verb took a bare dative — Dostoevsky uses both rections.
> Short passive participle + instrumental cause: «удивлён был» is a short past passive participle with «был» ('was astonished'); the cause/stimulus of passive 'being astonished' goes in the instrumental: «словами» ('by the words'). Note the bookish word order with the participle before «был».

Если не от мира сего, то, стало быть, и не может быть на земле ее вовсе.  
If it is not of this world, then it follows that it cannot exist on earth at all.
> Conditional «если... то» drawing a consequence: «если... то» ('if... then') here is not hypothetical but logical-deductive: 'if [it is] not of this world, then it follows...'. «стало быть» ('consequently, so it follows') is a fixed inferential connector, the language of Paissy's tight syllogism.
> Negated existential with genitive «ее»: «не может быть... ее» negates existence: 'it cannot exist at all'. The pronoun «ее» (genitive of «она», the Church) sits in the genitive as the subject of a negated 'to be', the genitive of negation extended to a modal existential.

В святом Евангелии слова «не от мира сего» не в том смысле употреблены.  
In the holy Gospel the words 'not of this world' are not used in that sense.
> Frozen Slavonic «мира сего»: «сего» is the genitive of the archaic demonstrative «сей» ('this'); «мира сего» ('of this world') is fixed liturgical phrasing preserved intact from Church Slavonic. Such surviving forms of «сей» are a hallmark of the novel's scriptural register.

Играть такими словами невозможно.  
One cannot play with such words.
> Impersonal «невозможно» + infinitive: A subjectless impersonal verdict: the predicative «невозможно» ('it is impossible') heads an infinitive «играть» ('to play [with]'). «играть» governs «с»-less instrumental here — «словами» ('with words') — the instrumental of the thing toyed with.

Господь наш Иисус Христос именно приходил установить церковь на земле.  
Our Lord Jesus Christ came precisely to establish the Church upon earth.
> Imperfective «приходил» for the purpose of coming: «приходил» is the imperfective past of the prefixed motion verb «приходить» ('to come'); the imperfective here states the fact and purpose of Christ's coming ('came precisely [in order] to establish'), with «именно» ('precisely') stressing the very point. The goal infinitive «установить» is perfective.

Царство небесное, разумеется, не от мира сего, а в небе, но в него входят не иначе как чрез церковь, которая основана и установлена на земле.  
The Kingdom of Heaven, to be sure, is not of this world but in heaven, yet one enters it in no other way than through the Church, which is founded and established upon earth.
> Archaic «чрез» for «через»: «чрез» is the bookish/Slavonic short form of «через» ('through'), governing the accusative «церковь». The idiom «не иначе как» ('in no other way than') heightens the categorical tone; «входят» is the imperfective present of general truth ('one enters').
> Short passive participles of result: «основана и установлена» are short-form past passive participles ('is founded and established') agreeing feminine with «церковь» — the periphrastic passive stating a settled result. Their perfective source verbs give the sense of a completed founding still in force.

А потому светские каламбуры в этом смысле невозможны и недостойны.  
And therefore worldly puns in this sense are impossible and unworthy.
> «каламбур» — a pun, and «светский»: «каламбур» (from French calembour) is a pun or wordplay; «светский» means 'worldly, secular, of [high] society' — the antonym of «духовный». Paissy condemns 'worldly puns' on holy words, the secular cleverness he and Ivan both, in different ways, mistrust.
> Plural short adjectives as predicate: «невозможны» and «недостойны» are short-form plural adjectives predicating of «каламбуры» ('are impossible and unworthy'). The short form, here categorical and judgmental, is the register of Paissy's pronouncement.

Церковь же есть воистину царство и определена царствовать и в конце своем должна явиться как царство на всей земле несомненно — на что имеем обетование...  
The Church is in very truth a kingdom and is ordained to reign, and at its end it must without doubt appear as a kingdom over all the earth — of which we have the promise..."
> «воистину» — verily, in very truth: «воистину» ('truly, verily') is a Church-Slavonic adverb of asseveration, famous from the Paschal greeting «Христос воскресе — Воистину воскресе» ('Christ is risen — He is risen indeed'). It lifts «церковь воистину царство» into solemn, creedal affirmation.
> Short passive participle + modal future: «определена» is the short feminine passive participle ('is ordained, destined') with the imperfective infinitive «царствовать» ('to reign'); «должна явиться» pairs the modal «должна» with perfective «явиться» ('must appear'). The chain projects the Church's destiny as fixed and future.

Он вдруг умолк, как бы сдержав себя.  
He suddenly fell silent, as though checking himself.
> Perfective gerund «сдержав» + reflexive «себя»: «сдержав» is the perfective past gerund of «сдержать» ('having restrained'), governing the reflexive object «себя» ('himself') — 'as though having checked himself'. «как бы» ('as though') marks the narrator's inference about why Paissy suddenly stopped.

Иван Федорович, почтительно и внимательно его выслушав, с чрезвычайным спокойствием, но по-прежнему охотно и простодушно продолжал, обращаясь к старцу:  
Ivan Fyodorovich, having heard him out respectfully and attentively, with extraordinary composure but as readily and openheartedly as before, continued, addressing the elder:
> Perfective gerund «выслушав» — 'having heard out': «выслушав» is the perfective past gerund of «выслушать»; the prefix «вы-» gives 'hear to the end, hear out'. It names a completed action prior to «продолжал» ('went on'), the deferential listening that precedes Ivan's measured reply.
> Instrumental of manner «с... спокойствием»: «с» + instrumental «спокойствием» ('with composure') states the manner of Ivan's speaking. The string of such manner phrases — composure, readiness, openheartedness — paints the studied calm Alyosha had not expected.

— Вся мысль моей статьи в том, что в древние времена, первых трех веков христианства, христианство на земле являлось лишь церковью и было лишь церковь.  
"The whole thought of my article is that in ancient times, in the first three centuries of Christianity, Christianity on earth appeared solely as the Church and was nothing but the Church.
> Predicate instrumental vs. nominative — a deliberate switch: Ivan first says «являлось... церковью» (instrumental after «являться», 'appeared as the Church') then «было лишь церковь» with a bare nominative «церковь» after «быть». The shift to nominative makes the identification absolute — not merely 'appeared as' but 'simply was the Church' — a fine point of predicate case.

Когда же римское языческое государство возжелало стать христианским, то непременно случилось так, что, став христианским, оно лишь включило в себя церковь, но само продолжало оставаться государством языческим по-прежнему, в чрезвычайно многих своих отправлениях.  
But when the pagan Roman State desired to become Christian, it inevitably came about that, in becoming Christian, it merely took the Church into itself, while it continued itself to remain a pagan State as before, in an extraordinary number of its functions.
> Perfective gerund «став» + predicate instrumental: «став» is the perfective gerund of «стать» ('having become'), and «стать» takes its predicate in the instrumental: «христианским» ('Christian'). 'Having become Christian, it merely took the Church into itself («в себя»)' — gerund and instrumental working in tandem.
> «возжелать» — to desire, in high style: «возжелало» (from «возжелать», a Slavonic-flavored intensive of «желать») means 'conceived a desire, desired ardently'. The lofty prefix «воз-» and the biblical ring suit Ivan's grand historical narration of the Roman state's conversion.

В сущности так несомненно и должно было произойти.  
In essence this is undoubtedly how it was bound to happen.
> Modal past «должно было произойти»: «должно было произойти» layers the impersonal modal «должно» with «было» and the perfective infinitive «произойти» ('was bound to happen'). The neuter «должно... было» has no nominative subject — an impersonal of necessity. The particle «и» here is emphatic ('precisely so').

Но в Риме, как в государстве, слишком многое осталось от цивилизации и мудрости языческой, как например самые даже цели и основы государства.  
But in Rome, as a State, far too much was left over from pagan civilization and wisdom — for example, the very aims and foundations of the State.
> Substantivized «многое» + «от» + genitive: «многое» ('much, a great deal') is a neuter substantivized adjective serving as subject of «осталось» ('remained'). «осталось от» takes the genitive of source: «от цивилизации и мудрости языческой» ('from pagan civilization and wisdom').
> Intensifier «самые» — 'the very': «самые» here intensifies ('the very aims and foundations'), not a superlative; interleaving «даже» ('even') heightens it further — 'the very aims and foundations themselves'. This emphatic «самый» recurs across the chapter wherever a point is pressed home.

Христова же церковь, вступив в государство, без сомнения не могла уступить ничего из своих основ, от того камня, на котором стояла она, и могла лишь преследовать не иначе как свои цели, раз твердо поставленные и указанные ей самим господом, между прочим: обратить весь мир, а стало быть, и всё древнее языческое государство в церковь.  
The Church of Christ, however, on entering into the State, could without doubt yield nothing of its own foundations, of that rock on which it stood, and could only pursue, in no other way, its own aims, once firmly set and appointed to it by the Lord himself — among them, to convert the whole world, and consequently the whole ancient pagan State as well, into the Church.
> Perfective gerund + genitive of negation under «ничего»: «вступив» (perfective gerund, 'having entered') sets the prior action. The negated «не могла уступить» pulls its object into the genitive: «ничего из своих основ» ('nothing of its foundations'), with «ничего» itself the genitive negative pronoun — negative concord plus genitive of negation together.
> Passive participle with instrumental agent: «указанные» (past passive participle, 'appointed, indicated') describes the aims, and its agent stands in the instrumental: «самим господом» ('by the Lord himself'). The instrumental of the agent is the regular way Russian names the doer in a passive construction.

Таким образом (то есть в целях будущего), не церковь должна искать себе определенного места в государстве, как «всякий общественный союз» или как «союз людей для религиозных целей» (как выражается о церкви автор, которому возражаю), а, напротив, всякое земное государство должно бы впоследствии обратиться в церковь вполне и стать не чем иным, как лишь церковью, и уже отклонив всякие несходные с церковными свои цели.  
In this way (that is, with the future in view), it is not the Church that should seek a definite place for itself within the State, like 'any social union' or like 'a union of men for religious ends' (as the author I am disputing describes the Church), but, on the contrary, every earthly State should in the end be wholly transformed into the Church and become nothing else but the Church, having now cast off any of its own aims that are at variance with those of the Church.
> Contrastive «не... а» with the softening «бы»: The frame «не X..., а... Y» reverses the cleric's claim. In the second limb «должно бы... обратиться» adds the conditional particle «бы» to «должно», softening the necessity to 'ought ideally to be transformed' — a hypothetical, willed outcome rather than a flat fact.
> «стать» + predicate instrumental, twice: «стать» governs the instrumental for its predicate: «не чем иным, как... церковью» ('nothing else but the Church'), where «ничто иное» itself appears in the instrumental «ничем иным». The whole idiom «не что иное, как» means 'nothing other than'.
> Perfective gerund «отклонив» closing the clause: «отклонив» is the perfective past gerund of «отклонить» ('having cast off, rejected'); «уже отклонив» = 'having now cast off'. The reflexive «свои» ('its own') and the instrumental «с церковными» ('with the Church's [aims]') round out a densely participial, very literary sentence.

Всё же это ничем не унизит его, не отнимет ни чести, ни славы его как великого государства, ни славы властителей его, а лишь поставит его с ложной, еще языческой и ошибочной дороги на правильную и истинную дорогу, единственно ведущую к вечным целям.  
None of this would in any way debase the State, would rob it of neither honor nor glory as a great State, nor of the glory of its rulers, but would only set it from the false, still pagan and mistaken road onto the right and true road, the only one leading to eternal ends.
> Layered negation: «ничем... не... ни... ни»: A cascade of negative concord: «ничем не унизит» ('would in no way debase'), then «не отнимет ни чести, ни славы» ('would rob it of neither honor nor glory'), where each «ни...» phrase sits in the genitive of negation. Russian piles negatives that all point one way.
> Present active participle «ведущую»: «ведущую» is the present active participle of «вести» ('leading'), agreeing feminine accusative with «дорогу» — 'the road... the only one leading to eternal ends'. It compresses 'which leads' into a single modifier, the bookish participial economy.

Вот почему автор книги об «Основах церковно-общественного суда» судил бы правильно, если бы, изыскивая и предлагая эти основы, смотрел бы на них как на временный, необходимый еще в наше грешное и незавершившееся время компромисс, но не более.  
That is why the author of the book On the Foundations of the Ecclesiastical Court would have judged rightly if, in seeking out and proposing these foundations, he had regarded them as a temporary compromise, still necessary in our sinful and unconsummated age — but no more than that.
> Full conditional with doubled «бы»: A counterfactual conditional: «если бы... смотрел бы» in the protasis and «судил бы» in the apodosis, each a past-tense verb plus «бы». The repeated «бы» — even doubled within one clause — is characteristic, marking the whole as hypothetical: 'would have judged rightly if he had regarded'.
> Paired imperfective present gerunds: «изыскивая» and «предлагая» are imperfective present gerunds ('seeking out and proposing') describing actions simultaneous with the hypothetical 'regarding'. Even inside an irrealis clause, the gerund's simultaneity logic holds.

Но чуть лишь сочинитель этих основ осмеливается объявлять, что основы, которые предлагает он теперь и часть которых перечислил сейчас отец Иосиф, суть основы незыблемые, стихийные и вековечные, то уже прямо идет против церкви и святого, вековечного и незыблемого предназначения ее.  
But the moment the framer of these foundations ventures to declare that the foundations he now proposes, some of which Father Iosif has just enumerated, are unshakable, elemental, and everlasting, he goes straight against the Church and against its holy, everlasting, and unshakable destiny.
> «чуть лишь» — 'the moment that': «чуть лишь» ('as soon as, the very moment') opens a temporal-conditional clause with present-tense «осмеливается» ('ventures, dares') for a general, recurring truth. The main clause «то уже прямо идёт против церкви» completes the 'the moment X, then Y' pattern.
> A bookish triad: 'unshakable, elemental, everlasting': «незыблемый» ('unshakable', from «зыбь», a swell/ripple — that which cannot be made to ripple), «стихийный» ('elemental', from «стихия»), and «вековечный» ('age-old, everlasting', from «век»). The rolling triad, echoed again in the next breath, is Ivan's deliberately grandiose paraphrase of his opponent's claim.
> Relative «которых» in the genitive: «часть которых» = 'part of which', where «которых» is genitive plural ('of which [foundations]'), governed by «часть». The relative agrees in number with «основы» but takes the genitive its role as 'part of' demands.

Вот вся моя статья, полный ее конспект.  
There you have my whole article, the full summary of it."
> Zero copula in the present: A nominative-only equational sentence with no verb 'to be': 'There [is] my whole article, [its] full summary'. Russian omits the present-tense copula entirely, so both halves stand in the nominative, joined by «вот» ('here [is]').

— То есть в двух словах, — упирая на каждое слово, проговорил опять отец Паисий, — по иным теориям, слишком выяснившимся в наш девятнадцатый век, церковь должна перерождаться в государство, так как бы из низшего в высший вид, чтобы затем в нем исчезнуть, уступив науке, духу времени и цивилизации.  
"That is to say, in two words," pronounced Father Paissy again, laying weight on every word, "according to certain theories that have grown all too plain in this nineteenth century of ours, the Church ought to be transformed into the State, as though from a lower into a higher species, so as then to vanish into it, giving way to science, the spirit of the age, and civilization.
> Present gerund «упирая» — 'laying weight on': «упирая на каждое слово» ('pressing on / stressing every word') is an imperfective present gerund giving the manner of Paissy's speaking. The idiom «упирать на» means to emphasize, to drive home — fitting his deliberate, weighty summation.
> «чтобы» + perfective infinitive of purpose: «чтобы... исчезнуть» states the purpose/result, with «чтобы» plus a bare perfective infinitive ('so as then to vanish') because the subject is the same. The imperfective «перерождаться» ('to be transformed, reborn') names the ongoing process, the perfective «исчезнуть» its final endpoint.
> Past active participle «выяснившимся»: «выяснившимся» is the reflexive past active participle of «выясниться» ('having become clear'), in the dative agreeing with «теориям» — 'theories that have grown all too plain'. The reflexive «-ся» makes it a middle/change-of-state verb, and the participle packs the whole который-clause into one word.

Если же не хочет того и сопротивляется, то отводится ей в государстве за то как бы некоторый лишь угол, да и то под надзором, — и это повсеместно в наше время в современных европейских землях.  
And if it refuses this and resists, then it is allotted within the State only a kind of corner, and that under supervision — and this is everywhere in our time, in the modern lands of Europe.
> Genitive object under negation: «того» is the genitive of «то» ('that'), pulled out of the accusative by the negated verb «не хочет». A negated transitive verb, especially with an abstract object, routinely shifts its object to the genitive — here 'does not want that'.
> Reflexive passive «-ся»: «отводится» (from «отводить», 'to allot, set aside') is an imperfective passive built with the clitic «-ся»: the corner 'is allotted to it'. The agent (the State) is left implied, and «ей» is the dative of the recipient.
> Hedging particles «как бы» and «лишь»: «как бы» ('as it were, a kind of') softens and approximates, while «лишь» ('only, merely') restricts — together they belittle the 'corner' grudgingly granted to the Church. Such stacked qualifiers give the elder's reported argument its hesitant, ironic texture.

По русскому же пониманию и упованию надо, чтобы не церковь перерождалась в государство, как из низшего в высший тип, а, напротив, государство должно кончить тем, чтобы сподобиться стать единственно лишь церковью и ничем иным более.  
But by the Russian understanding and hope, it should be not that the Church is transformed into the State, as from a lower into a higher type, but, on the contrary, that the State should end by being found worthy to become solely the Church and nothing else whatever.
> «чтобы» + past form for a willed outcome: «надо, чтобы…» governs «чтобы» plus a past-tense verb («перерождалась», «сподобиться стать») — the irrealis construction for a desired or required result, not a plain reported fact. The «бы» fused into «чтобы» is the same conditional particle seen throughout the chapter.
> Instrumental predicate after «стать»: «стать» ('to become') takes its predicate noun in the instrumental: «церковью» ('[into] the Church'). The instrumental frames the new role as something assumed or arrived at, exactly the transformation Ivan is describing.
> «сподобиться» — to be deemed worthy: A bookish, religiously coloured verb meaning 'to be granted the grace / found worthy' of something. It belongs to the elevated ecclesiastical register and lends the State's hoped-for transformation a tone of divine favour rather than mere progress.
> Instrumental in the negative-concord chain: «ничем» is the instrumental of «ничто» ('nothing'), agreeing with the instrumental «церковью» it stands beside: 'nothing else more'. The «ни-» word still rides on the «не» implied by the whole exclusive construction — Russian's negative concord.

Сие и бу́ди, бу́ди!  
So be it, then; so be it!"
> 'So be it! So be it!': «Буди» is the archaic, Church-Slavonic imperative of «быть» ('to be'); in modern Russian the imperative is «будь». «Сие» is the old word for 'this' (modern «это»; «сие» survives only in set phrases). The doubled «буди, буди» functions like a solemn liturgical 'Amen, so be it', which is why it gives the chapter its title. The stress mark («бу́ди») tells the reader to stress the first syllable.
> The archaic demonstrative «сие»: «сие» is the neuter of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'), the high-style counterpart of «это». In 19th-century literary and ecclesiastical Russian it carries solemnity; here it points back to the whole vision just laid out — 'this'.

— Ну-с, признаюсь, вы меня теперь несколько ободрили, — усмехнулся Миусов, переложив опять ногу на ногу.  
"Well, I confess you have now somewhat heartened me," Miusov smiled, recrossing his legs once more.
> The deferential clitic «-с»: «-с» is the «словоерс», a contraction of «сударь» ('sir') tacked onto a word for a tone of deference, irony, or fussy politeness. Here «Ну-с» ('Well, sir…') marks the worldly Miusov's faintly affected, drawing-room manner — a register signal lost in plain English.
> Perfective past gerund «деепричастие»: «переложив» is a perfective past gerund ('having shifted'), an indeclinable verb-adverb sharing Miusov's subject and expressing the action that frames his speech — he recrosses his legs as he confesses. Such gerund tags on dialogue verbs are a hallmark of the novel's narration.
> Reflexive verb «признаться»: «признаюсь» ('I confess') is the «-сь» (post-vowel «-ся») form of «признаться». The reflexive here is lexicalised — the verb simply exists in this form, a frequent conversational parenthetical.

— Сколько я понимаю, это, стало быть, осуществление какого-то идеала, бесконечно далекого, во втором пришествии.  
"As far as I understand, this is, then, the realization of some ideal, infinitely remote, at the Second Coming.
> Indefinite «какого-то» + genitive: «какого-то» is «какой» ('some, what kind of') with the clitic «-то», marking a specific but unidentified referent — 'some ideal or other'. Its genitive ending agrees with «идеала», the genitive object of the verbal noun «осуществление» ('the realization of…').
> Parenthetical «стало быть»: A frozen phrase ('therefore, that is to say, consequently'), literally 'it has become to be'. It functions as a logical connective in reasoning speech and no longer parses as a live verb construction.

Это как угодно.  
That is as you please.
> «как угодно» — as you please: A set phrase built on «угодно» ('pleasing, agreeable'), used impersonally: 'however you like, as you please'. Miusov waves the metaphysics aside with a dismissive idiom.

Прекрасная утопическая мечта об исчезновении войн, дипломатов, банков и проч.  
A lovely utopian dream of the disappearance of wars, diplomats, banks, and so forth.
> Genitive of the thing that disappears: The verbal noun «исчезновение» ('disappearance') governs a genitive list — «войн» (gen. pl. of «война»), «дипломатов», «банков» — naming what vanishes. The varied genitive-plural endings (zero in «войн», «-ов» in «дипломатов/банков») are on display.
> «и прочее» — and so forth: The abbreviation «и проч.» stands for «и прочее» ('and the rest, etcetera'). Miusov's clipped list-ending adds to the tone of weary, worldly dismissal.

Что-то даже похожее на социализм.  
Something even resembling socialism.
> Indefinite «что-то» + agreeing adjective: «что-то» ('something', specific-but-unnamed) is the neuter indefinite pronoun; «похожее» is a neuter adjective agreeing with it, and «похожий на» ('resembling') governs the accusative «социализм». A verbless fragment — pure topic-less remark.

А то я думал, что всё это серьезно и что церковь теперь, например, будет судить уголовщину и приговаривать розги и каторгу, а пожалуй, так и смертную казнь.  
But I had thought all this was meant in earnest, and that the Church would now, for example, try criminal cases and sentence men to the rod and to penal servitude, and perhaps even to death."
> Contrastive opener «А то»: «А» is the mild contrastive conjunction marking a shift of footing, and «а то» here means 'whereas, but otherwise / for I had thought'. It pivots from the dismissed utopia to what Miusov says he had assumed instead.
> Compound imperfective future: «будет судить» and «приговаривать» are imperfective infinitives under one conjugated «будет» (future of «быть») — the analytic future for ongoing or repeated action: 'would be trying… and sentencing…'. The single auxiliary covers both infinitives.
> «розги» and «каторга» — the rod and penal servitude: «розги» (rods, birching) was corporal punishment; «каторга» was the brutal forced-labour exile to Siberia that Dostoevsky himself endured. Naming these concrete penal realities, Miusov sneers that he had taken the Church-court idea as a literal apparatus of flogging and the bagne.
> «уголовщина» — criminal matters: A colloquial collective noun (accusative «уголовщину») for criminal offences / the criminal element, from «уголовный» ('criminal'). Slightly dismissive in tone, it suits Miusov's worldly impatience.

— Да если б и теперь был один лишь церковно-общественный суд, то и теперь бы церковь не посылала на каторгу или на смертную казнь.  
"But even if there were nothing now but the ecclesiastical court, even now the Church would not send men to penal servitude or to death.
> Counterfactual «если бы … то … бы»: The conditional is doubled: «если б» (= «если бы») in the protasis and a second «бы» on the verb «не посылала» in the apodosis, both with past-tense forms. This is the standard irrealis — 'even if there were…, the Church would not send'.
> 'Ecclesiastical-communal court': A coined compound adjective ('church-and-social') modifying «суд» ('court'). Ivan imagines a court grounded in the Church-as-society, the central conceit of the whole disputation about jurisdiction.

Преступление и взгляд на него должны бы были несомненно тогда измениться, конечно мало-помалу, не вдруг и не сейчас, но, однако, довольно скоро... — спокойно и не смигнув глазом произнес Иван Федорович.  
Crime, and the view taken of it, would undoubtedly have to change then, little by little, of course, not suddenly and not at once, but still fairly soon..." said Ivan Fyodorovich calmly and without batting an eyelid.
> Conditional with «бы» split across the verb: «должны бы были измениться» — 'would have had to change' — shows the mobile «бы» wedged between the short adjective «должны» and the past auxiliary «были». The «бы» makes the obligation hypothetical, contingent on the imagined Church-court order.
> «мало-помалу» — little by little: A reduplicated adverbial idiom ('bit by bit, gradually'), paired here with «не вдруг и не сейчас» ('not suddenly and not at once'). The folksy phrasing softens Ivan's claim into something inevitable but slow.
> Negated perfective gerund: «не смигнув глазом» ('without batting an eyelid') is a negated perfective past gerund «деепричастие», describing the manner of «произнес». The instrumental «глазом» ('with an eye') is the means; the whole tag underscores Ivan's unnerving calm.

— Вы серьезно? — пристально глянул на него Миусов  
"Are you in earnest?" Miusov said, looking at him intently.
> Perfective «глянул» as a single look: «глянул» (perfective of «глядеть/глянуть») presents a single, momentary glance — one completed act — against the imperfective «смотрел» that would suggest sustained looking. The adverb «пристально» ('intently') sharpens it.

— Если бы всё стало церковью, то церковь отлучала бы от себя преступного и непослушного, а не рубила бы тогда голов, — продолжал Иван Федорович.  
"If everything became the Church, then the Church would excommunicate the criminal and the disobedient from itself, and would not then cut off heads," Ivan Fyodorovich went on.
> Counterfactual with paired «бы» verbs: A textbook irrealis: «если бы» plus past «стало» in the condition, then two «бы» + past verbs in the result — «отлучала бы» / «не рубила бы». Both result verbs are imperfective past, picturing the habitual conduct of the imagined Church.
> Instrumental predicate after «стать»: Again «стать» + instrumental «церковью»: 'if everything became the Church'. The instrumental marks the transformed role the State would assume.
> «отлучать» — to excommunicate: «отлучать (от церкви)» is the technical verb for excommunication, cutting someone off from communion. It is the chapter's key term, deliberately set against the secular «рубить голову» ('cut off heads') — spiritual exclusion versus the executioner's axe.

— Я вас спрашиваю, куда бы пошел отлученный?  
"I ask you, where would the excommunicated man go?
> Conditional question with «бы»: «куда бы пошел» ('where would [he] go') is a conditional with «бы» + past «пошел», projecting a hypothetical. «отлученный» is a substantivised past passive participle ('the excommunicated one') serving as the subject.

Ведь тогда он должен был бы не только от людей, как теперь, но и от Христа уйти.  
For then he would have to go away not only from men, as now, but from Christ as well.
> Particle «ведь» + conditional obligation: «Ведь» opens the sentence appealing to shared, self-evident knowledge ('for, after all'). «должен был бы … уйти» is the conditional of obligation — 'he would have to go away'. The «бы» again splits off after the past auxiliary «был».
> Correlative «не только … но и»: The framework «не только X, но и Y» ('not only X but also Y') escalates from men to Christ; «уйти от» ('to go away from') governs the genitive in both arms — «от людей», «от Христа». The rising pair is the rhetorical engine of Ivan's point.

Ведь он своим преступлением восстал бы не только на людей, но и на церковь Христову.  
For by his crime he would have risen up not only against men, but against the Church of Christ.
> «восстать на» + accusative — to rise against: «восстал бы» is a conditional («бы» + perfective past «восстал»), and «восстать на кого» ('to rise up against') takes the accusative — «на людей», «на церковь». The preposition «на» governs the accusative here in its hostile sense, not location.
> Possessive adjective «Христова»: «Христову» (acc. fem.) is from «Христов», a possessive adjective ('Christ's') rather than the genitive «Христа». Such -ов/-ова possessive adjectives, common in fixed religious phrases (церковь Христова, заповеди Господни), carry a solemn, scriptural ring.

Это и теперь, конечно, так в строгом смысле, но все-таки не объявлено, и совесть нынешнего преступника весьма и весьма часто вступает с собою в сделки: «Украл, дескать, но не на церковь иду, Христу не враг» — вот что говорит себе нынешний преступник сплошь да рядом, ну а тогда, когда церковь станет на место государства, тогда трудно было бы ему это сказать, разве с отрицанием всей церкви на всей земле: «Все, дескать, ошибаются, все уклонились, все ложная церковь, я один, убийца и вор, — справедливая христианская церковь».  
This is so even now, of course, in the strict sense, but it is nonetheless not proclaimed, and the conscience of the present-day criminal very, very often enters into bargains with itself: 'I stole,' he tells himself, 'but I am not going against the Church, I am no enemy of Christ' — that is what the present-day criminal tells himself time and again; yet then, when the Church takes the place of the State, it would be hard for him to say such a thing, except by denying the whole Church over all the earth: 'Everyone is mistaken,' he would have to say, 'everyone has gone astray, all of it is a false Church, and I alone, a murderer and a thief, am the true Christian Church.'
> Reportative particle «дескать»: «дескать» flags reported or quoted speech with a shade of the speaker's distance or scepticism — 'he says / supposedly'. Twice here it frames the criminal's self-justifying inner quotation, lending it a sardonic, second-hand colour.
> Reflexive pronoun «собою» (instrumental): «собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive «себя», governed by «с» ('with') after «вступать в сделки с кем» ('to enter into bargains with'). It points back to the clause's subject — the conscience bargains 'with itself'.
> Impersonal dative with conditional «было бы»: «трудно было бы ему … сказать» is an impersonal construction: the experiencer «ему» stands in the dative, the predicate is the invariable «трудно» ('[it is] hard'), and «было бы» makes it hypothetical. No nominative subject — the difficulty simply befalls him.
> «сплошь да рядом» — time and again: A colloquial set phrase ('constantly, every other moment, more often than not'), with the folksy conjunction «да» linking the two adverbs. It earths the elder's-style argument in everyday speech.

Это ведь очень трудно себе сказать, требует условий огромных, обстоятельств, не часто бывающих.  
That is a very hard thing to say to oneself; it demands enormous conditions, circumstances that do not often occur.
> Reflexive «себе» (dative) + impersonal predicate: «себе» is the dative of the reflexive «себя» — 'to say to oneself'. The clause is impersonal-evaluative ('it is very hard to say to oneself'), the infinitive «сказать» standing as the logical subject of «трудно».
> Present active participle «бывающих»: «бывающих» is the present active participle of «бывать» ('to happen, occur'), genitive plural agreeing with «обстоятельств» — 'circumstances [that are] not often occurring'. It compresses a «который»-clause into a single bookish modifier.

Теперь, с другой стороны, возьмите взгляд самой церкви на преступление: разве не должен он измениться против теперешнего, почти языческого, и из механического отсечения зараженного члена, как делается ныне для охранения общества, преобразиться, и уже вполне и не ложно, в идею о возрождении вновь человека, о воскресении его и спасении его...  
Now, on the other hand, take the view of crime held by the Church itself: must it not change from its present, almost pagan, view, and from the mechanical cutting off of an infected member, as is done nowadays for the protection of society, be transfigured — and now fully and without falsehood — into the idea of the rebirth of the man anew, of his resurrection and his salvation..."
> Rhetorical «разве … не»: «разве» introduces a question expecting agreement, sharpened by «не» into a rhetorical 'must it not…?'. The doubled negation pulls the listener toward the obvious yes — a favourite device of the elder's persuasion.
> «преобразиться из … в …» with case pairing: «преобразиться» ('to be transfigured') frames a transformation: «из» + genitive («отсечения») for the starting point, «в» + accusative («идею») for the result. The prepositions fix the cases that carry the 'from-into' logic.
> «преобразиться» — to be transfigured: The verb of the Transfiguration of Christ («Преображение»), here applied to the Church's view of crime. Its sacred resonance deliberately lifts the social argument into theological vocabulary — reform as transfiguration, not mere reform.

— То есть что же это такое?  
"But what on earth does this mean?
> Emphatic particle «же» in a question: «же» drives indignant emphasis into the question — 'but what on earth is this?'. Set in «что же это такое», it conveys Miusov's exasperated incomprehension, a flavour English can only carry through stress.

Я опять перестаю понимать, — перебил Миусов, — опять какая-то мечта.  
I am ceasing to understand again," Miusov interrupted, "some sort of dream again.
> Imperfective phase verb + infinitive: «перестаю» (present, imperfective «переставать») means 'I am ceasing'; phase verbs like «начинать/переставать/продолжать» pair only with an imperfective infinitive, here «понимать». The present tense conveys the process unfolding as Miusov speaks.
> Dismissive indefinite «какая-то»: «какая-то» ('some kind of') with «-то» marks a vague, unidentified referent, and in context drips dismissal — 'some sort of dream again'. The repeated «опять» frames the elder's vision as one more piece of fog.

Что-то бесформенное, да и понять нельзя.  
Something shapeless, and impossible even to make sense of.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + infinitive: «понять нельзя» is an impersonal modal: «нельзя» ('it is impossible / not allowed') plus the perfective infinitive «понять» means 'it is impossible to make sense of'. With a perfective infinitive «нельзя» reads as impossibility rather than prohibition.

Как это отлучение, что за отлучение?  
What is this excommunication, what kind of excommunication?
> Idiom «что за» — what kind of: «что за» (literally 'what for/behind') is a fixed exclamatory-interrogative meaning 'what kind of…?', taking a nominative noun («отлучение»). It conveys puzzled or indignant wonder — 'what is this excommunication of yours?'.

Я подозреваю, вы просто потешаетесь, Иван Федорович.  
I suspect you are simply amusing yourself, Ivan Fyodorovich."
> Reflexive «потешаться» — to amuse oneself: «потешаетесь» (2nd pl., imperfective «потешаться») is a middle-reflexive «-ся» verb, 'to amuse / divert oneself, to mock'. Miusov accuses Ivan of toying with them; the «-ся» here turns the action inward as self-amusement.

— Да ведь по-настоящему то же самое и теперь, — заговорил вдруг старец, и все разом к нему обратились, — ведь если бы теперь не было Христовой церкви, то не было бы преступнику никакого и удержу в злодействе и даже кары за него потом, то есть кары настоящей, не механической, как они сказали сейчас, и которая лишь раздражает в большинстве случаев сердце, а настоящей кары, единственной действительной, единственной устрашающей и умиротворяющей, заключающейся в сознании собственной совести.  
"But in truth it is the very same even now," the elder suddenly began to speak, and all of them at once turned to him, "for if there were now no Church of Christ, there would be nothing whatever to restrain the criminal in his wrongdoing, nor any chastisement for it afterward — that is, real chastisement, not the mechanical kind they spoke of just now, which in most cases only embitters the heart, but the real chastisement, the only effective one, the only one that both deters and brings peace, lying in the awareness of one's own conscience."
> Opening particles «Да ведь»: «Да» here is not 'yes' but an emphatic discourse opener, and «ведь» appeals to shared truth ('for, after all') — together a gentle, insistent 'But in fact…'. The elder enters the debate by claiming common ground rather than contradiction.
> Negated existential conditional + genitive: Both arms use «не было (бы)» — the negated existential, which forces its subject into the genitive: «не было … удержу» ('there would be no restraint'), «не было … кары» ('no chastisement'). «никакого» ('no … at all') agrees in the genitive and feeds the negative concord.
> A chain of present active participles: «устрашающей», «умиротворяющей», «заключающейся» are present active participles (the last with «-ся») in a dense feminine-genitive chain agreeing with «кары»: the chastisement 'that deters, that pacifies, that consists in…'. Such participial stacking is the elevated literary syntax the catalog flags as bookish.
> «удерж» — restraint, check: «удержу» (gen. of «удерж») is an old, now mostly fixed-phrase noun for a curb or restraint, surviving chiefly in «без удержу» ('unrestrainedly'). Here it means there would be 'no check' on the criminal — a slightly archaic, weighty word.
> «злодейство» — villainy, evildoing: A heightened, almost theatrical noun for wrongdoing ('villainy, evil deed'), stronger than the neutral «преступление». It belongs to the moral-religious vocabulary of sin rather than the legal vocabulary of crime.

— Как же так, позвольте узнать? — с живейшим любопытством спросил Миусов  
"How is that, may I ask?" Miusov asked with the liveliest curiosity.
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «живейшим» is the bookish superlative of «живой» formed with «-ейш-» ('liveliest'), here in the instrumental of manner after «с» — 'with the liveliest curiosity'. The synthetic «-ейший» superlative is markedly literary beside the everyday «самый живой».
> «позвольте узнать» — may I ask: A polite formula ('permit [me] to learn / inquire'), with the imperative «позвольте» plus an infinitive. It is the courteous, faintly formal register Miusov keeps even while pressing the elder.

— Это вот как, — начал старец.  
"It is like this," the elder began.

— Все эти ссылки в работы, а прежде с битьем, никого не исправляют, а главное, почти никакого преступника и не устрашают, и число преступлений не только не уменьшается, а чем далее, тем более нарастает.  
"All these deportations to hard labor, and formerly with flogging too, reform no one, and, what is more, hardly deter any criminal at all, and the number of crimes, far from diminishing, grows greater the further it goes.
> «ссылка в работы», «битьё» — penal exile and flogging: «ссылка в работы» is exile to hard labour (the «каторжные работы»), «битьё» the flogging that 'formerly' accompanied it. The elder names the same brutal penal apparatus Miusov mentioned, now to argue it reforms no one.
> «не только не …, а …» with imperfective process: The correlative «не только не …, а (тем более)» builds a rising contrast, and both verbs are imperfective present («уменьшается», «нарастает») depicting an ongoing trend, not a single event. «чем далее, тем более» ('the further, the more') is the proportional 'the…the…' frame.
> Middle «-ся» of change: Only «уменьшается» (from «уменьшаться») is a «-ся» middle verb here, 'decreases of itself'. «нарастает» (from «нарастать») is a plain intransitive verb with no «-ся» at all (there is no form «нарастается»). The «-ся» on «уменьшается» marks the change-of-state, not a true reflexive.

Ведь вы с этим должны же согласиться.  
Surely you must agree with this.
> Twin particles «ведь … же»: «Ведь» appeals to the obvious ('surely, after all') and «же» adds insistence to «должны» — together 'surely you simply must agree'. The «-ся» verb «согласиться» ('to agree') governs «с» + instrumental «с этим» ('with this').

И выходит, что общество, таким образом, совсем не охранено, ибо хоть и отсекается вредный член механически и ссылается далеко, с глаз долой, но на его место тотчас же появляется другой преступник, а может, и два другие.  
And it turns out that society, in this way, is not protected at all, for although the harmful member is cut off mechanically and sent far away, out of sight, another criminal at once appears in his place, and perhaps two others.
> Imperfective passive in «-ся»: «отсекается» ('is cut off') and «ссылается» ('is exiled') are imperfective passives formed with «-ся», the harmful member acted upon while the agent (society) stays implicit. The pairing makes the cutting-off sound mechanical and habitual.
> Topic–comment word order: The locative phrase «на его место» is fronted as topic and the new information — «другой преступник» — lands at the end, the stressed comment. Russian's free word order lets the sentence's weight fall on the replacement criminal.
> «с глаз долой» — out of sight: A folk idiom ('out of sight, away with him'), half of the proverb «с глаз долой — из сердца вон». «долой» is an old adverb of removal. It colours the sentence with vernacular impatience: society simply gets the criminal out of view.

Если что и охраняет общество даже в наше время и даже самого преступника исправляет и в другого человека перерождает, то это опять-таки единственно лишь закон Христов, сказывающийся в сознании собственной совести.  
If anything does protect society even in our time, and even reforms the criminal himself and transforms him into another man, it is, once again, solely the law of Christ, making itself heard in the awareness of one's own conscience.
> Concessive «если … и …, то»: «если что и охраняет … то это…» is the concessive frame 'if anything does protect…, it is…', where «и» concedes the point and «то» introduces the answer. The construction lets the elder grant a minimal truth before naming its sole real source.
> Present active participle «сказывающийся»: «сказывающийся» is the present active participle of the «-ся» verb «сказываться» ('to make itself felt / heard'), agreeing with «закон» — 'the law… making itself heard'. Participle plus «-ся» together compress 'the law which makes itself felt' into one modifier.
> «опять-таки» — once again, after all: A compound discourse adverb ('all the same, once again') with the emphatic clitic «-таки». It signals the elder returning, with quiet insistence, to his recurring claim — only Christ's law truly protects.

Только сознав свою вину как сын Христова общества, то есть церкви, он сознает и вину свою пред самим обществом, то есть пред церковью.  
Only by acknowledging his guilt as a son of Christ's society, that is, of the Church, does he acknowledge his guilt before society itself, that is, before the Church.
> Perfective gerund «сознав» framing the main verb: «сознав» is a perfective past gerund ('having acknowledged'), expressing the prior act on which the present-tense «сознает» depends — only by first acknowledging guilt before the Church does he then acknowledge it before society. The gerund shares the subject «он».
> Reflexive possessive «свою» + archaic «пред»: «свою» ('his own') refers back to the clause subject «он», the guilt belonging to himself. «пред» is the bookish/Church-Slavonic variant of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «обществом» — its solemn register suits the confessional theme.

Таким образом, пред одною только церковью современный преступник и способен сознать вину свою, а не то что пред государством.  
Thus it is before the Church alone that the modern criminal is even capable of acknowledging his guilt, and not before the State.
> Fronting for emphasis with focus «и»: The instrumental phrase «пред одною только церковью» ('before the Church alone') is fronted, and the focusing «и» before «способен» marks it as the exclusive point — 'it is before the Church alone that he is even capable…'. Word order does the emphatic work English needs a cleft for.
> Contrastive «а … не то что»: «а» is the mild contrastive conjunction shifting the comparison, and «не то что» ('and certainly not, far from') sets the State below the Church. The pairing closes the sentence on a dismissal of secular jurisdiction.

Вот если бы суд принадлежал обществу как церкви, тогда бы оно знало, кого воротить из отлучения и опять приобщить к себе.  
Now if jurisdiction belonged to society as the Church, then it would know whom to bring back from excommunication and reunite once more to itself.
> Counterfactual «если бы … тогда бы»: A full irrealis period: «если бы … принадлежал» (condition) answered by «тогда бы … знало» (result), both with past-tense verbs and «бы». The opening «Вот» ('now, here's the thing') stages the hypothesis vividly.
> Animate accusative = genitive in «кого»: «кого» (object of «воротить», 'to bring back') is the accusative of «кто», which for the animate interrogative coincides with the genitive — Russian's animacy rule. «воротить» is itself a colloquial/archaic variant of «возвратить» ('to return, bring back').
> «приобщить» — to reunite to communion: «приобщить» means to join someone (back) to a community, and in church usage specifically 'to administer Holy Communion'. Paired with «воротить из отлучения» ('bring back from excommunication'), it carries the sacramental sense of restoring the sinner to the Church.

Теперь же церковь, не имея никакого деятельного суда, а имея лишь возможность одного нравственного осуждения, от деятельной кары преступника и сама удаляется.  
As it is, the Church, having no active jurisdiction at all but only the power of moral condemnation, itself holds back from any active chastisement of the criminal.
> Paired gerunds «не имея … а имея»: Two imperfective present gerunds «деепричастие» — «(не) имея» / «имея» ('not having… but having…') — set up the Church's circumstance as attendant background to the main verb «удаляется». «никакого … суда» is the genitive demanded by the negated «не имея».
> Middle «-ся» + «от» + genitive: «удаляется» ('withdraws, holds back') is an intransitive «-ся» verb, and «удаляться от» governs the genitive «от … кары». The intensifying «сама» ('itself') stresses that the Church withdraws of its own accord.

Не отлучает она его от себя, а лишь не оставляет его отеческим назиданием.  
It does not excommunicate him from itself, but only does not abandon him to fatherly admonition.
> Contrastive «а» between two negations: The contrastive «а» pivots from what the Church does not do («не отлучает») to what it instead does — though the second clause is itself oddly negated. «отеческим назиданием» is the instrumental of means: it does not abandon him, [supporting him] by fatherly admonition.
> «отеческое назидание» — fatherly admonition: «назидание» is an elevated, churchly word for edifying instruction or admonition; «отеческий» ('paternal, fatherly') ties it to the pastoral image of the Church as father. The pairing keeps the passage in its devotional register.

Мало того, даже старается сохранить с преступником всё христианское церковное общение: допускает его к церковным службам, к святым дарам, дает ему подаяние и обращается с ним более как с плененным, чем как с виновным.  
More than that, it even strives to preserve all Christian communion of the Church with the criminal: it admits him to the church services, to the Holy Gifts, gives him alms, and treats him more as a captive than as a guilty man.
> Liturgical vocabulary: «церковные службы» are the church services, the «святые дары» ('Holy Gifts') the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist, and «подаяние» is alms. The cluster paints the Church keeping the criminal inside full sacramental and charitable communion.
> Substantivised participle/adjective in comparison: «плененным» (past passive participle of «пленить», 'taken captive') and «виновным» (adjective, 'guilty') are both substantivised and stand in the instrumental after «с» — 'with [him as] a captive… than as a guilty man'. The «более … чем» frame makes the comparison.

И что было бы с преступником, о господи! если б и христианское общество, то есть церковь, отвергло его подобно тому, как отвергает и отсекает его гражданский закон?  
And what would become of the criminal, O Lord, if Christian society too, that is, the Church, were to reject him in the same way that the civil law rejects and cuts him off?
> Counterfactual question with «если б»: «что было бы … если б … отвергло» is a full irrealis: a conditional question 'what would become of him if [the Church] rejected him'. «отвергло» is perfective past neuter agreeing with «общество», and «если б» is the reduced «если бы».
> Vocative interjection «о господи!»: «господи» is the old vocative of «Господь» ('O Lord'), here an exclamation of dismay rather than literal prayer. Such Church-Slavonic vocatives — «Господи», «Боже», «отче» — survive in Russian only as set forms of address, and Dostoevsky's speech is full of them.
> Correlative «подобно тому, как»: «подобно тому, как» ('in the same way that') is a correlative comparison, the demonstrative «тому» (dative after «подобно») picking up the «как»-clause. It contrasts the Church's mercy with the civil law's mechanical rejection.

Что было бы, если б и церковь карала его своим отлучением тотчас же и каждый раз вослед кары государственного закона?  
What would become of him if the Church too were to punish him with its excommunication at once and every time, hard on the heels of the punishment of the law of the State?
> Imperfective conditional for habitual punishing: «карала бы» (imperfective past + «бы») in the «если б» clause pictures a repeated, habitual action — punishing 'at once and every time'. The imperfective is deliberate: the horror lies in the unrelenting repetition, not a single act.
> «вослед» — hard on the heels of: «вослед» is a bookish/archaic preposition ('following after, in the wake of'), governing the genitive «кары» — 'hard on the heels of the punishment'. The lofty word reinforces the passage's solemn cadence.

Да выше не могло бы и быть отчаяния, по крайней мере для преступника русского, ибо русские преступники еще веруют.  
Surely there could be no greater despair, at least for a Russian criminal, for Russian criminals still believe.
> Genitive subject of negated «не могло быть»: «не могло бы … быть отчаяния» negates existence, so the subject «отчаяния» stands in the genitive — 'there could be no [greater] despair'. The fronted comparative «выше» ('higher / greater') and the conditional «бы» heighten the rhetorical pitch.
> Causal «ибо» + the bookish «веровать»: «ибо» is the archaic, bookish conjunction 'for, because', loftier than «потому что». «веруют» (from «веровать») is the elevated verb of religious faith, distinct from everyday «верить» — Russian criminals 'still hold the faith'.

А впрочем, кто знает: может быть, случилось бы тогда страшное дело — произошла бы, может быть, потеря веры в отчаянном сердце преступника, и тогда что?  
And yet, who knows: perhaps something terrible would come to pass then — a loss of faith might come about, perhaps, in the despairing heart of the criminal, and then what?
> Conditional perfective verbs of an event: «случилось бы», «произошла бы» are perfective past + «бы», projecting single hypothetical events — 'something terrible would come to pass', 'a loss of faith might come about'. The perfective aspect frames each as a sudden, completed turn.
> Concessive «а впрочем»: «а впрочем» ('and yet, however, then again') with the contrastive «а» marks the speaker turning to qualify his own claim. The colloquial «кто знает» ('who knows') opens the door to doubt that the rest of the sentence walks through.

Но церковь, как мать нежная и любящая, от деятельной кары сама устраняется, так как и без ее кары слишком больно наказан виновный государственным судом, и надо же его хоть кому-нибудь пожалеть.  
But the Church, like a tender and loving mother, holds back from any active chastisement, since even without its punishment the guilty man is all too painfully punished by the court of the State, and someone, at least, must take pity on him.
> The Church as tender mother: «мать нежная и любящая» ('a tender and loving mother') is the traditional image of the Church as «Мать-Церковь». «любящая» is a present active participle ('loving') used adjectivally. The maternal metaphor frames the Church's refusal to punish as compassion.
> Impersonal «надо» + dative + «-нибудь»: «надо … пожалеть» is the impersonal modal of necessity with an infinitive, the would-be agent in the dative «кому-нибудь» ('to someone or other'). The «-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'anyone at all', and the particle «же» adds insistence — 'someone, at least, simply must pity him'.

Главное же потому устраняется, что суд церкви есть суд единственно вмещающий в себе истину и ни с каким иным судом вследствие сего существенно и нравственно сочетаться даже и в компромисс временный не может.  
But it holds back chiefly because the court of the Church is the only court that contains within it the truth, and which therefore cannot, in essence and in morality, join with any other court even in a temporary compromise.
> Present active participle «вмещающий»: «вмещающий» is the present active participle of «вмещать» ('to contain, hold within'), agreeing with «суд» — 'the court that contains the truth within it'. «в себе» is the reflexive «себя» (prepositional) pointing back to the court itself.
> Reflexive «сочетаться» — to be joined: «сочетаться» ('to combine, be joined') is an «-ся» verb here in its reciprocal/passive sense — the Church's court cannot 'join with' («с» + instrumental «с … судом») any other. Lexically it also carries a marriage-and-union resonance fitting the sacred theme.
> Archaic «вследствие сего»: «сего» is the bookish genitive of «сей» ('this'), and «вследствие сего» means 'in consequence of this, therefore' — a stiff, chancery-and-Church turn of phrase. It marks the elder's discourse shifting into its most formal, doctrinal register.

Тут нельзя уже в сделки вступать.  
Here one can no longer enter into bargains.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + imperfective infinitive: «нельзя … вступать» is the impersonal modal of prohibition with an imperfective infinitive, which gives «нельзя» its 'one must not / cannot' sense. The particle «уже» ('any longer') marks the point at which bargaining ends.

Иностранный преступник, говорят, редко раскаивается, ибо самые даже современные учения утверждают его в мысли, что преступление его не есть преступление, а лишь восстание против несправедливо угнетающей силы.  
The foreign criminal, they say, rarely repents, for the very teachings of our day confirm him in the thought that his crime is not a crime but only a rising up against an unjustly oppressing force.
> Causal «ибо» + intensifier «самые»: «ибо» again opens a bookish causal clause ('for'). «самые … современные» uses «самый» as an intensifier ('the very most modern'), and «утверждать кого в мысли» ('to confirm someone in the thought') governs «в» + prepositional «в мысли».
> The bookish copula «есть»: Russian normally drops the present-tense 'to be', but the bookish «есть» surfaces in solemn or definitional statements — here «не есть преступление» ('is not a crime'). Its presence lifts the criminal's self-justification into the register of doctrine.

Общество отсекает его от себя вполне механически торжествующею над ним силой и сопровождает отлучение это ненавистью (так по крайней мере они сами о себе, в Европе, повествуют), — ненавистью и полнейшим к дальнейшей судьбе его, как брата своего, равнодушием и забвением.  
Society cuts him off from itself wholly mechanically, with a force that triumphs over him, and accompanies this excommunication with hatred (so at least they themselves relate of themselves, in Europe) — with hatred and with utter indifference to and oblivion of his further fate as that of a brother.
> Present active participle in instrumental of means: «торжествующею» is the present active participle of «торжествовать» ('to triumph'), in an archaic long instrumental ending «-ею» (for modern «-ей»), agreeing with «силой» — 'with a force triumphing over him'. The whole phrase is the instrumental of means after «отсекает».
> Intensive «сами» + reflexive «о себе»: «сами» ('themselves') intensifies the subject and «о себе» is the reflexive «себя» (prepositional after «о») pointing back to it — 'they themselves relate of themselves'. «повествуют» (from «повествовать», 'to narrate') is a literary verb for solemn telling.
> Superlative «полнейший» + bookish «забвение»: «полнейшим» is the «-ейш-» superlative of «полный» ('utter, most complete'), and «забвение» is an elevated noun for oblivion / forgetting. Both, in the instrumental after «с», intensify the cold European indifference 'to the fate of a brother'.

Таким образом, всё происходит без малейшего сожаления церковного, ибо во многих случаях там церквей уже и нет вовсе, а остались лишь церковники и великолепные здания церквей, сами же церкви давно уже стремятся там к переходу из низшего вида, как церковь, в высший вид, как государство, чтобы в нем совершенно исчезнуть.  
Thus everything proceeds without the least churchly compassion, for in many cases there are no churches there at all any longer, but only churchmen and magnificent church buildings have remained, while the churches themselves have long been striving there to pass over from the lower species, the Church, into the higher species, the State, so as to vanish into it entirely.
> Reflexive «стремиться к» + the from/into frame: «стремятся» («-ся» verb, 'strive') governs «к» + dative «к переходу». The transition is then mapped with «из» + genitive («из низшего вида») and «в» + accusative («в высший вид») — the same lower-to-higher schema Ivan used at the chapter's start.
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: When the subject of the purpose clause matches the main clause, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive rather than a past form — «чтобы … исчезнуть» ('so as to vanish'). The churches strive upward into the State only 'in order to disappear into it'.
> «церковники» — churchmen (slightly disparaging): «церковники» means clergy / church functionaries, but with a faintly cold or pejorative tinge — institutional men rather than living faith. The elder's point turns on the gap between «церковники» and a true «церковь», which there have 'long since' gone.

Так, кажется, по крайней мере в лютеранских землях.  
So it is, it seems, at least in the Lutheran lands.

В Риме же так уж тысячу лет вместо церкви провозглашено государство.  
But in Rome the State has already been proclaimed in place of the Church for a thousand years.
> Short-form passive participle «провозглашено»: «провозглашено» is the short (predicative) past passive participle of «провозгласить» ('to proclaim'), neuter to agree with «государство»: 'the State has been proclaimed'. The short passive participle states a standing result, and the duration «тысячу лет» (accusative of extent) measures it.

А потому сам преступник членом церкви уж и не сознает себя и, отлученный, пребывает в отчаянии.  
And therefore the criminal himself no longer recognizes himself as a member of the Church and, excommunicated, abides in despair.
> Instrumental predicate + reflexive «себя»: «сознавать себя кем» ('to recognize oneself as someone') takes the predicate in the instrumental — «членом церкви» ('as a member of the Church') — while «себя» is the reflexive object. The criminal 'no longer recognizes himself as a member'.
> Substantivised participle + bookish «пребывает»: «отлученный» (past passive participle, 'the excommunicated one') here stands in apposition to «преступник». «пребывает» (from «пребывать», 'to abide, remain') is an elevated, almost scriptural verb of dwelling in a state — he 'abides in despair'.

Если же возвращается в общество, то нередко с такою ненавистью, что самое общество как бы уже само отлучает от себя.  
And if he returns to society, it is often with such hatred that society itself, as it were, already excommunicates him from itself.
> Hedge «как бы» + reflexive «от себя»: «как бы» ('as it were') hedges the bold claim that society itself excommunicates the returning man. «от себя» is the reflexive «себя» after «от» (genitive), pointing back to «общество» — it pushes him away 'from itself'. «само» intensifies: society does it of its own accord.

Чем это кончится, можете сами рассудить.  
How this will end, you can judge for yourselves.
> Fronted indirect question + impersonal address: «Чем это кончится» ('how this will end', literally 'with what it will end') is an embedded question fronted before the main clause. «кончится» (perfective future) and «рассудить» (perfective infinitive) both point to a single completed outcome the listeners can judge for themselves.

Во многих случаях, казалось бы, и у нас то же; но в том и дело, что, кроме установленных судов, есть у нас, сверх того, еще и церковь, которая никогда не теряет общения с преступником, как с милым и всё еще дорогим сыном своим, а сверх того, есть и сохраняется, хотя бы даже только мысленно, и суд церкви, теперь хотя и не деятельный, но всё же живущий для будущего, хотя бы в мечте, да и преступником самим несомненно, инстинктом души его, признаваемый.  
In many cases, it would seem, it is the same with us too; but the very point is that, besides the established courts, we have, over and above them, the Church as well, which never loses communion with the criminal as with a dear son still precious to it, and besides this there exists and is preserved, if only in thought, the court of the Church too — now inactive, it is true, but still living for the future, if only in a dream, and undoubtedly recognized by the criminal himself, by the instinct of his soul.
> Relative «которая» + negative-concord genitive: «которая» (fem., agreeing with «церковь») opens a relative clause taking nominative as its own subject. «никогда … не теряет» shows negative concord (никогда + не), and the negated «теряет» pulls its object «общения» into the genitive.
> Concessive «хотя бы» — if only: «хотя бы» ('if only, even if just') concedes a minimal case — the Church-court survives 'if only in thought'. Repeated here («хотя бы … мысленно», «хотя бы в мечте»), it keeps qualifying the ideal down to its faintest possible existence.
> Present passive participle «признаваемый»: «признаваемый» is the rare, bookish present passive participle in «-мый» ('being recognized'), with its agent in the instrumental — «преступником самим» ('by the criminal himself'). This is exactly the literary -мый passive the catalog flags as elevated.

Справедливо и то, что было здесь сейчас сказано, что если бы действительно наступил суд церкви, и во всей своей силе, то есть если бы всё общество обратилось лишь в церковь, то не только суд церкви повлиял бы на исправление преступника так, как никогда не влияет ныне, но, может быть, и вправду самые преступления уменьшились бы в невероятную долю.  
True too is what was said here just now, that if the court of the Church really came into being, and in all its force — that is, if all of society were transformed into nothing but the Church — then not only would the court of the Church influence the reform of the criminal as it never influences it nowadays, but, perhaps, the very crimes themselves would actually diminish to an incredible degree.
> Short passive participle «сказано»: «сказано» is the short neuter past passive participle of «сказать», joined to «было» to make the periphrastic passive — 'what was said'. The short form states a result; the agent is suppressed, the focus on the saying itself.
> Extended counterfactual with «не только … но»: A long irrealis period: the «если бы» protasis («наступил», «обратилось» — perfective past + «бы») leads to an apodosis structured by «не только … но» and capped by «уменьшились бы». Every result verb carries «бы», sustaining the hypothetical across the whole sentence.
> Reflexive «обратиться в» + accusative: «обратиться в» ('to turn into') is an «-ся» verb of change governing «в» + accusative «в церковь» — 'if all of society were transformed into nothing but the Church'. The «-ся» marks the intransitive change-of-state.

Да и церковь, сомнения нет, понимала бы будущего преступника и будущее преступление во многих случаях совсем иначе, чем ныне, и сумела бы возвратить отлученного, предупредить замышляющего и возродить падшего.  
And the Church too, there is no doubt, would understand the future criminal and the future crime in many cases quite differently than it does now, and would be able to bring back the excommunicated, to forestall the one who plotted evil, and to regenerate the fallen.
> Conditional «бы» + a chain of perfective infinitives: «понимала бы», «сумела бы» continue the counterfactual, and «сумела бы» governs three perfective infinitives — «возвратить», «предупредить», «возродить» ('bring back, forestall, regenerate'). The perfectives present each as a single achieved result the future Church could accomplish.
> Substantivised participles as objects: «замышляющего» (present active participle, 'the one plotting [evil]') and «падшего» (past active/adjectival, 'the fallen one') are participles used as animate nouns, in the accusative-equals-genitive form. Each compresses a whole human type into a single word — the would-be criminal, the fallen man.

Правда, — усмехнулся старец, — теперь общество христианское пока еще само не готово и стоит лишь на семи праведниках; но так как они не оскудевают, то и пребывает всё же незыблемо, в ожидании своего полного преображения из общества как союза почти еще языческого во единую вселенскую и владычествующую церковь.  
True," the elder smiled, "now Christian society itself is as yet not ready, and stands only upon seven righteous men; but since they do not fail, it abides nonetheless unshaken, awaiting its full transfiguration from a society that is still an almost pagan union into the one universal and sovereign Church.
> «оскудевать» — to grow scarce, fail: «оскудевают» (from «оскудевать», 'to dwindle, run dry, fail') is an elevated, scriptural-sounding verb. Echoing the proverb «не оскудеет рука дающего», it says the righteous 'do not run out' — the few never give out.
> Solemn high-register lexis: «незыблемо» ('unshakably'), «преображение» ('transfiguration'), and «владычествующая» ('sovereign, holding dominion', a present active participle of «владычествовать») are all elevated, churchly words. They lift the closing vision into the language of liturgy and prophecy.
> Reflexive possessive «своего»: «своего» ('its own') refers back to the subject «общество», the transfiguration belonging to society itself rather than another's. Using «его» instead would point to someone else's — the reflexive «свой» keeps the reference inside the clause.

Сие и бу́ди, бу́ди хотя бы и в конце веков, ибо лишь сему предназначено совершиться!  
So be it, then; so be it, though it be even at the end of the ages, for to this alone is it appointed to come to pass!
> The refrain returns: The chapter's title-refrain recurs: «сие» ('this', archaic «сей») plus the doubled Church-Slavonic imperative «буди» ('be it', for modern «будь»). It functions as a solemn liturgical 'so be it, Amen', the elder sealing his vision in the cadence of prayer.
> Impersonal short passive + dative «сему»: «предназначено» is a short neuter passive participle used impersonally ('it is destined / appointed'), with the dative «сему» ('to this', archaic dative of «сей') as the thing appointed and the perfective infinitive «совершиться» as what is to come to pass.
> «в конце веков» — at the end of the ages: A solemn eschatological phrase ('at the end of the ages / of time'), with «веков» the genitive plural of «век» ('age, century'). It places the Church's full triumph at the very end of history — 'though it be even at the end of the ages'.

И нечего смущать себя временами и сроками, ибо тайна времен и сроков в мудрости божией, в предвидении его и в любви его.  
And there is no need to trouble ourselves over times and seasons, for the mystery of times and seasons rests in the wisdom of God, in his foresight, and in his love.
> Impersonal «нечего» + reflexive «себя»: «нечего» ('there is nothing to / no need to') is a negative impersonal predicate taking an infinitive — «смущать себя» ('to trouble oneself'). «себя» is the reflexive object pointing to the implied 'we'. The whole construction is subjectless, an exhortation framed as 'there's no point in…'.
> Possessive adjective «божий»: «божией» is the feminine prepositional of «божий» ('God's, divine'), a possessive adjective rather than the genitive «Бога». Lowercase «божией» and «его» (of God) here keep the reverent yet plain tone of the elder's speech.

И что по расчету человеческому может быть еще и весьма отдаленно, то по предопределению божьему, может быть, уже стоит накануне своего появления, при дверях.  
And what by human reckoning may yet be very far off, by God's predestination may, perhaps, already stand on the eve of its coming, at the very doors.
> Correlative «что … то»: The bookish correlative «что …, то …» ('what …, that …') pairs the human reckoning with the divine: 'what by human reckoning may be far off, by God's predestination already stands near'. «что» and «то» set up the balanced antithesis at the sentence's core.
> «при дверях» — at the very doors: An archaic, scriptural idiom ('at the doors, near at hand'), echoing the Gospel's 'know that it is near, even at the doors' (Matthew 24:33). «при» + prepositional «дверях» renders the nearness of the awaited end with biblical resonance.

Сие последнее бу́ди, бу́ди.  
And this last too — so be it, so be it.
> The closing 'so be it': The chapter ends on its refrain a third time: «сие последнее» ('this last [thing]', archaic «сей») plus the doubled Church-Slavonic «буди, буди» ('so be it, so be it'). The triple repetition across the chapter gives the elder's vision the binding force of a liturgical Amen.

— Бу́ди! бу́ди! — благоговейно и сурово подтвердил отец Паисий.  
"So be it! So be it!" Father Paisy confirmed, reverently and sternly.
> "So be it!" — an archaic imperative: «Буди» is the old, Church-Slavonic imperative of «быть» (to be), where modern Russian says «будь». Doubled and solemn, it functions like the liturgical «аминь» — 'so be it, amen' — and gives the chapter its title. The accent mark on «бу́ди» is the reader's prompt to stress the first syllable.
> «благоговейно» — with reverent awe: A bookish adverb from «благоговение» (reverence, pious awe), itself a Church-Slavonic compound of «благо» (good) + a root for awe. Paired with «сурово» (sternly) it captures the monk's blend of devotion and gravity — the word belongs to the sacred, not the everyday, register.

— Странно, в высшей степени странно! — произнес Миусов, и не то что с горячностью, а как бы с затаенным каким-то негодованием.  
"Strange — strange in the highest degree!" pronounced Miusov, not exactly with heat, but as though with some sort of suppressed indignation.
> «в высшей степени» — superlative by phrase: «Высшей» is the superlative of «высокий» built with the bookish suffix -ш-/-айш-, here frozen into the set phrase «в высшей степени» ('in the highest degree', i.e. extremely). Russian forms its emphatic superlatives either periphrastically with «самый» or, in elevated style, with this suffixed form.
> «с ... негодованием» — instrumental of manner: «С негодованием» (with indignation) uses «с» + the instrumental to express the manner of speaking, modified by «затаенным» (suppressed, a past passive participle) and the indefinite «каким-то». The hedging «как бы» ('as it were') and «какой-то» soften the narrator's claim into impression rather than fact.
> «негодование» — indignation: A morally charged noun for indignation or righteous anger, more elevated than ordinary «злость» (spite). Built on «годный/негодный» (fit / unfit), it originally implies finding something unworthy — the perfect word for Miusov's offended liberal sensibility.

— Что же кажется вам столь странным? — осторожно осведомился отец Иосиф.  
"And what is it that strikes you as so strange?" Father Iosif inquired cautiously.
> «же» — the insisting particle: The modal particle «же» fastens onto the question word «что» to press and challenge: 'what exactly...?' / 'what on earth...?'. It carries no dictionary meaning, only the speaker's pointed insistence — one of the small words that give Dostoevsky's dialogue its live, conversational edge.
> «кажется вам» — dative experiencer + instrumental complement: «Казаться» (to seem) takes the person it seems-to in the dative («вам», to you) and the quality in the instrumental («странным», strange). This is the impersonal-leaning experiencer pattern so common in Russian: the perception is framed around the one who has it.
> «осведомиться» — to inquire (formally): A formal, slightly officialese verb for 'to inquire/ask', loftier than plain «спросить». Together with the adverb «осторожно» (cautiously), it paints Father Iosif as measured and ceremonious — the diction itself is courteous.

— Да что же это в самом деле такое? — воскликнул Миусов, как бы вдруг прорвавшись, — устраняется на земле государство, а церковь возводится на степень государства!  
"But what on earth is this, really?" exclaimed Miusov, as if suddenly breaking loose. "The state is abolished on earth, and the Church is raised to the rank of the state!"
> Stacked particles: «да ... же ... в самом деле»: Three intensifiers pile up: the opening «да» (here an exasperated 'but, well'), the insisting «же», and the phrase «в самом деле» ('really, indeed'). Russian colours an outburst by accumulating such particles where English would lean on intonation alone — 'But what on earth is this, really?'
> «прорвавшись» — perfective gerund (деепричастие): «Прорвавшись» is a past adverbial participle (deeprichastie) in -вши- from perfective «прорваться» (to burst through, break loose), describing the manner attending the main verb «воскликнул»: he exclaimed, having suddenly burst out. The reflexive -ся makes it intransitive — the dam breaks of itself.
> Reflexive -ся as passive: Both verbs carry -ся to form an imperfective passive with no named agent: «устраняется» (is abolished/removed) and «возводится... на степень» (is raised to the rank of). The construction lets Miusov state the alleged doctrine impersonally, as a process happening to the state and the Church.

Это не то что ультрамонтанство, это архиультрамонтанство!  
This is not ultramontanism — this is arch-ultramontanism!
> Zero copula in the present: Russian uses no verb 'to be' in the present, so the equation runs on bare nominatives joined by «это» ('this is'): 'this is not ultramontanism, this is arch-ultramontanism'. The repeated «это» does the linking work English assigns to 'is'.

Это папе Григорию Седьмому не мерещилось!  
Pope Gregory the Seventh never even dreamed of such a thing!
> Dative + impersonal «мерещилось»: The impersonal verb «мерещиться» (to seem, to be imagined, to appear in fancy) takes its experiencer in the dative: «папе Григорию» (to Pope Gregory) — and all three words, name + name + ordinal, decline alike into the dative. There is no nominative subject: 'it never even appeared to him in fancy'.

— Совершенно обратно изволите понимать! — строго проговорил отец Паисий, — не церковь обращается в государство, поймите это.  
"You are pleased to understand it exactly backwards!" Father Paisy said severely. "It is not the Church that turns into the state — understand that.
> «изволите» — courteous-ironic 'are pleased to': «Изволить» + infinitive ('to be pleased to', 'to deign to') is an elaborately polite auxiliary of older etiquette. In Paisy's mouth — 'you are pleased to understand it backwards' — the courtesy curdles into cold irony: formally deferential, actually a rebuke.
> Negation scoped on the subject; word order: The negator «не» here denies not the verb but the noun «церковь» — 'it is not the CHURCH that turns into the state' — fronting the contrasted element. This focus-negation, where «не» sits before the word it singles out, drives the whole rhetorical correction.
> «поймите» — perfective imperative: A perfective imperative from «понять» (to understand), with the plural/polite ending -те: 'understand this!'. The perfective demands the single, decisive act of grasping the point, not an ongoing process — fitting for Paisy's curt command.

То Рим и его мечта.  
That is Rome and its dream.
> «то» as demonstrative subject: Sentence-initial «то» ('that') is the neuter demonstrative standing as subject, with the copula again zero: 'That [is] Rome and its dream'. Paired across s128–s130 with «А, напротив» it sets up a sharp 'that, by contrast this' antithesis.

То третье диаволово искушение!  
That is the third temptation of the devil!
> «диаволово» — archaic possessive of the devil: «Диаволово» is a possessive adjective ('the devil's') formed with the old suffix -ов from «диавол» — itself the Church-Slavonic spelling of «дьявол». Both the spelling and the -ово possessive (rather than a genitive «дьявола») lend the phrase a scriptural, archaic colouring.

А, напротив, государство обращается в церковь, восходит до церкви и становится церковью на всей земле, что совершенно уже противоположно и ультрамонтанству, и Риму, и вашему толкованию, и есть лишь великое предназначение православия на земле.  
On the contrary, it is the state that turns into the Church, that rises up to the Church and becomes the Church over all the earth — which is something altogether opposite to ultramontanism, and to Rome, and to your interpretation, and is nothing other than the great destiny of Orthodoxy upon the earth.
> A triad of present-tense verbs; instrumental predicate: Paisy stacks three imperfective presents — «обращается в» (turns into), «восходит до» (rises up to), «становится» (becomes) — to render the doctrine as an unfolding process. «Становится церковью» puts the predicate noun in the instrumental, as «стать/становиться» requires: the state becomes the Church.
> «и ... и ... и ...» — correlative 'both ... and': Repeated «и» before each item is the correlative 'both...and / and...and', here listing everything the Orthodox idea is opposite to: «и ультрамонтанству, и Риму, и вашему толкованию» — all in the dative governed by «противоположно» (opposite to). The piling-up is deliberately oratorical.
> «предназначение» — destiny, appointed purpose: «Предназначение» is an elevated, abstract noun in -ение for 'destiny / appointed purpose / vocation', built on «назначить» (to appoint) with the prefix «пред-» (fore-). «Православие» is 'Orthodoxy' (literally 'right-glorifying') — the word for the Eastern Church as both faith and civilization, central to Paisy's vision.

От Востока звезда сия воссияет.  
From the East shall this star arise."
> Archaic «сия» and inverted, prophetic word order: «Сия» is the bookish/Church-Slavonic demonstrative 'this' (modern «эта»), placed after its noun «звезда» (star) in solemn fashion. The fronted «От Востока» (From the East) and clause-final verb «воссияет» (shall shine forth) give the line the cadence of prophecy.
> «воссиять» — to shine forth (Slavonic): A solemn perfective verb 'to shine forth, blaze up' built on «сиять» (to shine) with the prefix «вос-» (the Church-Slavonic form of «вз-», an upward/sudden motion). The simple-future ending names a single decisive event — the rising of the star — in the high scriptural register that closes Paisy's speech.

Миусов внушительно помолчал.  
Miusov fell silent with an air of weight.
> «помолчать» — the delimitative «по-»: «Помолчал» is perfective «помолчать», the prefix «по-» here giving the delimitative sense 'to be silent for a while': Miusov kept silent for a measured moment. This «по-» of bounded duration is distinct from its directional uses, and the perfective frames the silence as a single, completed beat.
> «внушительно» — impressively, with weight: An adverb from «внушать» (to instil, impress upon), meaning 'impressively, with an air of weight'. Repeated of Miusov here and at s139, it quietly characterizes his self-conscious gravity — he performs significance as much as feels it.

Вся фигура его выразила собою необыкновенное собственное достоинство.  
His whole figure expressed an extraordinary sense of his own dignity.
> «собою» — instrumental of the reflexive: «Собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive pronoun «себя» (self), in the idiom «выразить собою» — literally 'expressed by means of itself', i.e. embodied/manifested. The reflexive points back to the subject «фигура»: his whole figure was the very thing that expressed the dignity.
> «собственное достоинство» — self-worth / dignity: «Достоинство» is 'dignity, worth'; with «собственное» ('one's own') the phrase means a (sometimes inflated) sense of personal dignity. The note is faintly ironic — Dostoevsky lets Miusov's body broadcast a vanity his words try to dignify.

Свысока-снисходительная улыбка показалась на его губах.  
A loftily condescending smile appeared on his lips.
> «показаться» — reflexive 'to appear': «Показалась» is perfective «показаться» with -ся meaning 'to appear, come into view' (here, the smile appeared on his lips). The -ся makes the verb intransitive and middle: the smile shows itself, no one is said to make it appear — the feminine -лась agrees with «улыбка» (smile).
> «свысока-снисходительная» — a loftily condescending smile: A vivid hyphenated compound: «свысока» ('from on high', haughtily) fused with «снисходительная» (condescending, indulgent). The doubling intensifies the down-the-nose superiority of Miusov's smile — Dostoevsky coins the pairing for one exact shade of conceit.

Алеша следил за всем с сильно бьющимся сердцем.  
Alyosha watched it all with a violently pounding heart.
> «следить за» + instrumental: «Следить» (to watch, follow, keep track of) governs its object through «за» + the instrumental: «за всем» (over everything, all of it). The imperfective gives the continuous sense — Alyosha was watching it all unfold throughout.
> «бьющимся» — present active participle: «Бьющимся» is the present active participle of «биться» (to beat, of a heart), in -щ-, declined to agree with «сердцем» (instrumental) after «с»: 'with a heart that was beating'. The participle compresses a whole clause ('a heart that beat strongly') into one modifier — a hallmark of literary description.

Весь этот разговор взволновал его до основания.  
This whole conversation had stirred him to his very foundations.
> «взволновать» — perfective of a single result: «Взволновал» (perfective of «волновать», to stir/agitate) registers the conversation as having decisively unsettled him — a completed effect, not a process. The phrase «до основания» ('to the foundation, to the very root') marks how total that effect was.

Он случайно взглянул на Ракитина; тот стоял неподвижно на своем прежнем месте у двери, внимательно вслушиваясь и всматриваясь, хотя и опустив глаза.  
By chance he glanced at Rakitin; the latter was standing motionless in his former place by the door, listening and watching intently, though with his eyes lowered.
> «тот» tracking a referent: «Тот» ('that one, the latter') picks Rakitin back up as topic after «взглянул на Ракитина», the way English uses 'the latter'. The demonstrative is Russian's device for re-identifying a participant when free word order could otherwise blur who is meant.
> Three gerunds, two aspects: Three adverbial participles describe Rakitin's stance: imperfective present «вслушиваясь» and «всматриваясь» (listening / peering intently, ongoing) versus perfective past «опустив» (having lowered his eyes, completed and prior). The contrast of -ясь vs -в neatly stages a finished act against two continuing ones.
> «вслушиваться» / «всматриваться» — to listen/look intently INTO: The prefix «в-» ('into') deepens plain «слушать»/«смотреть» into 'to listen hard, strain to catch' and 'to peer, scrutinize'. The matched pair, both reflexive, conveys total absorption — Rakitin drinks in every word and gesture while feigning detachment.

Но по оживленному румянцу на его щеках Алеша догадался, что и Ракитин взволнован, кажется, не меньше его, Алеша знал, чем он взволнован.  
But from the lively flush on his cheeks Alyosha guessed that Rakitin too was stirred, and, it seemed, no less than he was himself; and Alyosha knew what it was that stirred him.
> «по» + dative of evidence: «По» here governs the dative «румянцу» (flush) in its sense 'by, judging from': Alyosha guessed 'from / by the flush' on Rakitin's cheeks. This «по» of basis or evidence is one of the preposition's many uses, all built on the dative.
> «что» reporting + short passive participle: «Догадался, что...» opens a reported-fact clause with «что» (that). «Взволнован» is the short-form past passive participle of «взволновать», predicating a state — 'is stirred / agitated'. The additive «и» before «Ракитин» means 'Rakitin too'.

— Позвольте мне сообщить вам один маленький анекдот, господа, — внушительно и с каким-то особенно осанистым видом проговорил вдруг Миусов.  
"Allow me to relate to you one little anecdote, gentlemen," Miusov suddenly brought out, with weight and with a peculiarly stately air.
> «позвольте» — polite imperative + dative: «Позвольте» is the perfective polite imperative of «позволить» (to permit): 'allow [me]'. It is followed by the dative of the one permitted («мне», me) and the infinitive «сообщить», with a second dative «вам» (to you) as the indirect object of telling — a doubly courteous, formal opening.
> «анекдот» — anecdote, not 'joke': A false friend for English speakers: 19th-c. «анекдот» means a short true-to-life story or curious incident (as here, 'a little anecdote'), not a punch-line joke. The modern colloquial 'joke' sense came later; Miusov promises a piquant real episode.
> «осанистый» — stately of bearing: «Осанистый» (from «осанка», carriage/posture) means 'of imposing, stately bearing'. In the instrumental of manner here — «с осанистым видом», 'with a stately air' — it again underlines the studied dignity with which Miusov stages himself.

— В Париже, уже несколько лет тому, вскоре после декабрьского переворота, мне пришлось однажды, делая по знакомству визит одному очень-очень важному и управляющему тогда лицу, повстречать у него одного прелюбопытнейшего господина.  
"In Paris, some several years ago now, soon after the coup of December, I happened once, while paying a call as an acquaintance upon a certain very, very important personage who was then in charge of affairs, to come upon a most exceedingly curious gentleman there.
> «пришлось» + dative — 'I happened to / had to': The impersonal «пришлось» (past of «прийтись») takes the dative «мне» and an infinitive to mean 'it fell to me / I happened to / I had occasion to'. There is no nominative subject — the event is framed as befalling Miusov, the classic dative-experiencer construction.
> «делая» — present gerund of attendant action: «Делая» is the imperfective present gerund of «делать», setting the simultaneous circumstance: 'while paying a call'. It shares the subject of the main verb and stacks with the prepositional phrases into one long, qualifying period — typical of Miusov's elaborate, parenthesis-laden style.
> «прелюбопытнейший» — a most exceedingly curious...: Two intensifiers fuse onto «любопытный» (curious): the augmentative prefix «пре-» ('very, exceedingly') and the bookish superlative suffix -ейш-. The result, 'a most exceedingly curious gentleman', is doubly emphatic and faintly precious — exactly Miusov's relish for his own tale.

Был этот индивидуум не то что сыщиком, а вроде управляющего целою командой политических сыщиков, — в своем роде довольно влиятельная должность.  
This individual was not exactly a detective, but something like the supervisor of a whole squad of political detectives — a fairly influential post of its kind.
> Predicate instrumental «сыщиком»: After «был» (was), the predicate noun «сыщиком» (detective) stands in the instrumental, not the nominative — the rule for noun complements of «быть» in the past tense. The hedging «не то что...а вроде» ('not exactly... but something like') keeps the man's role deliberately blurry.
> «сыщик» — detective, sleuth: «Сыщик» (from «сыскать», to track down) is the period word for a detective or police agent — here a 'political detective' of the imperial-French secret police. The diminutive-tinged familiarity of the term sits against the menacing reality of surveillance Miusov is describing.

Придравшись к случаю, я, из чрезвычайного любопытства, разговорился с ним; а так как он принят был не по знакомству, а как подчиненный чиновник, пришедший с известного рода рапортом, то, видя, с своей стороны, как я принят у его начальника, он удостоил меня некоторою откровенностию, — ну, разумеется, в известной степени, то есть скорее был вежлив, чем откровенен, именно как французы умеют быть вежливыми, тем более что видел во мне иностранца.  
Seizing the occasion, out of extraordinary curiosity, I struck up a conversation with him; and since he had been received not as an acquaintance but as a subordinate official who had come with a report of a certain sort, then, seeing for his part how I was received by his superior, he honored me with a certain candor — well, of course, only within certain bounds; that is, he was sooner courteous than candid, courteous in just the way the French know how to be, the more so since he saw in me a foreigner.
> A chain of participles and gerunds: This sprawling sentence is held together by non-finite forms: the perfective gerund «придравшись» (having seized on the occasion), the imperfective gerund «видя» (seeing), and the past active participle «пришедший» ('who had come'). Packing several such forms into one period is the signature density of 19th-c. literary Russian.
> Short passive participle «принят»: «Принят» is the short-form past passive participle of «принять» (to receive), forming a passive with «был»: 'he had been received'. The agent is unnamed; «как подчиненный чиновник» ('as a subordinate official') gives the capacity in which he was received.
> Archaic instrumental endings «-ою / -ию»: «Некоторою откровенностию» shows the older literary instrumental endings -ою (for modern -ой) and -ию (for modern -ью). The verb «удостоить» ('to deign to grant, to honour with') governs the instrumental of the thing granted — 'he honoured me with a certain candor'. The endings are pure period flavour.

Но я его очень понял.  
But I understood him very well.
> Word order: fronted object, end-weighted adverb: The object «его» (him) precedes the verb, and «очень» (very, very well) sits just before «понял» for emphasis — 'But I understood him very well'. The flexible order, licensed by case marking, lets Miusov lay the stress on how thoroughly he saw through the man.

Тема шла о социалистах-революционерах, которых тогда, между прочим, преследовали.  
The subject turned on the socialist-revolutionaries, who at that time, among other things, were being persecuted.
> «который» in the accusative + agentless «они»: The relative «которых» agrees with its antecedent «социалистах-революционерах» in number but takes the accusative (animate plural = genitive form) as object of «преследовали». The bare 3rd-plural verb with no subject ('they persecuted') is Russian's standard impersonal-passive equivalent — 'were being persecuted'.

Опуская главную суть разговора, приведу лишь одно любопытнейшее замечание, которое у этого господчика вдруг вырвалось: «Мы, — сказал он, — собственно этих всех социалистов — анархистов, безбожников и революционеров — не очень-то и опасаемся; мы за ними следим, и ходы их нам известны.  
Passing over the main substance of the conversation, I will cite only one most curious remark that this little gentleman suddenly let slip: 'We,' he said, 'are not, strictly speaking, so very much afraid of all these socialists — the anarchists, the godless, and the revolutionaries; we keep watch on them, and their movements are known to us.
> «приведу» — perfective future: «Приведу» is the perfective future of «привести» ('to cite, adduce') — a perfective verb conjugated with present-type endings yields future meaning: 'I will cite'. The limiting particle «лишь» ('only, merely') narrows it to the one remark worth quoting.
> «вырваться» — reflexive 'to escape, slip out': «Вырвалось» (perfective, -ся) means the remark 'burst / slipped out of him' of its own accord — the reflexive frames involuntary speech, as if the words tore loose without his willing it. The relative «которое» agrees with neuter «замечание».
> «господчик» — pejorative diminutive of 'gentleman': «Господчик» adds the belittling suffix -чик to «господин», turning a respectful 'gentleman' into a faintly contemptuous 'little gentleman / fellow'. Miusov's word choice quietly looks down on the police official even as he quotes him at length.

Но есть из них, хотя и немного, несколько особенных людей: это в бога верующие и христиане, а в то же время и социалисты.  
But there are among them, though not many, a few of a special sort: these are men who believe in God and are Christians, and at the very same time are socialists.
> «есть» + genitive partitive after «несколько»: The existential «есть» ('there are') is rare in the present and signals emphasis here. «Несколько особенных людей» puts the counted noun in the genitive plural as the quantifier «несколько» (a few/several) requires, and «из них» (of them) is a partitive 'among them'.
> «верующие» — substantivized participle: «Верующие» is the present active participle of «веровать» (to believe) used as a noun, 'believers / those who believe', here governing «в бога» (in God, accusative of direction after «в»). Russian readily turns such participles into standing nouns, condensing 'people who believe in God' to one word.

Вот этих-то мы больше всех опасаемся, это страшный народ!  
It is precisely these we fear more than all the rest — a terrible breed of people!
> «вот ... -то» and fronted object for focus: The object «этих» (these) is thrown to the front, framed by presentative «вот» and the emphatic clitic «-то», to spotlight it: 'It is precisely THESE we fear'. «-то» here is the topic-stressing clitic (not the indefinite -то), pinning emphasis on a known referent.
> «опасаться» — -ся verb + genitive: «Опасаться» (to fear, be wary of) exists only in the reflexive -ся form and governs its object in the genitive (here «этих»). It belongs to the class of verbs of fear and avoidance that, like «бояться», take a genitive rather than an accusative.

Социалист-христианин страшнее социалиста-безбожника».  
A Christian socialist is more terrible than a godless socialist.'
> Comparative «страшнее» + genitive of comparison: «Страшнее» is the predicative comparative of «страшный» (terrible), in -ее. Russian can express the standard of comparison by simply putting it in the genitive — «страшнее социалиста-безбожника», 'more terrible than a godless socialist' — with no word for 'than'.
> «безбожник» — godless one, atheist: «Безбожник» literally 'one-without-God' (без + бог + the agentive -ник), a stronger, more morally loaded word than neutral «атеист». It frames atheism as a defiant condition of soul — the very axis on which this exchange about Christian vs godless socialists turns.

Слова эти и тогда меня поразили, но теперь у вас, господа, они мне как-то вдруг припомнились...  
Those words struck me even then, but now, here among you, gentlemen, they have somehow suddenly come back to my mind..."
> Postposed «эти» and fronted object: «Слова эти» places the demonstrative after its noun for a measured, slightly formal rhythm, and the object «меня» precedes its verb «поразили» (struck). The free order lets the words themselves stand first as topic — 'Those words... struck me'.
> «припомниться» + dative — they came back to me: «Припомнились» (perfective, -ся) with the dative «мне» means the words 'came back to my mind' of themselves — the dative names the one to whom they recurred, and the -ся makes the recollection happen to him rather than be done by him.

— То есть вы их прикладываете к нам и в нас видите социалистов? — прямо и без обиняков спросил отец Паисий.  
"That is, you are applying them to us and see socialists in us?" Father Paisy asked, directly and without circumlocution.
> «к» + dative vs «в» + accusative: Two prepositions show their cases: «прикладываете к нам» (apply to us) takes «к» + dative «нам», while «в нас видите» (see in us) takes «в» + accusative «нас». «Видеть... в ком социалистов» is the idiom 'to see socialists in someone', the predicate noun «социалистов» in the accusative plural.
> «без обиняков» — without beating about the bush: A fixed idiom 'plainly, bluntly, without circumlocution', from the archaic «обиняк» (an indirect hint, evasion) in the genitive plural after «без». Paired with «прямо» (directly), it marks Father Paisy's refusal to let Miusov's insinuation stay veiled — he names it outright.

Но прежде чем Петр Александрович сообразил дать ответ, отворилась дверь и вошел столь опоздавший Дмитрий Федорович.  
But before Pyotr Alexandrovich could think how to give an answer, the door opened and in came Dmitri Fyodorovich, who had been so long awaited.
> «прежде чем» + perfective — 'before he could': The subordinator «прежде чем» ('before') introduces the time clause, and the perfective «сообразил» ('managed to figure out, work out') stresses that the act was not completed: before Pyotr Alexandrovich could grasp how to answer, the door opened.
> Verb-first order for new arrivals: Both clauses front the verb — «отворилась дверь», «вошел... Дмитрий Федорович» — putting the subject last as the new, stressed information. This presentative order ('opened the door... entered Dmitri') is how Russian stages a dramatic entrance, holding back the newcomer's name to the end.

Его и вправду как бы перестали ждать, и внезапное появление его произвело в первый момент даже некоторое удивление.  
They had indeed all but given up expecting him, and his sudden appearance produced, for the first moment, even a certain astonishment.
> «перестать» + imperfective infinitive: «Перестать» (to cease, perfective) requires an imperfective infinitive — «ждать» (to wait) — since one can only stop an ongoing process. The 3rd-plural «перестали» with no subject means 'they had ceased' / 'everyone had stopped', and «как бы» hedges it to 'all but, as it were'.
> «произвести» + accusative — to produce an effect: Perfective «произвело» ('produced, caused') takes the accusative «некоторое удивление» (a certain astonishment) as the effect produced. The neuter agreement (-ло) matches the subject «появление» (appearance), and «в первый момент» localizes the effect to that first instant.
---

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.