# The Brothers Karamazov, Why Is Such a Man Alive?

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c6. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c6.json.


Дмитрий Федорович, двадцативосьмилетний молодой человек, среднего роста и приятного лица, казался, однако же, гораздо старее своих лет.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich, a young man of twenty-eight, of middling height and pleasant features, nevertheless looked considerably older than his years.
> A compound age-adjective: «двадцативосьмилетний» (twenty-eight-year-old) packs a numeral into a single adjective: «двадцать восемь» + «лет» (years) + the adjectival ending. Russian builds such compounds freely, and the genitive-flavoured stem «двадцати-» is the frozen numeral inside the word.
> Genitive of description: Both phrases stand in the genitive — «среднего роста» (of middling height), «приятного лица» (of pleasant face) — a 'genitive of quality' that describes a person by an attribute, like English 'a man of...'. The adjectives «среднего», «приятного» agree with their nouns in this genitive case.
> Comparative + genitive of comparison: «старее» is the predicative comparative of «старый» (older), here with the bookish -ее ending (modern speech prefers «старше»); «гораздо» intensifies it ('considerably'). The thing compared, «своих лет» (than his years), stands in the genitive — Russian's standard 'genitive of comparison'.

Был он мускулист, и в нем можно было угадывать значительную физическую силу, тем не менее в лице его выражалось как бы нечто болезненное.  
He was muscular, and one could sense in him a considerable physical strength; and yet his face betrayed something almost sickly.
> Short adjective + inverted word order: «мускулист» is the short (predicative) form of «мускулистый» (muscular), the bookish form proper to stating a characteristic. Fronting the verb «был» before the pronoun «он» is a literary inversion that lifts the descriptive predicate into focus.
> Impersonal «можно» + dative-less possibility: «можно было» ('one could / it was possible') is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject — the open 'one' of the construction. It governs the imperfective infinitive «угадывать» (to sense, divine), whose imperfective aspect frames the perceiving as an ongoing impression rather than a single act.
> Hedging «как бы» + «нечто»: «как бы» ('as it were, almost') is Dostoevsky's favourite hedge, softening assertions into impressions — it recurs throughout this portrait. «нечто» is the bookish indefinite 'something'; together with «болезненное» (sickly, morbid) they make the face's flaw a thing only half-seen.

Лицо его было худощаво, щеки ввалились, цвет же их отливал какою-то нездоровою желтизной.  
His face was gaunt, his cheeks sunken, and their colour shaded into a kind of unhealthy yellow.
> The particle «же»: Here «же» is not emphatic 'precisely' but a soft connective, marking a shift to a new sub-topic — 'and their colour, for its part…'. This unstressed, list-linking «же» threads description together and is hard to render in English beyond a mere 'and'.
> Instrumental + archaic -ою endings: «отливал… желтизной» ('shaded with a yellow') takes the instrumental of means/manner. Note the bookish 19th-c. instrumental endings «-ою» on «какою-то» and «нездоровою»; modern Russian writes «-ой». The indefinite «какою-то» ('some kind of') keeps the colour vague.
> «ввалиться» — to sink in: «щеки ввалились» — his cheeks 'fell in', the perfective «ввалиться» giving the settled result of hollow, sunken cheeks. The -ся here is a middle/change-of-state marker rather than a true reflexive.

Довольно большие темные глаза навыкате смотрели хотя, по-видимому, и с твердым упорством, но как-то неопределенно.  
His rather large, dark, protruding eyes looked out with what seemed firm resolve, and yet somehow indefinitely.
> «навыкате» — protruding eyes: «навыкате» is a fixed adverbial expression meaning 'bulging, protruding', applied almost exclusively to eyes. It is invariable and stands after its noun, a small set phrase of physical description.
> Instrumental after «с» — manner: «с твердым упорством» (with firm persistence) uses the preposition «с» governing the instrumental to describe the manner of looking. Contrast the bare instrumental of means: «с» here adds the sense of accompanying quality.
> Concessive «хотя… но»: The frame «хотя… но» ('although… yet') is a subordinating concession answered by an adversative clause; the inserted «и» reinforces the concession ('even though indeed'). It sets the firm resolve of the gaze against its vagueness.

Даже когда он волновался и говорил с раздражением, взгляд его как бы не повиновался его внутреннему настроению и выражал что-то другое, иногда совсем не соответствующее настоящей минуте.  
Even when he was agitated and spoke with irritation, his gaze seemed not to obey his inner mood and expressed something else, at times wholly out of keeping with the present moment.
> Imperfective past of habit: «волновался», «говорил» are imperfective pasts naming repeated, characteristic states ('whenever he was agitated and spoke'), the background mode of description. The reflexive «волноваться» (to be agitated) is one of the -ся middle verbs of feeling.
> Dative object of «повиноваться»: «повиноваться» (to obey) governs the dative, so 'his inner mood' appears as «внутреннему настроению» — the thing obeyed is framed as a recipient, a recurring dative-government pattern with verbs of submission and service.
> Present active participle: «соответствующее» is the present active participle of «соответствовать» (to correspond), agreeing with neuter «что-то» and compressing a который-clause ('something which did not correspond') into one bookish modifier — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's layered sentences.

«Трудно узнать, о чем он думает», — отзывались иной раз разговаривавшие с ним.  
"It is hard to tell what he is thinking," those who talked with him would remark from time to time.
> Prepositional after «о»: «о чём» ('about what') is the interrogative «что» in the prepositional case after «о» (about) — the topic-of-thought construction. The whole clause is the indirect question object of «узнать».
> Past active participle as a noun: «разговаривавшие» (those who had been conversing) is the imperfective past active participle of «разговаривать», substantivized to mean 'the people talking with him'. The doubled -ва- and -вш- make it a mouthful that signals dense literary style.

Иные, видевшие в его глазах что-то задумчивое и угрюмое, случалось, вдруг поражались внезапным смехом его, свидетельствовавшим о веселых и игривых мыслях, бывших в нем именно в то время, когда он смотрел с такою угрюмостью.  
Some, having seen in his eyes something pensive and sullen, would suddenly find themselves startled by his abrupt laughter, which gave away the cheerful, playful thoughts that had been in him at the very moment he had been looking so gloomy.
> A chain of participles: This sentence stacks three participles — «видевшие» (who had seen), «свидетельствовавшим» (which bore witness), «бывших» (that had been) — each agreeing with a different noun in its own case. Such participial chains are the bookish engine of 19th-c. narration, packing several relative clauses into one period.
> Reflexive verb + instrumental cause: «поражались» (were struck) is the -ся passive/middle of «поражать»; the cause of the astonishment, «внезапным смехом» (by his sudden laughter), stands in the instrumental — the instrumental of the agent/cause typical of such reflexive-passive constructions.
> Archaic instrumental «-ою»: «с такою угрюмостью» (with such gloom) again shows the period instrumental ending «-ою» on «такою» where modern Russian writes «-ой». «угрюмость» is the abstract noun 'sullenness, gloom', built from the adjective «угрюмый».

Впрочем, некоторая болезненность его лица в настоящую минуту могла быть понятна: все знали или слышали о чрезвычайно тревожной и «кутящей» жизни, которой он именно в последнее время у нас предавался, равно как всем известно было и то необычайное раздражение, до которого он достиг в ссорах со своим отцом из-за спорных денег.  
Still, the somewhat sickly look of his face at the present moment was understandable: everyone knew or had heard of the extraordinarily turbulent and "carousing" life to which he had lately given himself over here among us, just as everyone knew of the uncommon exasperation he had reached in his quarrels with his father over the disputed money.
> «кутить» — to carouse: The quoted «кутящей» is the present active participle of «кутить» (to go on a spree, carouse, drink and squander), the scare-quotes flagging it as the town's own word for Dmitri's dissipation. «кутёж» (a binge) is the noun; the whole register is that of provincial gossip.
> Relative «который» in the dative: «предаваться» (to give oneself over to) governs the dative, so the relative pronoun appears as «которой» — feminine to agree with antecedent «жизни», dative because of the verb. A clear case of «который» agreeing in gender/number but taking its own case.

По городу ходило уже об этом несколько анекдотов.  
Several anecdotes about it were already going round the town.
> Numeral-quantifier with neuter verb: «несколько анекдотов» ('several anecdotes') takes the genitive plural «анекдотов» after the quantifier, and the verb stands in the neuter singular «ходило» — the impersonal agreement typical of «несколько» + genitive subjects. Fronting «по городу» gives 'around the town' as the topic.
> A false friend: «анекдот»: «анекдот» here means a 'story, episode, piece of gossip' (an anecdote in the older English sense), not a 'joke' as the modern colloquial Russian sense and the English false-friend might suggest. Pyotr Alexandrovich's «парижский анекдот» below is likewise a telling little story.

Правда, что он и от природы был раздражителен, «ума отрывистого и неправильного», как характерно выразился о нем у нас наш мировой судья Семен Иванович Качальников в одном собрании.  
True, he was irritable by nature, "of an abrupt and disorderly mind," as our justice of the peace, Semyon Ivanovich Kachalnikov, once aptly put it about him at a gathering.
> Genitive of characterization in quotation: The judge's epigram puts the whole phrase in the genitive of quality — 'of an abrupt and disorderly mind' — the same 'a man of...' construction seen in s1. «отрывистый» literally 'jerky, snatching' (cf. «отрывать», to tear off) and «неправильный» 'irregular' together brand Dmitri's mind as fitful and lawless.

Вошел он безукоризненно и щегольски одетый, в застегнутом сюртуке, в черных перчатках и с цилиндром в руках.  
He came in irreproachably and elegantly dressed, in a buttoned frock coat, black gloves, and with a top hat in his hands.
> Inverted verb + past passive participle: Fronting «вошёл» before «он» is narrative inversion that throws weight onto the entrance. «одетый» is the past passive participle of «одеть» (dressed), here used adjectivally and modified by the adverbs «безукоризненно» (irreproachably) and «щегольски» (foppishly).
> Prepositional «в» of attire: A string of «в» + prepositional phrases describes what he is wearing — «в… сюртуке», «в… перчатках» — the locative «в» used idiomatically for clothing 'in a coat, in gloves'. «застёгнутом» is itself a past passive participle (buttoned-up).

Как военный недавно в отставке, он носил усы и брил пока бороду.  
Having recently retired from the army, he wore a moustache and as yet kept his beard shaved.
> Imperfective «брил» + «пока»: «брил… бороду» is imperfective past of habit/ongoing state ('kept shaving his beard'), and «пока» here means 'for the time being, as yet' — implying the habit might change. The accusative «бороду» is the direct object.

Темно-русые волосы его были коротко обстрижены и зачесаны как-то височками вперед.  
His dark-brown hair was cropped short and combed somehow forward over the temples.
> Periphrastic passive with short participles: «были… обстрижены… и зачёсаны» is the «быть» + short past-passive-participle passive: 'were cropped and combed'. The short forms «обстрижены», «зачёсаны» agree with plural «волосы» and state the result of an action done to the hair.
> Diminutive «височки»: «височками» is the diminutive of «виски» (temples), the instrumental plural describing how the hair was combed — 'in little temple-locks' forward over the temples. The diminutive lends the detail a touch of dandyish particularity.

Шагал он решительно, широко, по-фрунтовому.  
He walked with a decisive, wide, parade-ground stride.
> «по-фрунтовому» — parade-ground style: «фрунт» is the older military word for «фронт» (the front, the parade formation), and «по-фрунтовому» is the adverb 'in drill-square fashion'. The whole phrase paints Dmitri's stride as still ruled by the army's stiff, marching discipline.
> Imperfective «шагать» + inversion: «шагал» is imperfective ('was striding, used to stride'), painting a characteristic manner of walking rather than one event; the fronted verb again inverts for emphasis. The bare adverbs «решительно, широко» stack to build the picture.

На мгновение остановился он на пороге и, окинув всех взглядом, прямо направился к старцу, угадав в нем хозяина.  
For a moment he paused on the threshold and, taking in everyone with a glance, went straight to the elder, having guessed him to be the host.
> Perfective gerunds of prior action: «окинув» (having swept with a glance) and «угадав» (having guessed) are perfective past gerunds («деепричастия»), each naming an action completed just before the main verb «направился». They share its subject and chain the moment's actions in one elegant period.
> Prefixed motion verb + dative «к»: «направился» is the perfective of «направляться» (to head, set off toward), a reflexive directed-motion verb; the goal «к старцу» uses «к» + dative for 'toward'. The perfective marks the single decisive move across the room.

Он глубоко поклонился ему и попросил благословения.  
He bowed low to him and asked for his blessing.
> Genitive object after «попросить»: «попросить» (to ask for) takes its object in the genitive when the thing requested is abstract — hence «благословения» (a blessing), genitive. The verb «поклониться» (to bow to someone) governs the dative «ему».

Старец, привстав, благословил его; Дмитрий Федорович почтительно поцеловал его руку и с необыкновенным волнением, почти с раздражением произнес:  
The elder, half-rising, blessed him; Dmitri Fyodorovich kissed his hand respectfully and, with extraordinary emotion, almost with irritation, pronounced:
> Gerund «привстав» — half-rising: «привстав» is the perfective gerund of «привстать», where the prefix «при-» gives the partial sense 'to rise a little, half up'. As a deepričastie it sets the elder's slight rising as the circumstance attending «благословил».
> Instrumental of manner after «с»: Two parallel «с» + instrumental phrases — «с волнением», «с раздражением» — describe the emotional manner of his speaking. The instrumental of accompanying state is the standard way Russian attaches feeling to an act of speech.

— Простите великодушно за то, что заставил столько ждать.  
"Forgive me magnanimously for having kept you waiting so long.
> Polite imperative «простите»: «простите» is the polite/plural imperative of «простить» (to forgive), with the -те ending marking respect to the elder. Note the perfective aspect: he asks for one complete act of pardon, not ongoing forgiveness.
> «великодушно» — magnanimously: «великодушно» (from «великая душа», 'great soul') means 'magnanimously, generously'. The slightly grandiloquent adverb in an apology is pure Dmitri — theatrical, expansive, sincere all at once.
> «за то, что» — causal correlative: «за то, что» ('for the fact that') is a correlative: the preposition «за» + accusative pronoun «то» picks up the «что»-clause as the thing apologized for. «заставил… ждать» means 'made [you] wait', «заставить» + infinitive being the standard causative.

Но слуга Смердяков, посланный батюшкою, на настойчивый мой вопрос о времени, ответил мне два раза самым решительным тоном, что назначено в час.  
But the servant Smerdyakov, sent by my father, replied twice in the most positive tone, to my insistent question about the time, that it had been set for one o'clock.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «посланный» (sent) is the past passive participle of «послать», modifying «слуга»; the agent who sent him, «батюшкою» (by [his] father), stands in the instrumental — the standard way Russian names the doer of a passive. Note again the archaic instrumental «-ою».
> «батюшка» — father (affectionate/old): «батюшка» is the old, warm diminutive of 'father', once a respectful everyday word; here it is faintly ironic for Fyodor Pavlovich (the scare-quotes appear in s22). The same word «батюшка» is also the standard address for a parish priest — a resonance Dostoevsky exploits.

Теперь я вдруг узнаю…  
And now I suddenly learn…"
> Present «узнаю» of vivid discovery: «узнаю» is present-tense imperfective ('I learn / am now learning'), used here for the immediate, vivid present of discovery — heightened by «вдруг» (suddenly). The trailing dash leaves the sentence broken off, dramatizing Dmitri's rising agitation.

— Не беспокойтесь, — перебил старец, — ничего, несколько замешкались, не беда…  
"Do not trouble yourself," the elder interrupted, "it is nothing, you are only a little late, no harm done…"
> Negated reflexive imperative: «не беспокойтесь» ('don't trouble yourself') is the polite imperative of the reflexive «беспокоиться» (to worry), with -сь after the vowel and negating «не». Negated imperatives in Russian typically use the imperfective, as here, to forbid the action in general.
> «замешкаться» and «не беда»: «замешкаться» is the perfective 'to be delayed, dawdle a little'; «не беда» is a set colloquial reassurance — 'no harm, never mind' (literally 'not a misfortune'). The elder's clustered diminutive-soft phrases gently defuse Dmitri's heat.

— Чрезвычайно вам благодарен и менее не мог ожидать от вашей доброты. — Отрезав это, Дмитрий Федорович еще раз поклонился, затем, вдруг обернувшись в сторону своего «батюшки», сделал и тому такой же почтительный и глубокий поклон.  
"I am exceedingly grateful, and could expect no less from your kindness." Having clipped this out, Dmitri Fyodorovich bowed once more, then, turning suddenly toward his "father", made him too just as respectful and deep a bow.
> Two perfective gerunds: «отрезав» (having clipped out) and «обернувшись» (having turned) are perfective past gerunds setting the completed actions framing the bow. «отрезать» literally 'to cut off' is here metaphorical for speaking curtly — a vivid choice the translation renders 'clipped this out'.
> Demonstrative «тому» + emphatic «и»: «тому» is the dative of «тот» ('to that one', i.e. the father), and the particle «и» before it means 'too, also' — 'made him too just such a bow'. «такой же» ('just the same kind of') points back to the bow given the elder.
> Ironic scare-quotes on «батюшка»: Here the narrator sets «батюшки» (genitive of «батюшка», father) in quotation marks, flagging the warm word as ironic when applied to Fyodor Pavlovich. The typographic irony is itself characterization of the strained father–son bond.

Видно было, что он обдумал этот поклон заранее и надумал его искренно, почтя своею обязанностью выразить тем свою почтительность и добрые намерения.  
It was clear that he had thought this bow out beforehand and had conceived it sincerely, holding it his duty thereby to express his respect and good intentions.
> Impersonal «видно было»: «видно было, что…» ('it was clear that…') is an impersonal construction — invariable predicative «видно» + past «было», with no nominative subject — introducing a «что»-clause. It frames the narrator's inference about Dmitri's premeditated bow.
> Gerund «почтя» + double instrumental: «почтя» is the perfective gerund of «почесть» (archaic 'to deem, reckon'); the construction «почесть что (acc.) чем (instr.)» — to deem X to be Y — gives «своею обязанностью» (his duty) in the instrumental as predicate complement. A compact bookish turn.
> «надумать» — to conceive after thinking: «надумал» (from «надумать») is the perfective 'to think up, resolve upon after deliberation', the prefix «на-» adding the sense of arriving at a decision. Paired with «обдумал» (thought out) it stresses how deliberately Dmitri planned even this courtesy.

Федор Павлович, хоть и застигнутый врасплох, тотчас по-своему нашелся: в ответ на поклон Дмитрия Федоровича он вскочил с кресел и ответил сыну точно таким же глубоким поклоном.  
Fyodor Pavlovich, though caught off guard, instantly rose to the occasion in his own fashion: in answer to Dmitri Fyodorovich's bow he leapt up from his armchair and returned his son an exactly equal deep bow.
> Concessive participle phrase: «хоть и застигнутый врасплох» ('though caught off guard') is a concessive («хоть и» = 'even though') wrapping the past passive participle «застигнутый» (from «застигнуть», to catch unawares). «врасплох» is a fixed adverb 'by surprise'.
> Dative recipient + instrumental means: Two cases meet on one verb: «сыну» (to his son) is the dative recipient of «ответил», while «поклоном» (with a bow) is the instrumental of the means by which he answered — a neat illustration of the cases dividing the verb's roles.
> «найтись» — to rise to the occasion: «нашёлся» is the reflexive «найтись» in its idiomatic sense 'to find one's bearings, not be at a loss, rise to the occasion'. With «по-своему» ('in his own way') it perfectly captures Fyodor Pavlovich's instinct to turn even ambush into performance.

Лицо его сделалось вдруг важно и внушительно, что придало ему, однако, решительно злой вид.  
His face turned all at once grave and imposing, which lent him, however, a decidedly malicious air.
> Reflexive «сделаться» + short adjectives: «сделалось» is the -ся change-of-state verb 'became', and the predicates «важно», «внушительно» are short neuter adjectives agreeing with «лицо» (face). The short form, proper to the predicate, here states the sudden assumed gravity.
> Sentential relative «что»: Here «что» ('which') is a sentential relative referring back to the whole preceding clause, not a single noun — 'his face turned grave, which lent him…'. «придало» (perfective «придать», to lend/impart) governs the dative «ему» and accusative «вид».

Затем молча, общим поклоном откланявшись всем бывшим в комнате, Дмитрий Федорович своими большими и решительными шагами подошел к окну, уселся на единственный оставшийся стул неподалеку от отца Паисия и, весь выдвинувшись вперед на стуле, тотчас приготовился слушать продолжение им прерванного разговора.  
Then, silently, having bowed a general bow of farewell to everyone present in the room, Dmitri Fyodorovich strode with his large, decisive steps to the window, took the one remaining chair near Father Paisy, and, leaning his whole body forward on the chair, at once made ready to hear out the continuation of the conversation he had broken in upon.
> Gerund chain driving the action: Two perfective gerunds — «откланявшись» (having bowed farewell) and «выдвинувшись» (having leaned forward) — bracket the finite verbs «подошёл… уселся… приготовился», compressing a whole sequence of movements into one long flowing period typical of Dostoevsky.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + instrumental of manner: «своими… шагами» ('with his own steps') uses the reflexive possessive «свой» (pointing back to the subject Dmitri) in the instrumental of manner. The instrumental of 'by what means / in what manner' is how Russian attaches the stride to the verb of motion.
> Passive participle + instrumental agent, inverted: «прерванного» is the past passive participle of «прервать» (interrupted), and «им» (by him) is the instrumental agent placed before it — 'the conversation interrupted by him'. The agent-before-participle order is a tight literary compression.

Появление Дмитрия Федоровича заняло не более каких-нибудь двух минут, и разговор не мог не возобновиться.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich's appearance had taken no more than some two minutes, and the conversation could not but resume.
> Indefinite «-нибудь» + genitive after numeral: «каких-нибудь» here is idiomatic for 'some, a mere' before a quantity; «двух минут» is the genitive demanded by the numeral «два/две» under the negated comparison «не более» ('no more than'). The whole phrase downplays how brief the entrance was.
> Double negation 'could not but': «не мог не возобновиться» ('could not not resume') is a litotes built on doubled «не» — the idiom for 'was bound to, could not but'. The reflexive «возобновиться» (to resume, intransitive) is a middle -ся verb.

Но на этот раз на настойчивый и почти раздражительный вопрос отца Паисия Петр Александрович не почел нужным ответить.  
But this time Pyotr Alexandrovich did not see fit to answer Father Paisy's insistent and almost irritable question.
> «почесть нужным» + infinitive: «почёл нужным» ('deemed it necessary') is the archaic «почесть» (to deem) + «нужным», the long-form (full) adjective «нужный» in the instrumental as the predicate complement of «почесть» ('to deem X to be Y'), governing the infinitive «ответить» — 'did not deem it necessary to answer'. The bookish verb «почесть» marks elevated narration.

— Позвольте мне эту тему отклонить, — произнес он с некоторою светскою небрежностью — Тема эта к тому же мудреная.  
"Permit me to decline this subject," he said with a certain worldly negligence. "Besides, the subject is a thorny one.
> Polite imperative «позвольте» + dative: «позвольте» ('permit', polite imperative of «позволить») takes the dative of the person permitted — «мне» — plus an infinitive «отклонить». «Позвольте + inf.» is the standard formula for a courteous request to be allowed to do something.
> «светский» and «мудрёный»: «светский» means 'of high society, worldly' (from «свет», 'the world, society'), not 'secular'; «небрежность» is studied carelessness. «мудрёный» means 'tricky, abstruse, hard to handle' — Miusov dismisses the topic as too thorny to pursue.

Вот Иван Федорович на нас усмехается, должно быть, у него есть что-нибудь любопытное и на этот случай.  
Look, Ivan Fyodorovich is smiling at us; he must have something curious to say on this score too.
> Reflexive «усмехаться» + present tense: «усмехается» is the imperfective present of the -ся verb «усмехаться» (to smirk, give a half-smile); «на нас» ('at us') uses «на» + accusative for the target of the look. The present tense reports the smile happening now before the company.
> Possession «у… есть» + indefinite «-нибудь»: «у него есть» is the standard Russian way to say 'he has' (literally 'at him there is'), with the possessor in the genitive after «у». «что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite 'something or other', its «-нибудь» marking the vagueness of what Ivan might say.

Вот его спросите.  
Ask him."
> Imperative + fronted accusative object: «спросите» is the polite imperative of «спросить» (to ask); «его» is its accusative object, fronted after the pointing «вот» ('there — ask him'). The free word order throws the object before the verb for deictic punch.

— Ничего особенного, кроме маленького замечания, — тотчас же ответил Иван Федорович, — о том, что вообще европейский либерализм, и даже наш русский либеральный дилетантизм, часто и давно уже смешивает конечные результаты социализма с христианскими.  
"Nothing in particular, beyond a small remark," Ivan Fyodorovich answered at once, "to the effect that European liberalism in general, and even our own Russian liberal dilettantism, often, and long since, confounds the ultimate results of socialism with those of Christianity.
> Genitive after «кроме»: «кроме» ('except, besides') governs the genitive, hence «маленького замечания» (a small remark). It is one of the many prepositions whose meaning includes fixing its object in the genitive.
> «смешивать… с» + instrumental: «смешивать X с Y» ('to confuse X with Y') governs the instrumental on Y — here «с христианскими» (with the Christian ones). The verb is imperfective present, framing the confusion as a habitual, ongoing intellectual error of liberalism.

Этот дикий вывод — конечно, характерная черта.  
This wild conclusion is, of course, a characteristic trait.
> Zero copula in the present: There is no verb 'to be' here: «Этот дикий вывод — характерная черта» ('this wild conclusion [is] a characteristic trait'), with the dash standing where English needs 'is'. In the present tense Russian leaves the copula unexpressed and both nouns sit in the nominative.

Впрочем, социализм с христианством смешивают, как оказывается, не одни либералы и дилетанты, а вместе с ними во многих случаях, и жандармы, то есть заграничные разумеется.  
Moreover, it is not only liberals and dilettantes, it turns out, who confound socialism with Christianity, but, together with them and in many cases, the gendarmes too — the foreign ones, that is, of course.
> «не… а» correction + «и» 'even': The frame «не одни X, а… и Y» is corrective — 'not X alone, but Y as well'. The contrastive «а» (not «но») marks the rephrasing, and «и» before «жандармы» adds 'even/too'. Russian's «а» is the gentle pivot English lacks a single word for.

Ваш парижский анекдот довольно характерен, Петр Александрович.  
Your Parisian anecdote is rather characteristic, Pyotr Alexandrovich."
> Short adjective predicate: «характерен» is the short masculine form of «характерный» (characteristic, telling), agreeing with «анекдот». The short form is the natural predicative choice here — 'your anecdote is characteristic' — and «довольно» ('rather') hedges it.

— Вообще эту тему я опять прошу позволения оставить, повторил Петр Александрович, — а вместо того я вам расскажу, господа, другой анекдот о самом Иване Федоровиче, интереснейший и характернейший.  
"In general I again beg leave to drop this subject," repeated Pyotr Alexandrovich, "and instead, gentlemen, I will tell you another anecdote, about Ivan Fyodorovich himself, a most interesting and most characteristic one.
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «интереснейший» and «характернейший» are bookish superlatives formed with the suffix «-ейший» ('most interesting', 'most characteristic'), the elevated alternative to «самый интересный». The suffixed superlative gives Miusov's announcement a touch of rhetorical flourish.
> Intensifier «сам» + prepositional: «о самом Иване Фёдоровиче» ('about Ivan Fyodorovich himself') uses the intensifier «сам» (himself), declined to agree in the prepositional after «о». «сам» foregrounds that the anecdote concerns Ivan in person, not merely his ideas.

Не далее как дней пять тому назад, в одном здешнем, по преимуществу дамском, обществе он торжественно заявил в споре, что на всей земле нет решительно ничего такого, что бы заставляло людей любить себе подобных, что такого закона природы: чтобы человек любил человечество — не существует вовсе, и что если есть и была до сих пор любовь на земле, то не от закона естественного, а единственно потому, что люди веровали в свое бессмертие.  
No more than five days ago, in a local company that was predominantly ladies', he solemnly declared in an argument that there is decidedly nothing on the whole earth that would oblige men to love their fellows, that no such law of nature — that man should love mankind — exists at all, and that if love has existed on earth, and exists still, it is not by virtue of any natural law, but solely because men have believed in their own immortality.
> Conditional «бы» in a relative clause: «что бы заставляло» uses the particle «бы» + past-form verb for an irrealis relative: 'anything that would oblige…'. The hypothetical mood follows naturally from the preceding negation «нет… ничего такого» — there is no such thing as would compel love.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «нет… ничего такого» ('there is decidedly nothing of the kind') is the existential «нет» + obligatory genitive «ничего» — the genitive of negation for an absent subject. The «ни-» negative pronoun also triggers negative concord throughout the clause.
> «чтобы» + past-form subjunctive: «чтобы человек любил человечество» ('that man should love mankind') is the «чтобы»-clause governing a past-form verb «любил» — Russian's willed/hypothetical subordinate, distinct from the factual «что». Here it specifies the content of the non-existent 'law'.
> Archaic «веровать» + «свой»: «веровали» is the bookish/Church-tinged «веровать» (to believe, have faith), heavier than ordinary «верить»; «в своё бессмертие» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('their own immortality') referring back to the subject «люди».

Иван Федорович прибавил при этом в скобках, что в этом-то и состоит весь закон естественный, так что уничтожьте в человечестве веру в свое бессмертие, в нем тотчас же иссякнет не только любовь, но и всякая живая сила, чтобы продолжать мировую жизнь.  
Ivan Fyodorovich added in parenthesis that this is precisely where the whole of the natural law lies, so that if you abolish in mankind its faith in immortality, then not only love but every living force needed to carry on the life of the world will at once dry up within it.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» + «и»: «в этом-то и состоит» — the hyphenated clitic «-то» emphasizes the known topic ('in precisely this'), reinforced by the focusing «и» ('it is exactly here that the whole law consists'). This «-то» is the topic-stressing particle, not the indefinite «-то».
> Imperative as conditional: «уничтожьте» is a perfective imperative ('abolish!') used hypothetically for 'if you abolish…', a common Russian way to state a condition without «если». The consequence «иссякнет» (will dry up) is the perfective simple future — a single completed result.
> Correlative «не только… но и»: «не только X, но и Y» ('not only X but also Y') is the standard escalating correlative pair. The «и» after «но» is the obligatory 'also' completing the structure — together they climb from love to every living force.

Мало того: тогда ничего уже не будет безнравственного, все будет позволено, даже антропофагия.  
And more than that: then nothing would any longer be immoral, everything would be permitted, even anthropophagy.
> Genitive of negation + discontinuous adjective: «ничего… безнравственного» ('nothing immoral') puts both the negative pronoun and its adjective in the genitive of negation, and they are split around «уже не будет» — a discontinuous order Russian's case-marking allows. «не будет» is the negated compound future of «быть».
> «всё позволено» and «антропофагия»: «всё будет позволено» ('everything will be permitted') is the celebrated Karamazov formula that haunts the novel. «антропофагия» (anthropophagy, cannibalism) is a deliberately clinical Greek-derived term, its bookishness making the horror sound coolly logical — Ivan's signature irony.

Но и этого мало, он закончил утверждением, что для каждого частного лица, например как бы мы теперь, не верующего ни в бога, ни в бессмертие свое, нравственный закон природы должен немедленно измениться в полную противоположность прежнему, религиозному, и что эгоизм даже до злодейства не только должен быть дозволен человеку, но даже признан необходимым, самым разумным и чуть ли не благороднейшим исходом в его положении.  
But even that is not all: he concluded by affirming that for every private individual — such as we ourselves now are, say — who believes neither in God nor in his own immortality, the moral law of nature must instantly turn into the full opposite of the former, religious one, and that egoism, even to the point of villainy, must not only be permitted to man but even acknowledged as the necessary, the most rational, and very nearly the noblest issue of his condition.
> Participle + «ни… ни» negative concord: «верующего» is the present active participle of «веровать» modifying «лица», and «ни… ни» ('neither… nor') coordinates the negated objects under one «не», Russian's negative concord. «в бога», «в бессмертие» use «в» + accusative for 'believe in'.
> Modal «должен» + reflexive infinitive: «должен» (must, bound to) agrees as a short adjective with «закон» and governs the infinitive «измениться» — the reflexive «измениться» (to change, intransitive). The construction states necessity: the moral law must turn into its opposite.
> Short passive participles + instrumental predicate: «дозволен», «признан» are short past-passive-participles after «должен быть» — 'must be permitted… acknowledged'. The thing he is acknowledged as, «необходимым… благороднейшим исходом», takes the instrumental of the predicate after «признать».
> «чуть ли не» — almost, all but: «чуть ли не» is an idiomatic hedge meaning 'all but, very nearly, one might almost say', softening the outrageous claim that egoism is the 'noblest' way out. The bookish superlative «благороднейшим» (noblest, in -ейший) caps Ivan's provocative paradox.

По такому парадоксу можете заключить, господа, и о всем остальном, что изволит провозглашать и что намерен еще, может быть, провозгласить наш милый эксцентрик и парадоксалист Иван Федорович.  
From such a paradox, gentlemen, you may judge of all the rest that our dear eccentric and paradoxalist Ivan Fyodorovich is pleased to proclaim, and may perhaps yet proclaim."
> «по» + dative — 'judging by': «по такому парадоксу» ('from / by such a paradox') uses «по» + dative in its inferential sense, 'on the basis of'. «можете заключить» ('you may conclude') is the polite plural present of «мочь» + perfective infinitive.
> Ironic «изволить»: «изволит» (from «изволить», 'to deign, be pleased to') + infinitive is an archaic-deferential auxiliary, here dripping with irony — Miusov mock-courteously says Ivan 'is pleased to proclaim'. The high-flown verb mocks even as it flatters.
> Loanwords «эксцентрик», «парадоксалист»: «эксцентрик» (eccentric) and «парадоксалист» (paradoxalist) are Western loanwords flaunting the salon's Europeanized vocabulary; «милый» ('dear') laid over them is condescending affection. The labels reduce Ivan's metaphysics to a society curiosity.

— Позвольте, — неожиданно крикнул вдруг Дмитрий Федорович, — чтобы не ослышаться: «Злодейство не только должно быть дозволено, но даже признано самым необходимым и самым умным выходом из положения всякого безбожника»!  
"One moment," Dmitri Fyodorovich cried out suddenly, unexpectedly, "so that I may not have misheard: 'Villainy must not only be permitted, but even acknowledged as the most necessary and the most intelligent way out of his situation for every atheist'!
> «чтобы» + reflexive infinitive of purpose: «чтобы не ослышаться» ('so as not to mishear') is a «чтобы»-clause of purpose with a bare infinitive (same subject), negated by «не». «ослышаться» is a -ся perfective 'to mishear, hear wrongly', the prefix «о-» giving the sense of an error.
> Impersonal «должно» + short participles: In Dmitri's paraphrase «должно» is the neuter impersonal 'it must be', governing short passive participles «дозволено», «признано». This subjectless modal construction frames the abstract law without a personal agent.
> «безбожник» — atheist: «безбожник» (from «без» 'without' + «бог» 'God') is the everyday, somewhat condemnatory word for an unbeliever/atheist, blunter than the abstract «не верующий в бога» of Ivan's own phrasing. Dmitri's plainer word recasts the theory in starker moral terms.

Так или не так?  
Is that it, or not?"
> Elliptical yes/no question: «Так или не так?» ('Is that so or not?') is a terse alternative question built on the adverb «так» (so, thus) with «или» (or) and negating «не» — no verb needed. The clipped form matches Dmitri's blunt, soldierly demand for confirmation.

— Точно так, — сказал отец Паисий.  
"Exactly so," said Father Paisy.
> «Точно так» — 'exactly so': «Точно так» is an emphatic affirmation, 'exactly so, just so'. (The fixed military 'yes sir' formula is the reverse word order «Так точно», with its negative «Никак нет» — a different phrase.) From Father Paisy it is simply solemn confirmation.

— Запомню.  
"I'll remember it."
> Perfective future, subject dropped: «Запомню» ('I'll remember [it]') is a one-word perfective simple future — the perfective «запомнить» conjugated like a present yields future meaning. The subject «я» is dropped because the -у ending already marks first person.

Произнеся это, Дмитрий Федорович так же внезапно умолк, как внезапно влетел в разговор.  
Having said this, Dmitri Fyodorovich fell silent as abruptly as he had abruptly burst into the conversation.
> Perfective gerund + parallel structure: «Произнеся» is the perfective past gerund of «произнести» (having pronounced), naming the completed prior act. The sentence then sets «внезапно умолк… как внезапно влетел» in a balanced 'as suddenly… as he had suddenly…' parallel built on doubled «внезапно».
> «влететь» — to burst in: «влетел» (from «влететь», literally 'to fly in') is used figuratively for bursting impetuously into the conversation, the prefix «в-» giving the inward motion. The flight metaphor captures Dmitri's headlong, unpredictable energy.

Все посмотрели на него с любопытством.  
Everyone looked at him with curiosity.
> «посмотреть на» + instrumental of manner: «посмотреть на» + accusative ('to look at') is the standard frame; «с любопытством» ('with curiosity') adds the instrumental of manner after «с». The perfective «посмотрели» marks the single, collective turn of all eyes to Dmitri.

— Неужели вы действительно такого убеждения о последствиях иссякновения у людей веры в бессмертие души их? — спросил вдруг старец Ивана Федоровича.  
"Can it be that you are really of such a conviction about the consequences of men's faith in the immortality of their souls drying up?" the elder suddenly asked Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Particle «неужели» + genitive of quality: «неужели» is the incredulous question-particle, 'can it really be that…?', expressing the elder's surprise. «такого убеждения» ('of such a conviction') is again the genitive of quality describing a person's state of mind, parallel to the 'man of...' phrases earlier.
> Stacked genitives: A chain of genitives nests here: 'the consequences OF the drying-up [«иссякновения»] OF faith [«веры»] in the immortality OF their souls [«души их»]'. Such genitive towers are typical of Dostoevsky's abstract diction; «иссякновение» is a bookish verbal noun from «иссякнуть» (to dry up).

— Да, я это утверждал.  
"Yes, I asserted it.
> Imperfective past of a stated position: «утверждал» is imperfective past ('I was asserting / I maintained'), framing the claim as a position he held and argued, not a single utterance. Ivan owns the view as his settled stance.

Нет добродетели, если нет бессмертия.  
There is no virtue if there is no immortality."
> Double genitive of negation: Both clauses use existential «нет» + genitive: «нет добродетели» (there is no virtue), «нет бессмертия» (there is no immortality). The genitive of negation for absent subjects, doubled in a tight conditional, gives Ivan's maxim its lapidary, syllogistic force.

— Блаженны вы, коли так веруете, или уже очень несчастны!  
"Blessed are you, if you so believe — or else most unhappy!"
> "Blessed are…": Блаженны is the short-form plural of the archaic adjective блаженный (blessed). It is the exact word that opens each of the Beatitudes in the Russian Gospel ("Блаженны нищие духом" — "Blessed are the poor in spirit"). Zosima's choice gives his reply a deliberately scriptural, sermon-like tone that an everyday word like счастливы (happy) would lose.
> Folk-archaic «коли» + «веровать»: «коли» is an old, folksy-bookish conjunction for «если» ('if'), lending the elder's speech a grave, traditional colouring. It opens a real condition governing «веруете», again the Church-tinged «веровать» rather than plain «верить».

— Почему несчастен? — улыбнулся Иван Федорович.  
"Why unhappy?" Ivan Fyodorovich smiled.
> Perfective «улыбнуться» as a speech tag: «улыбнулся» (perfective of «улыбнуться», to give a smile) is used as the reporting verb after the line — a single completed smile. Russian freely uses such momentary perfectives, with inverted verb-before-subject order, in place of plain 'said'.

— Потому что, по всей вероятности, не веруете сами ни в бессмертие вашей души, ни даже в то, что написали о церкви и о церковном вопросе.  
"Because, in all probability, you yourself believe neither in the immortality of your soul nor even in what you wrote about the Church and the Church question."
> «ни… ни» concord + correlative «то, что»: Negative concord runs through «не веруете… ни… ни даже…» (you believe neither… nor even…). The second member ends in the correlative «в то, что написали» ('in that which you wrote'), where «то» is the antecedent for the «что»-clause.

— Может быть, вы правы!.. Но всё же я и не совсем шутил…  — вдруг странно признался, впрочем быстро покраснев, Иван Федорович.  
"Perhaps you are right!.. But all the same I was not altogether joking…" Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly and strangely confessed, flushing quickly all the while.
> Short adjective «правы»: «правы» is the short plural of «правый» in its predicative sense 'right, correct' — 'you are right'. Only the short form carries this 'being right' meaning; the long «правый» would mean 'right-hand' or 'righteous'. A neat case where the short/long split changes sense.
> Gerund «покраснев»: «покраснев» is the perfective past gerund of «покраснеть» (to blush, turn red), the inceptive «по-» marking the onset of colour. As a deepričastie it attends the main verb «признался», painting Ivan's confession and blush as one moment.

— Не совсем шутили, это истинно.  
"You were not altogether joking — that is true.
> Bookish neuter predicate «истинно»: «истинно» ('it is true, verily') is the predicative neuter of «истинный» (true), a more solemn, scriptural word than ordinary «правда» or «верно». The elder's lexical choice keeps his speech in a grave, almost liturgical register.

Идея эта еще не решена в вашем сердце и мучает его.  
This idea is not yet resolved in your heart and torments it.
> Short passive participle + topic word order: «не решена» is the short past-passive-participle of «решить» (resolved), agreeing with feminine «идея» — 'this idea is not resolved'. Placing «эта» after «идея» marks 'idea' as the established topic. The clause then shifts to active «мучает» (torments).

Но и мученик любит иногда забавляться своим отчаянием, как бы тоже от отчаяния.  
But a martyr too sometimes likes to toy with his despair, as if out of despair itself.
> Reflexive «забавляться» + instrumental: «забавляться» (to amuse oneself, toy) is a -ся verb taking the instrumental for the thing toyed with — «своим отчаянием» (with his own despair), the reflexive possessive «свой» pointing back to «мученик». A chilling pairing: a martyr playing with his own anguish.
> «мученик» — martyr / sufferer: «мученик» (from «мука», torment / «мучить», to torture) means both the religious 'martyr' and, more loosely, one who suffers torment. The word's double charge lets Zosima cast Ivan's intellectual anguish in quasi-hagiographic terms.

Пока с отчаяния и вы забавляетесь — и журнальными статьями, и светскими спорами, сами не веруя своей диалектике и с болью сердца усмехаясь ей про себя… В вас этот вопрос не решен, и в этом ваше великое горе, ибо настоятельно требует разрешения…  
For now, out of despair, you toy with it as well — with magazine articles and society arguments, yourself not believing your own dialectic and smiling at it inwardly with an ache in your heart… Within you this question is not resolved, and therein lies your great grief, for it insistently demands resolution…"
> Imperfective present gerunds: «не веруя» (not believing) and «усмехаясь» (smiling at) are imperfective present gerunds in -я, naming simultaneous accompanying states — Ivan toys with his ideas while disbelieving them and smiling inwardly. «усмехаться» governs the dative «ей» (at it = the dialectic).
> Bookish «ибо» + «требовать» + genitive: «ибо» is the archaic-bookish conjunction 'for, because', far more solemn than «потому что» and frequent in Scripture and sermon. «требовать» (to demand) governs the genitive «разрешения» (of resolution) — a standard genitive-object verb.
> Short passive participle + fronted locative: «не решён» is the short past-passive-participle (masc.) agreeing with «вопрос» — 'the question is not resolved'. Fronting «в вас» ('within you') as topic before the subject is the topic-comment ordering that lets Russian foreground the locus of the torment.

— А может ли быть он во мне решен? Решен в сторону положительную? — продолжал странно спрашивать Иван Федорович, всё с какою-то необъяснимою улыбкой смотря на старца.  
"But can it be resolved within me? Resolved on the positive side?" Ivan Fyodorovich went on questioning strangely, gazing at the elder all the while with a kind of inexplicable smile.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «может ли быть» fronts the focused word «может» and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to form a neutral yes/no question — 'can it be…?'. This «ли» is bookish and literary, the formal alternative to a mere rising intonation.
> Gerund «смотря» + archaic instrumental: «смотря» is the imperfective present gerund of «смотреть» (gazing), a simultaneous attendant action; «с… улыбкой» is the instrumental of manner after «с», with the period endings «-ою» on «какою-то», «необъяснимою». «всё» here means 'all the while'.

— Если не может решиться в положительную, то никогда не решится и в отрицательную, сами знаете это свойство вашего сердца; и в этом вся мука его.  
"If it cannot be resolved on the positive side, then it will never be resolved on the negative side either — you yourself know this property of your heart; and therein lies its whole torment.
> Reflexive «решиться» + perfective future: «решиться» is the -ся middle/passive of «решить» — '[the question] to get resolved' — appearing first under modal «не может» (cannot) and then as perfective future «не решится» (will not be resolved). The -ся makes the abstract question its own grammatical subject.
> Substantivized adjectives with «сторону» dropped: «в положительную… в отрицательную» ('toward the positive… the negative [side]') are feminine accusative adjectives whose noun «сторону» is gapped after the first mention. Russian readily omits a repeated noun, leaving the agreeing adjective to carry the case.
> Intensifier «сами» + dropped pronoun: «сами» ('you yourself', plural/polite) is the intensifier reinforcing an unexpressed «вы» — the verb «знаете» already marks the person. «свойство вашего сердца» ('property of your heart') uses the genitive of possession «вашего сердца».

Но благодарите творца, что дал вам сердце высшее, способное такою мукой мучиться, «горняя мудрствовати и горних искати, наше бо жительство на небесах есть».  
But thank the Creator that He has given you a higher heart, one capable of suffering such a torment, of "setting your mind on things above and seeking the things that are above, for our citizenship is in heaven".
> Slavonic infinitives and a vocative-style register: These are Church-Slavonic infinitives in -ти (where modern Russian has -ть): «мудрствовати», «искати». The neuter-plural «горняя» ("things above") and the genitive-plural «горних» belong to a high biblical idiom that has no place in living speech. Reading them as solemn and liturgical, not as mistakes, is half of decoding the novel's spiritual passages.
> Instrumental with «мучиться» and a cognate object: «Мучиться» ("to suffer, to be tormented") is a reflexive -ся verb whose cause stands in the instrumental: «такою мукой» — "by such a torment." Note the figura etymologica, «мукой мучиться» (literally "to be tormented by torment"), a deliberately weighty pairing of noun and its cognate verb. The form «такою» is the bookish long instrumental, where modern speech prefers «такой».

Дай вам бог, чтобы решение сердца вашего постигло вас еще на земле, и да благословит бог пути ваши!  
God grant that the resolution of your heart may overtake you while you are still on earth, and may God bless your ways!"
> Optative «да» and a blessing formula: Both halves are wishes, not statements. «Дай вам бог» ("may God grant you") uses a bare perfective imperative as an optative, and «да благословит бог» uses the particle «да» plus a third-person verb to form an elevated 3rd-person command/wish — "may God bless." This «да + verb» construction is a fossil of liturgical and biblical Russian (compare "да будет свет," "let there be light").
> «чтобы» + past for a wished-for outcome: After «Дай вам бог», the clause «чтобы … постигло» names the content of the wish. «Чтобы» (here "that, in order that") demands the irrealis past form «постигло» rather than a present or future — the standard pattern for willed or hoped-for outcomes, distinct from the plain reported «что».

Старец поднял руку и хотел было с места перекрестить Ивана Федоровича.  
The elder raised his hand and was about to make the sign of the cross over Ivan Fyodorovich from where he sat.
> The particle «было»: an action begun and broken off: «Было» here is not the past of "to be" but the special particle marking an action that was just begun (or about to begin) and then interrupted or undone — "was about to / had started to." «хотел было перекрестить» means he started to make the sign of the cross but was cut short, which the next sentence (с64) confirms. It is a vivid narrative device beloved of 19th-century prose.

Но тот вдруг встал со стула, подошел к нему, принял его благословение и, поцеловав его руку, вернулся молча на свое место.  
But the latter suddenly rose from his chair, went up to him, received his blessing, and, having kissed his hand, returned in silence to his place.
> «тот» as "the latter" tracking referents: The demonstrative «тот» ("that one, the latter") picks out the more distant of two parties just mentioned — here Ivan, against the elder of the previous sentence. Russian uses «тот»/«этот» to keep referents straight precisely because its free word order would otherwise blur who is who.
> Perfective gerund «поцеловав» — a prior completed act: «Поцеловав» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) in -в: "having kissed." It compresses a completed action that precedes the main verb «вернулся» ("returned"), and it must share that verb's subject — Ivan kisses, then Ivan returns. Chaining such gerunds («подошёл … принял … поцеловав … вернулся») is a hallmark of literary narration.
> Prefixed verb of motion «подойти»: «Подошёл» is the perfective of «подходить/подойти», a motion verb with the prefix под- ("up to, toward"), governing «к» + dative («к нему»). The prefix both gives a precise direction — approaching close — and turns the bare motion verb into an ordinary perfective of arrival.

Вид его был тверд и серьезен.  
His look was firm and grave.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «Тверд» and «серьёзен» are short (predicative) adjectives, not the full «твёрдый», «серьёзный». The short form can only stand as a predicate after «был» and lends a crisp, bookish, almost defining tone — well suited to a flat narrative summary of Ivan's bearing. They agree in gender and number only (here masculine singular).

Поступок этот, да и весь предыдущий, неожиданный от Ивана Федоровича, разговор со старцем как-то всех поразили своею загадочностью и даже какою-то торжественностью, так что все на минуту было примолкли, а в лице Алеши выразился почти испуг.  
This act, and indeed the whole preceding conversation with the elder, so unexpected from Ivan Fyodorovich, somehow struck everyone with its enigmatic quality and even with a kind of solemnity, so that for a moment all fell silent, and in Alyosha's face something almost like fright appeared.
> Instrumental of cause with «поразить»: «Поразить» ("to strike, astonish") takes its object in the accusative («всех» — everyone) and the thing that does the striking in the instrumental: «своею загадочностью» ("by its enigmatic quality"), «торжественностью» ("by its solemnity"). The instrumental here answers "struck them with what." «Своею» is the bookish long instrumental of «свой».
> Plural «было» and a fleeting hush: Again the particle «было» marks an action just begun and quickly reversed: all "fell silent for a moment" — and then, the next sentence makes clear, the uproar resumes. With «примолкли» (perfective, "hushed up"), «было» signals the brief, soon-broken nature of the silence.
> Reflexive «-ся» as a middle: a feeling appears: «Выразился» (from «выразиться») uses the reflexive -ся in its middle sense — not "expressed itself" so much as "showed, appeared." The grammatical subject is «испуг» ("fright"), which surfaces of its own accord in Alyosha's face; the construction lets the emotion act rather than the person.
> Abstract nouns in -ость: The suffix -ость turns adjectives into abstract nouns of quality: «загадочный» (enigmatic) → «загадочность» (enigmaticness), «торжественный» (solemn) → «торжественность» (solemnity). Dostoevsky piles up such heavy abstractions to convey the charged, indefinable atmosphere left by Ivan's gesture.

Но Миусов вдруг вскинул плечами, и в ту же минуту Федор Павлович вскочил со стула.  
But Miusov suddenly shrugged his shoulders, and at that same moment Fyodor Pavlovich sprang up from his chair.
> The prefix вс-/вз- of sudden upward motion: Both verbs carry the prefix вс-/вз- ("up, with a jerk"): «вскинул» (threw/jerked up — his shoulders, a shrug) and «вскочил» (jumped up). The prefix lends an abrupt, upward, startled quality that suits the sudden flare of the scene. «Плечами» is instrumental, the body-part moved.

— Божественный и святейший старец! — вскричал он, указывая на Ивана Федоровича. — Это мой сын, плоть от плоти моея, любимейшая плоть моя!  
"Divine and most holy elder!" he cried out, pointing at Ivan Fyodorovich. "This is my son, flesh of my flesh, the dearest flesh of mine!
> "Flesh of my flesh" — a biblical tag: A scriptural formula (Genesis 2:23, of Eve) that Fyodor Pavlovich grandly misapplies to a grown son. «Моея» is the archaic Church-Slavonic genitive of «моя» (modern «моей»), part of the mock-solemn register he affects to flatter Ivan and impress the monks.
> Bookish superlative in -ейший: «Любимейшая» is the synthetic superlative formed with the suffix -ейш- ("most beloved"), a literary alternative to «самая любимая». This whole chapter is studded with such -ейший/-айший superlatives — «святейший», «благороднейшую», «почтительнейший» — Fyodor's oily, overblown rhetoric. The suffix declines and agrees like any adjective.
> Present gerund «указывая» — a simultaneous act: «Указывая» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) in -я: "pointing." It describes an action going on at the same time as the main verb «вскричал» ("cried out") and shares its subject — he cries out while pointing. «Указывать на» governs «на» + accusative.

Это мой почтительнейший, так сказать, Карл Мор, а вот этот сейчас вошедший сын, Дмитрий Федорович, и против которого у вас управы ищу, — это уж непочтительнейший Франц Мор, — оба из «Разбойников» Шиллера, а я, я сам в таком случае уж Regierender Graf von Moor!  
This is, so to say, my most respectful Karl Moor, and this son who has just come in, Dmitri Fyodorovich, the one against whom I seek justice from you — he is the most disrespectful Franz Moor — both out of Schiller's "Robbers", while I, I myself, in such a case am the Regierender Graf von Moor!
> Past active participle as a compact modifier: «Вошедший» is a past active participle of «войти» ("who has come in"), used attributively before «сын»: "the son who has just come in." Such a participle condenses a whole который-clause into one adjective-like word — markedly bookish, and it agrees with «сын» in gender, number, and case.
> The relative «который» in the genitive: «Который» agrees with its antecedent «сын» in gender and number (masculine singular) but takes whatever case its own clause requires — here genitive after the preposition «против» ("against whom"). «Управы ищу» also shows the genitive object «управы» ("redress") governed by «искать», which characteristically takes the genitive of a sought-after thing.
> «управа» — redress, justice: «Управа» here is the archaic-legal sense "redress, satisfaction, justice" ("я ищу управы" = I seek to be put right). It belongs to the old idiom of petitioning authority and chimes with the chapter's recurring talk of courts and reckonings.

Рассудите и спасите!  
Judge between us and save us!
> Polite/plural imperatives in -ите: Two perfective imperatives addressed respectfully to the elder: «рассудите» (judge between us, settle it) and «спасите» (save us). The -те ending makes them plural or polite. The perfective aspect asks for a single decisive act — pass judgment, save — rather than an ongoing process.

Нуждаемся не только в молитвах, но и в пророчествах ваших.  
We have need not only of your prayers, but of your prophecies as well."
> «нуждаться в» + prepositional: «Нуждаться» ("to need, have need of") governs «в» + the prepositional case: «в молитвах», «в пророчествах». The correlative pair «не только … но и» ("not only … but also") links the two prepositional objects. The verb is also a -ся verb that exists only in this reflexive form.

— Говорите без юродства и не начинайте оскорблением домашних ваших, — ответил старец слабым изнеможенным голосом.  
"Speak without buffoonery, and do not begin by insulting your household," the elder answered in a weak, exhausted voice.
> Negated imperfective imperative: The elder's command pairs a positive imperative «говорите» (speak) with a negative one «не начинайте» (do not begin). Russian strongly prefers the imperfective in a negated imperative — a prohibition of a whole activity rather than of one completed act. «Оскорблением» is instrumental: "begin with / by an insult."
> «юродство» — holy folly, here mere clowning: «Юродство» derives from «юродивый», the "holy fool" of Russian Orthodox tradition who feigns madness to speak hard truths. The elder uses it cuttingly: Fyodor's antics are a false, profaned version of that — buffoonery dressed as foolishness. The word's sacred undertone sharpens the rebuke.
> «домашние» — one's household, one's own people: «Домашние» is a substantivized adjective meaning the members of one's own household or family. The elder tells Fyodor not to open by «оскорблением домашних» — insulting his own kin. Placing «ваших» after the noun is the bookish, slightly elevated order suited to the elder's grave speech.

Он видимо уставал, чем далее, тем более, и приметно лишался сил.  
He was visibly tiring, more and more as it went on, and was noticeably losing his strength.
> The «чем … тем» correlative comparative: «Чем … тем» plus comparatives expresses "the more … the more": «чем далее, тем более» — "the further it went, the more (he tired)." «Далее» and «более» are bookish comparative forms of «далеко» and «много». The whole frame conveys a steadily worsening process, reinforced by the imperfective «уставал» (was tiring).
> Imperfective past for an unfolding state: Both verbs are imperfective past — «уставал» (was tiring), «лишался» (was losing) — viewing the elder's decline as a continuing process rather than a finished event. «Лишаться» is a -ся verb governing the genitive: «лишался сил», "was losing strength" (genitive «сил»).

— Недостойная комедия, которую я предчувствовал, еще идя сюда! — воскликнул Дмитрий Федорович в негодовании и тоже вскочив с места.  
"An unworthy comedy, which I foresaw even as I came here!" exclaimed Dmitri Fyodorovich in indignation, springing up from his place as well.
> Relative clause plus a present gerund: «Которую» is the relative pronoun in the accusative (object of «предчувствовал»), agreeing with feminine «комедия». Inside it sits the present gerund «идя» (from «идти»), "while going / as I came," simultaneous with the foreboding. Dmitri foresaw the farce «ещё идя сюда» — already on his way here.
> Perfective gerund «вскочив»: «Вскочив» is a perfective past gerund ("having sprung up") attached to «воскликнул» ("exclaimed"), but here it reads almost simultaneously — the leap and the cry are one movement of indignation. It shares the subject Dmitri and echoes «вскочил» used of Fyodor a moment earlier.

— Простите, преподобный отец, — обратился он к старцу, — я человек необразованный и даже не знаю, как вас именовать, но вас обманули, а вы слишком были добры, позволив нам у вас съехаться.  
"Forgive me, reverend father," he addressed the elder, "I am an uneducated man and do not even know how to address you, but you have been deceived, and you were too kind in allowing us to gather here at your cell.
> Perfective gerund «позволив» + the prefix с-: «Позволив» is a perfective gerund ("having allowed") modifying «были добры». Its complement «съехаться» carries the prefix с- of converging from different directions — to gather, come together at one spot — fitting a family assembled from elsewhere into the elder's cell. «У вас» ("at your place") uses «у» + genitive.

Батюшке нужен лишь скандал, для чего — это уж его расчет.  
All my father wants is a scandal; for what purpose — that is already his own reckoning.
> Dative experiencer with «нужен»: An impersonal need-construction: the person who needs stands in the dative, «батюшке» ("to my father"), while the thing needed, «скандал», is the grammatical subject in the nominative and governs the short adjective «нужен» (agreeing with it). Literally "to my father is-needed only a scandal" — the dative-experiencer pattern so characteristic of Russian.
> «батюшка» — affectionate, then ironic, "father": «Батюшка» is a warm diminutive of «отец», used for one's father, for a priest, or as a coaxing form of address. Dmitri's «Батюшке» here drips with bitter irony — there is nothing tender in the man he describes. The word's softness against the harsh content is the point.

У него всегда свой расчет.  
He always has his own reckoning.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «Свой» means "one's own," referring back to the subject of its clause — here Fyodor: "he always has his own reckoning." Using «его» instead would point to someone else's calculation. «Расчёт» recurs through the chapter as Dmitri's word for his father's cold, scheming self-interest.

Но, кажется, я теперь знаю для чего…  
But I think I now know for what…"
> Impersonal «кажется» and the trailing «для чего»: «Кажется» ("it seems") is an impersonal parenthetical with no subject. The dangling «для чего» ("for what [purpose]") is an indirect question whose object — the scandal's aim — is left unspoken, the ellipsis («…») letting Dmitri's dark surmise hang in the air. «Для» governs the genitive «чего».

— Обвиняют меня все, все они! — кричал в свою очередь Федор Павлович, — вот и Пётр Александрович обвиняет.  
"They are all accusing me, all of them!" Fyodor Pavlovich shouted in his turn. "And here is Pyotr Alexandrovich accusing me too.
> Topic–comment word order and emphatic repetition: The verb leads — «обвиняют меня все» — throwing the accusation forward as the urgent new information, with the subject «все» trailing and then redoubled, «все они!». This reordering, free because the cases mark roles, lets Fyodor sound the keynote of his self-pity: everyone, everyone is against me.

Обвиняли, Петр Александрович, обвиняли! — обернулся он вдруг к Миусову, хотя тот и не думал перебивать его.  
You were accusing me, Pyotr Alexandrovich, you were accusing me!" he suddenly turned upon Miusov, although the latter had had no thought of interrupting him.
> Concessive «хотя … и»: «Хотя» ("although") opens a concessive clause, here reinforced by the emphatic «и» ("even"): "although the latter had not even thought of interrupting." «Тот» again means "the latter," i.e. Miusov, the one Fyodor wheels on. «Не думал перебивать» — "had no thought of interrupting" — uses an imperfective infinitive after a negated verb.
> Imperfective past as an accusation of habit: Fyodor switches to the imperfective past «обвиняли» ("you were accusing / you kept accusing"), repeated for force. The imperfective frames it not as one act but as a sustained, repeated wronging — the grammar itself dramatizing his grievance.

— Обвиняют в том, что я детские деньги за сапог спрятал и взял баш на баш; но позвольте, разве не существует суда?  
"They accuse me of having pocketed the children's money, tucked it away in my boot, and taken it tit for tat; but permit me — is there not, after all, a court of law?
> The particle «разве» and the genitive of negation: «Разве» introduces a rhetorical, half-incredulous question — "is there really not …?" Under the negated existential «не существует», the noun shifts to the genitive: «суда» (genitive of «суд», "court"), the genitive of negation marking what is absent. Together they make Fyodor's indignant appeal to the law.
> «баш на баш» — "tit for tat, even swap": «Баш на баш» is a colloquial idiom (from a Turkic word for "head") meaning an even exchange, one-for-one, "tit for tat." Fyodor uses it of pocketing the children's money as if it were a fair trade — the crude commercial slang clashing comically with the holy setting.
> "Hid it in his boot": «Спрятать за сапог» — to tuck money away behind/into one's boot-top — paints Fyodor as the very image of the grasping old miser. The accusation he flings (that he pocketed his sons' money) he frames here as a charge against himself, in mock indignation.

Там вам сочтут, Дмитрий Федорович, по самым же распискам вашим, письмам и договорам, сколько у вас было, сколько вы истребили и сколько у вас остается!  
There they will reckon up for you, Dmitri Fyodorovich, from your very own receipts, letters, and agreements, how much you had, how much you have squandered, and how much remains to you!
> «по» + dative; the emphatic «же»: «По» here means "according to, on the basis of" and governs the dative plural: «по распискам, письмам, договорам». The intensifier «самым» ("your very own") plus the particle «же» drives the jab home — by your own documents you'll be exposed. «Же» adds insistent emphasis with no translatable word of its own.
> Indefinite-personal «сочтут» and «сколько» + genitive: «Сочтут» is a 3rd-person plural with no stated subject — the indefinite-personal "they'll reckon up," i.e. the court will. The three «сколько»-clauses pivot on a quantity word that, like a numeral, pulls a genitive in its orbit. «Истребили» ("squandered, used up") is a vivid perfective of consuming wealth.

Отчего Петр Александрович уклоняется произнести суждение?  
Why does Pyotr Alexandrovich shy away from pronouncing judgment?
> «отчего» and reflexive «уклоняться»: «Отчего» is "why, for what cause" (literally "from what"), slightly more bookish than «почему». «Уклоняться» is a -ся verb, "to shy away, evade," here with an infinitive complement «произнести суждение» ("to pronounce judgment"). The reflexive marks the turning-aside as something Miusov does to himself, evasively.

Дмитрий Федорович ему не чужой.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich is no stranger to him.
> Dative + the long-form adjective «чужой» as predicate: A pithy zero-copula sentence: "Dmitri is not a stranger to him." «Ему» is the dative of relation ("to him"), and «чужой» ("alien, a stranger") stands as predicate with no verb «есть». Fyodor is needling Miusov — a relative by marriage — to take a side.

Оттого, что все на меня, а Дмитрий Федорович в итоге еще мне же должен, да не сколько-нибудь, а несколько тысяч-с, на что имею все документы!  
It is because they are all against me, while in the upshot Dmitri Fyodorovich still owes me money himself — and not some trifle, but several thousand, sir, for which I hold all the documents!
> Dative of the creditor + numeral phrase: «Должен» ("owes") takes the creditor in the dative — «мне» ("to me"), sharpened by «же» — and the sum as object: «несколько тысяч» ("several thousand"). «Несколько» behaves like a higher numeral, pulling «тысяч» into the genitive plural. The «-с» on «тысяч-с» is the deferential slovoyer (see s87).
> A pun on «сколько-нибудь» vs «несколько»: Fyodor plays on two near-identical words: «сколько-нибудь» ("any amount at all, some trifle") versus «несколько» ("several"). "Not just some trifle, but several thousand" — the indefinite -нибудь form belittling, «несколько» weighting the real sum. The wordplay is part of his oily theatricality.

Ведь город трещит и гремит от его кутежей!  
Why, the whole town rattles and thunders with his carousing!
> The appeal-particle «ведь»: «Ведь» opens the line with an appeal to shared knowledge — "why, after all (you all know) the town rattles…". It has no fixed English word; it nudges the listener to agree. The vivid present-tense imperfectives «трещит» and «гремит» ("cracks/rattles and thunders") make Dmitri's carousing a public, ongoing din.

А там, где прежде служил, там по тысяче и по две за обольщение честных девиц платил, это, Дмитрий Федорович, нам известно-с, в самых секретных подробностях, и я докажу-с…  
And there, where he served before, he paid out a thousand, two thousand, for the seduction of honest girls — that, Dmitri Fyodorovich, is known to us, sir, in the most secret particulars, and I will prove it, sir…"
> The deferential particle -с: The little «-с» tacked onto «известно-с» and «докажу-с» is the slovoyers, a contracted form of «сударь» ("sir"). Speakers added it to words to sound polite, humble, or — as here with Fyodor Pavlovich — mock-obsequious and oily. It carries no dictionary meaning and disappears in translation; it is purely a marker of tone and social register from 19th-century speech.
> Distributive «по» + the case of price: Distributive «по» here means "at the rate of / each": «по тысяче … по две» — a thousand, two thousand a time. «За обольщение» uses «за» + accusative in the sense "in exchange for, for the price of." The construction tallies up Dmitri's alleged payments girl by girl.
> «обольщение», «девица» — a heightened, bookish register: «Обольщение» ("seduction, beguilement") and «девица» ("maiden, girl," archaic and elevated) belong to a moralizing literary register that Fyodor adopts to dress up scandal as accusation. «Девиц» is the genitive plural; the word recurs through his speech («благороднейшую из девиц») in mock-chivalrous tones.

Святейший отец, верите ли, влюбил в себя благороднейшую из девиц, хорошего дома, с состоянием, дочь прежнего начальника своего, храброго полковника, заслуженного, имевшего Анну с мечами на шее, компрометировал девушку предложением руки, теперь она здесь, теперь она сирота, его невеста, а он, на глазах ее, к одной здешней обольстительнице ходит.  
Most holy father, would you believe it, he made the noblest of girls fall in love with him — of good family, with means, the daughter of his former commander, a brave colonel, decorated, who wore the Order of St. Anne with swords about his neck — he compromised the girl with an offer of his hand, and now she is here, now she is an orphan, his betrothed, and he, before her very eyes, goes calling on a certain local enchantress.
> The interrogative particle «ли»: «Верите ли» ("would you believe it") uses the enclitic «ли», which follows the focused word to form a question. Here it is a rhetorical buttonholing of the listener rather than a real yes/no question — "can you believe…". «Ли» is more literary and emphatic than plain question intonation.
> Causative «влюбить в себя» + reflexive «себя»: «Влюбить в себя» means to make someone fall in love with oneself — a causative built on «влюбиться» ("to fall in love"). The reflexive pronoun «себя» ("oneself," with no nominative) points back to Dmitri the subject; «в себя» governs the accusative. The object «благороднейшую из девиц» is the superlative "the noblest of girls."
> «обольстительница» — the enchantress/seductress: «Обольстительница» is the feminine of «обольститель», "seductress, enchantress," the loaded epithet Fyodor pins on Grushenka. The -ница suffix forms the female agent. The word will be picked up and contested across the next sentences as Dmitri defends her honour.

Но хоть обольстительница эта и жила, так сказать, в гражданском браке с одним почтенным человеком, но характера независимого, крепость неприступная для всех, все равно что жена законная, ибо добродетельна, — да-с! отцы святые, она добродетельна!  
But though this enchantress lived, so to say, in a civil marriage with a certain respectable man, she is of an independent character, a fortress unassailable to all, exactly like a lawful wife, for she is virtuous — yes, sir! holy fathers, she is virtuous!
> «гражданский брак» — a civil / common-law union: In this period «гражданский брак» means living together without a church wedding — an unsanctioned, common-law union, faintly scandalous in a society where marriage was a religious sacrament. Fyodor concedes it «так сказать» ("so to say"), softening the impropriety even as he insists on the woman's virtue.
> Archaic «ибо» + a short adjective: «Ибо» is the bookish, Slavonic-flavoured conjunction "for, because," far more solemn than «потому что» — comic here in Fyodor's grandiose mouth. It introduces the reason «добродетельна», a short-form predicate adjective ("she is virtuous"), whose clipped, declarative ring suits the mock-pious flourish, capped by «да-с!».
> «всё равно что» — "just the same as": «Всё равно что» introduces a comparison, "exactly like, no different from": she is unassailable "just the same as a lawful wife." Note the bookish post-positive order «жена законная» (adjective after noun), lending a faintly elevated, legalistic ring to «законная» ("lawful, wedded").

А Дмитрий Федорович хочет эту крепость золотым ключом отпереть, для чего он теперь надо мной и куражится, хочет с меня денег сорвать, а пока уж тысячи на эту обольстительницу просорил; на то и деньги занимает беспрерывно и, между прочим, у кого, как вы думаете?  
And Dmitri Fyodorovich wants to unlock this fortress with a golden key, which is why he now swaggers over me and wants to wring money out of me, while in the meantime he has already squandered thousands on this enchantress; and for that very purpose he borrows money incessantly, and — by the way — from whom, do you suppose?
> Reflexive «куражиться» + «над» + instrumental: «Куражиться над» ("to swagger over, lord it over") is a -ся verb governing «над» + instrumental: «надо мной» ("over me"). The reflexive marks the strutting, self-pleased quality of the action. «Надо» is the spelled-out form of «над» before the cluster «мной».
> Interrogative «кто» in the genitive after «у»: «У кого» ("from whom") puts the interrogative «кто» into the genitive demanded by the preposition «у». The parenthetical «как вы думаете?» ("what do you suppose?") is a stock rhetorical lead-in by which Fyodor teases out his revelation, leaving the listeners to guess.
> «просорить» — to squander, blow money: «Просорить» (perfective, "to squander, fritter away") with the prefix про- of "using up / wasting through" stresses that the thousands are gone for good. It joins «истребил» (s82) and «занимает беспрерывно» here in painting Dmitri as a reckless spendthrift — Fyodor's relentless theme.

Сказать аль нет, Митя?  
Shall I tell, or not, Mitya?"
> «аль» — folksy "or": «Аль» is a colloquial, folk-speech variant of «или» ("or"): «Сказать аль нет?» — "Shall I tell, or not?" The homely particle, dropped into the solemn cell, is part of Fyodor's needling, mock-rustic teasing of his son.
> «Митя» — the diminutive of Dmitri: «Митя» is the affectionate short form of «Дмитрий» (compare «Митенька», «Митька»). Fyodor's switch from the formal «Дмитрий Фёдорович» to the intimate «Митя» is calculated — a feigned fatherly tenderness wrapped around a threat to expose him, sharpening the cruelty.

— Молчать! — закричал Дмитрий Федорович, — подождите, пока я выйду, а при мне не смейте марать благороднейшую девицу… Уж одно то, что вы о ней осмеливаетесь заикнуться, позор для нее.  
"Silence!" shouted Dmitri Fyodorovich. "Wait until I leave, and in my presence do not dare to besmirch the noblest of girls… The mere fact that you dare even to breathe her name is a disgrace to her.
> Infinitive as a curt command: A bare infinitive «молчать!» ("silence! / be quiet!") functions as a blunt, categorical order — harsher and more peremptory than the imperative «молчите». Used as a command, the infinitive brooks no reply: a single barked word from Dmitri at the breaking point.
> Negated imperative «не смейте» + dependent infinitives: «Не смейте» ("do not dare") is a negative imperative governing the imperfective infinitive «марать» ("to besmirch"). The echoing «осмеливаетесь заикнуться» ("you dare so much as to breathe [a word]") repeats the «сметь» root for force. «Заикнуться о» means to drop a hint, mention in passing.

Не позволю!  
I will not allow it!"
> Perfective future as a flat refusal: «Позволю» is the perfective future of «позволить» ("to allow"), conjugated like a present but meaning a single completed future act. Negated and standing alone — «Не позволю!» — it is an absolute "I will not allow it," the perfective making the refusal categorical and final.

Он задыхался.  
He was choking for breath.
> Imperfective past of an ongoing state: «Задыхался» is the imperfective past of «задыхаться» (a -ся verb, "to gasp, choke for breath"). The imperfective frames it as a continuing physical state, not a single event — Dmitri's breath failing him under his fury. A terse one-line stage direction in Dostoevsky's rapid manner.

— Митя! Митя! — слабонервно и выдавливая из себя слезы, вскричал Федор Павлович, — а родительское-то благословение на что?  
"Mitya! Mitya!" cried Fyodor Pavlovich in a feeble, nervous voice, squeezing tears out of himself, "and what about a father's blessing?
> Present gerund + reflexive «из себя»: «Выдавливая» is a present gerund ("squeezing out"), simultaneous with «вскричал» ("cried out"). «Из себя» ("out of himself") uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» after «из» + genitive. The image — wringing tears out of himself — exposes the tears as forced, theatrical: Fyodor's performance of paternal grief.
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «родительское-то» foregrounds the topic — "and the father's blessing, what about that?" — singling it out as the thing Fyodor wants weighed. This emphatic «-то» (distinct from the indefinite «кто-то») gives speech an insistent, button-holing nudge.

А ну прокляну, что тогда будет?  
Suppose I curse you — what will become of you then?"
> «А ну» + perfective future as a threat: «А ну» is a provoking "come now / just suppose," and «прокляну» is the perfective future of «проклясть» ("to curse") — "suppose I curse you." «Что тогда будет?» ("what will become of you then?") uses the future «будет». The pairing makes a menacing hypothetical out of a sacred act.

— Бесстыдник и притворщик! — неистово рявкнул Дмитрий Федорович.  
"Shameless humbug!" Dmitri Fyodorovich roared frantically.
> «бесстыдник», «притворщик» — agent nouns of reproach: Both are -ник/-щик agent nouns hurled as insults: «бесстыдник» ("shameless one," from без- "without" + «стыд» "shame") and «притворщик» ("pretender, sham," from «притворяться» "to pretend"). Compact, contemptuous coinages of the kind Russian forms freely — Dmitri's verdict on his father's act.
> «рявкнуть» — to bark out: «Рявкнуть» means to bark, snarl, roar out a word — a semelfactive perfective in -нуть naming one sharp burst of sound. With «неистово» ("frantically, wildly") it conveys Dmitri's loss of control. Dostoevsky's speech-tags here («рявкнул», «вскричал», «закричал») are doing heavy emotional work.

— Это он отца, отца!  
"That's how he treats his father, his own father!
> Ellipsis and the animate accusative «отца»: A clipped exclamation with the verb left out: "That's [how he treats] his father — his father!" «Отца» is the accusative of «отец», and because "father" is animate masculine, its accusative borrows the genitive form «отца» (not «отец»). The doubling and ellipsis convey Fyodor's spluttering outrage.

Что же с прочими?  
What, then, of the rest?
> Elliptical question with «же» + «с» + instrumental: A verbless question, "what then [of / with] the rest?" «Прочими» is the instrumental plural of «прочие» ("the others, the rest"), governed by «с» ("with"). The particle «же» adds the insistent "then, indeed" — if this is how he treats his own father, what about everyone else?

Господа, представьте себе: есть здесь бедный, но почтенный, человек, отставной капитан, был в несчастье, отставлен от службы, но не гласно, не по суду, сохранив всю свою честь, многочисленным семейством обременен.  
Gentlemen, just imagine: there is here a poor but respectable man, a retired captain, who fell into misfortune, dismissed from the service — but not publicly, not by court order, with all his honour preserved — burdened with a numerous family.
> Imperative «представьте» + dative reflexive «себе»: «Представьте себе» ("just imagine, picture to yourselves") is a polite/plural imperative with the dative reflexive «себе» — literally "represent to yourselves." A stock conversational opener by which Fyodor draws the audience into his next tableau.
> A chain of participles and a gerund: Fyodor heaps modifiers onto the captain: the short passive participle «отставлен» ("dismissed"), the gerund «сохранив» ("having kept" his honour), and another short passive «обременён» ("burdened"). Such stacking of participial and gerundival phrases is the dense, period-bookish syntax of 19th-century narration.

А три недели тому наш Дмитрий Федорович в трактире схватил его за бороду, вытащил за эту самую бороду на улицу и на улице всенародно избил и всё за то, что тот состоит негласным поверенным по одному моему делишку.  
And three weeks ago this Dmitri Fyodorovich of ours seized him by the beard in a tavern, dragged him by that very beard out into the street, and there in the street thrashed him before all the people — and all because the man acts as my secret agent in a certain little affair of mine."
> A run of perfectives moving the story forward: Three perfective past verbs in sequence — «схватил» (seized), «вытащил» (dragged out), «избил» (beat thoroughly) — narrate the assault event by event, each a single completed blow of the action. The prefix вы- in «вытащил» adds "out (into the street)," and из- in «избил» intensifies to "beat all over, give a thorough beating."
> «за бороду» and «всенародно»: Seizing a man «за бороду» ("by the beard") was a grave public humiliation in Russian culture, the beard a mark of dignity. «Всенародно» ("before all the people, openly") underscores the shame done in the street. The detail makes Dmitri's violence not just brutal but dishonouring.
> The belittling diminutive «делишко»: «Делишко» is the pejorative/diminutive of «дело» ("affair, business"), with the -ишк- suffix that shrinks and disparages — "a paltry little affair of mine." Fyodor's false modesty ("some trifling matter") winks at the listener that the "little affair" is in fact shady. The suffix is a constant emotional signal in his speech.

— Ложь всё это! Снаружи правда, внутри ложь! — весь в гневе дрожал Дмитрий Федорович.  
"That is all a lie! Outwardly the truth, inwardly a lie!" Dmitri Fyodorovich trembled all over in his fury.
> Adverbs of place framing a zero-copula antithesis: A taut, verbless antithesis: «снаружи правда, внутри ложь» — "outside [the] truth, inside [a] lie." The adverbs «снаружи» and «внутри» ("on the outside / on the inside") set the contrast, and Russian needs no verb "to be" in the present. The parallel structure makes it sound like a maxim.
> «весь» as "all over" + imperfective «дрожал»: «Весь» here is adverbial, "entirely, all over": «весь … дрожал» — "trembled all over." «В гневе» ("in his fury") uses «в» + prepositional for the state he is in. The imperfective «дрожал» renders the shaking as ongoing, a body overcome.

— Батюшка! Я свои поступки не оправдываю; да, всенародно признаюсь: я поступил как зверь с этим капитаном и теперь сожалею и собой гнушаюсь за зверский гнев, но этот ваш капитан, ваш поверенный, пошел вот к этой самой госпоже, о которой вы выражаетесь, что она обольстительница, и стал ей предлагать от вашего имени, чтоб она взяла имеющиеся у вас мои векселя и подала на меня, чтобы по этим векселям меня засадить, если я уж слишком буду приставать к вам в расчетах по имуществу.  
"Father! I do not justify my conduct; yes, I confess it before everyone: I behaved like a beast with that captain, and now I regret it and loathe myself for that brutal rage; but this captain of yours, your agent, went to that very same lady whom you call an enchantress, and began proposing to her, in your name, that she take up the promissory notes of mine that you hold and bring suit against me, so as to have me locked up on those notes if I should press you too hard over the settling of the estate.
> «гнушаться» + instrumental of the thing loathed: «Гнушаться» ("to loathe, hold in disgust") is a -ся verb that governs the instrumental: «собой гнушаюсь» — "I loathe myself" (instrumental «собой» of the reflexive «себя»). «За зверский гнев» ("for [my] brutal rage") uses «за» + accusative to give the reason. Dmitri's self-disgust is morally central to his character.
> Purpose «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: After «предлагать» (proposing), the purpose clauses use «чтоб(ы)» with the past-tense forms «взяла», «подала» (the obligatory irrealis after «чтобы»), then a second «чтобы … засадить» with a bare infinitive when the subject is the same. This is the willed-outcome «чтобы», not the reporting «что».
> Present active participle «имеющиеся»: «Имеющиеся» is a present active participle of «иметься» (the reflexive "to be on hand"), used attributively: "the promissory notes of mine that are [held] in your hands." It compresses a который-clause into a single declining modifier — the bookish density typical of Dmitri's tangled, agitated explanation.
> «вексель» and «засадить» — debt and the debtors' prison: «Векселя» are promissory notes / bills of exchange — formal IOUs that could be sued upon. «Засадить» ("to lock up, jail") refers to imprisonment for unpaid debt, a real legal threat in the period. Fyodor's scheme is to have Grushenka sue Dmitri on his own notes and so have him "засадить" — jailed.

Вы же теперь меня упрекаете тем, что я имею слабость к этой госпоже, тогда как сами же учили ее заманить меня!  
And now you reproach me for having a weakness for this lady, when you yourselves taught her to lure me!
> «упрекать» + instrumental «тем, что»: «Упрекать» ("to reproach") names the thing reproached-for in the instrumental: «упрекаете тем, что…» — "reproach me with [the fact] that…". The instrumental demonstrative «тем» points forward to the «что»-clause. The particle «же» adds indignant emphasis: "and yet now you reproach me…".
> Concessive «тогда как» + emphatic «сами же»: «Тогда как» means "whereas, while in fact," setting up the contradiction. «Сами же» ("you yourselves, of all people") turns the accusation back: «учили её заманить меня» — "taught her to lure me." «Заманить» (perfective, "to lure, entice into a trap") carries the prefix за- of luring in.

Ведь она прямо в глаза рассказывает, сама мне рассказывала, над вами смеясь!  
Why, she tells it straight to my face — she told me herself, laughing at you!
> Present gerund «смеясь» + «над» + instrumental: «Смеясь» is the present gerund of «смеяться» (a -ся verb, "to laugh"), simultaneous with «рассказывает». «Смеяться над» governs «над» + instrumental: «над вами» — "laughing at you." Placing «над вами» before the gerund throws the mockery into relief. The motif of her laughter recurs across the next lines.

Засадить же вы меня хотите только потому, что меня к ней же ревнуете, потому что сами вы приступать начали к этой женщине со своею любовью, и мне это опять-таки всё известно, и опять-таки она смеялась, — слышите, — смеясь над вами, пересказывала.  
And you want to lock me up only because you are jealous of me over her, because you yourself began making advances to this woman with your love — and I know all about that too, and once again she laughed — do you hear? — laughing at you, she told me all about it.
> «ревновать … к» + dative: «Ревновать кого к кому» is "to be jealous of someone over someone": «меня … к ней» — jealous of me over her. The rival/cause stands in «к» + dative («к ней»), sharpened by «же». It is a fixed government worth memorizing, as the English preposition ("of/over") doesn't map onto it.
> Gerund framing the main verb: Again the gerund «смеясь» ("laughing") attends the main verb «пересказывала» ("she retold, recounted") and shares its subject. «Пересказывать» carries the prefix пере- of relating something through/over to another. The imperfective stresses that she went on telling it — repeating the mockery to Dmitri.

Так вот вам, святые люди, этот человек, этот упрекающий развратного сына отец!  
So there you have him, holy men — this man, this father who reproaches his profligate son!
> Present active participle wrapped inside a noun phrase: «Упрекающий» is a present active participle ("reproaching") that, with its own object «развратного сына» ("his profligate son"), is folded between «этот» and «отец»: "this son-reproaching father." The frame — modifier and its object packed before the head noun — is dense literary syntax, and «развратного сына» shows the animate accusative borrowing the genitive form.
> «вот вам» — a presentational flourish: «Так вот вам … этот человек» ("so there you have him") uses the deictic «вот» with the dative «вам» to present the subject dramatically to the audience — the holy men. It is a rhetorical gesture of unveiling, Dmitri throwing his father before the monks for judgment.

Господа свидетели, простите гнев мой, но я предчувствовал, что этот коварный старик созвал всех вас сюда на скандал.  
Gentlemen, you who are witnesses, forgive my anger, but I foresaw that this crafty old man had summoned you all here for a scandal.
> Perfective «созвал» + the gathering prefix с-: «Созвал» is the perfective of «созывать/созвать» ("to summon, call together"), the prefix с- meaning "together, to one place" (compare «съехаться» in s75). «Всех вас» is the animate accusative "all of you," and «сюда» ("to here") marks motion toward. Dmitri charges Fyodor with engineering the whole gathering for a scandal.

Я пошел с тем, чтобы простить, если б он протянул мне руку, простить и прощения просить!  
I came meaning to forgive him, if he held out his hand to me — to forgive and to ask forgiveness!
> Conditional «если б … протянул»: «Если б(ы)» plus the past form «протянул» builds the irrealis conditional — "if he had held out his hand." The particle «бы» (here clipped to «б») leaning on «если» marks the whole clause as hypothetical and now contrary to fact, since no hand was offered. «Мне» is the dative recipient.
> Purpose «с тем, чтобы» + infinitive: «С тем, чтобы» is an emphatic "with the [express] purpose of, in order to," introducing the goal infinitives «простить … и прощения просить» ("to forgive and to ask forgiveness"). The reciprocal pairing — forgive and be forgiven — is the moral hinge of Dmitri's intention, contrasted with the scandal that ensued.

Но так как он оскорбил сию минуту не только меня, но и благороднейшую девицу, которой даже имени не смею произнести всуе из благоговения к ней, то и решился обнаружить всю его игру публично, хотя бы он и отец мой!..  
But since this very minute he has insulted not only me but the noblest of girls, whose name I dare not even pronounce in vain, out of reverence for her, I have resolved to lay bare his whole game in public, even though he is my father!.."
> Causal «так как … то»: «Так как» ("since, because") opens the cause, answered by the resumptive «то (и)» ("then, accordingly") before the main clause — a balanced, bookish "since…, therefore…". «Решился» is the reflexive perfective of «решиться» ("to resolve, bring oneself to"). The construction lends Dmitri's declaration a deliberate, almost forensic shape.
> Genitive of negation + the Slavonic «всуе»: Under the negated «не смею произнести» the object goes to the genitive: «имени» (genitive of «имя»). «Всуе» is a Church-Slavonic adverb "in vain, idly" (echoing the Third Commandment), here applied with mock-chivalrous reverence to the girl's name — a flash of elevated register in Dmitri's speech.
> Concessive «хотя бы … и»: «Хотя бы … и» means "even though, even if it be": "even though he is my father." The «бы» adds a concessive-hypothetical colouring, and «и» intensifies — Dmitri will expose him regardless of the sacred bond of kinship. The trailing «..!» leaves the defiance ringing.

Он не мог более продолжать.  
He could not go on any further.
> Negated «мог» + the bookish «более»: «Не мог более продолжать» — "he could go on no further." «Более» is the elevated comparative "more / further," preferred over «больше» in literary prose, and «продолжать» is an imperfective infinitive after the modal «мог». A spare line marking the exhaustion of Dmitri's outburst.

Глаза его сверкали, он дышал трудно.  
His eyes were flashing, his breath came hard.
> Imperfective pair for a sustained physical state: Both verbs are imperfective past: «сверкали» ("were flashing," of his eyes) and «дышал» ("was breathing," with «трудно» — "with difficulty"). The imperfective renders these as ongoing conditions of his body in the grip of passion, not single events — the standing background after the action of his speech.

Но и все в келье были взволнованы.  
But everyone in the cell was agitated as well.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «Взволнованы» is the short-form past passive participle of «взволновать» ("to agitate, stir up"), joined to «были» to state a resulting condition: "all were agitated." The short passive in -ны/-ан here functions as a predicate of state. The additive «но и» means "but … as well."

Все, кроме старца, с беспокойством встали со своих мест.  
All but the elder rose uneasily from their seats.
> «кроме» + genitive; reflexive «своих»: «Кроме» ("except") governs the genitive «старца» ("except the elder"). «Встали со своих мест» — "rose from their seats" — uses «с(о)» + genitive for motion off/away from, and the reflexive possessive «своих» points the seats back to the subject «все» (their own places). Only the elder stays seated.

Отцы иеромонахи смотрели сурово, но ждали, однако воли старца.  
The hieromonk fathers looked on sternly, but waited, all the same, for the elder's will.
> «ждать» + genitive of the awaited thing: «Ждать» governs the genitive when what is awaited is abstract or non-specific: «ждали … воли старца» — "awaited the elder's will" (genitive «воли»). The inserted «однако» ("however, all the same") marks the restraint — they looked stern, yet held back. The order, with «однако» mid-clause, is bookish.

Тот же сидел совсем уже бледный, но не от волнения, а от болезненного бессилия.  
He himself sat already quite pale, but not from agitation — rather from a sickly weakness.
> Contrastive «а» + «от» of cause: The contrastive conjunction «а» corrects rather than opposes: "pale, not from agitation, but from a sickly weakness." Both causes use «от» + genitive of cause («от волнения», «от … бессилия»). This «не … а» («not X but Y») frame, hinging on «а», is a constant of Russian precision.
> «тот же» tracking the elder + particle «же»: «Тот же» here means "he, for his part / that same one" — the elder, set against the agitated crowd of the previous sentence. The «же» marks the contrastive shift of focus back to him. «Бледный» is a long-form adjective used predicatively after «сидел» ("sat pale"), a depictive describing his state while sitting.

Умоляющая улыбка светилась на губах его; он изредка подымал руку, как бы желая остановить беснующихся, и уж, конечно, одного жеста его было бы достаточно, чтобы сцена была прекращена; но он сам как будто чего-то еще выжидал и пристально приглядывался, как бы желая что-то еще понять, как бы еще не уяснив себе чего-то.  
An imploring smile shone on his lips; now and then he raised his hand, as if wishing to stop the raging men, and surely a single gesture of his would have been enough to put an end to the scene; yet he himself seemed to be waiting for something still, gazing intently, as if wishing to grasp something more, as if he had not yet made something clear to himself.
> «как бы» + gerund; a present active participle as noun: «Как бы желая» ("as if wishing") combines the comparative «как бы» with the present gerund «желая». Its object «беснующихся» is a present active participle of «беситься» ("to rage, be in a frenzy") used as a noun — "the raging ones" — in the animate accusative (= genitive plural form). The participle quietly likens the brawlers to the possessed.
> Hypothetical «было бы» + impersonal «достаточно»: An irrealis impersonal: «было бы достаточно» ("would have been enough") with «бы» making it hypothetical, and «одного жеста» in the genitive governed by «достаточно». The «чтобы»-clause of result takes the past-passive «была прекращена» ("be put to an end"), the obligatory irrealis form after «чтобы».
> The indefinite «что-то / чего-то»: «Что-то» marks a specific but unidentified thing — "something" the elder strains to grasp — and under the negated gerund «не уяснив» it shifts to the genitive «чего-то» (genitive of negation). The repeated «как бы» and the trailing indefinites render Zosima's inward, unfinished searching, a hallmark of Dostoevsky's psychology.

Наконец Петр Александрович Миусов окончательно почувствовал себя униженным и опозоренным.  
At last Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov felt himself utterly humiliated and disgraced.
> «почувствовать себя» + instrumental predicate: «Почувствовать себя» ("to feel oneself [to be]") takes its predicate in the instrumental: «униженным и опозоренным» — "humiliated and disgraced." Both are past passive participles («унизить», «опозорить») put in the instrumental to name the state Miusov feels himself reduced to. «Себя» is the reflexive object.

— В происшедшем скандале мы все виноваты! — горячо проговорил он, — но я всё же ведь не предчувствовал, идя сюда, хотя и знал, с кем имею дело… Это надо кончить сейчас же!  
"We are all to blame for the scandal that has occurred!" he said hotly. "But all the same I did not foresee it, coming here, though I did know with whom I was dealing… This must be put an end to at once!
> Past active participle «происшедший» + short adjective «виноваты»: «Происшедшем» is the prepositional of «происшедший», a past active participle of «произойти» ("that has occurred") modifying «скандале»: "in the scandal that has occurred." «Виноваты» is a short-form adjective predicate, "are to blame" — the clipped form lending Miusov's admission a flat, formal candour.
> Stacked particles «всё же ведь» + gerund «идя»: Miusov piles up modal particles: «всё же» ("all the same") and «ведь» ("after all, you see"), insisting he had no foreboding. The present gerund «идя» ("as I came") echoes Dmitri's earlier «идя сюда» — both men disclaim having foreseen the scene. Such particle-clusters are the texture of agitated speech.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо кончить» is an impersonal necessity construction — "this must be ended" — with no nominative subject; «надо» plus the perfective infinitive «кончить» ("to finish, put a stop to"). «Сейчас же» ("this very instant," with insistent «же») gives the demand its urgency.

Ваше преподобие, поверьте, что я всех обнаруженных здесь подробностей в точности не знал, не хотел им верить и только теперь в первый раз узнаю… Отец ревнует сына к скверного поведения женщине и сам с этою же тварью сговаривается засадить сына в тюрьму… И вот в такой-то компании меня принудили сюда явиться…  
Your Reverence, believe me, I did not know the exact details that have come to light here, did not wish to credit them, and only now learn of them for the first time… A father is jealous of his son over a woman of vile conduct, and himself conspires with this very creature to have his son locked up in prison… And it is in such company as this that I have been compelled to appear here…"
> Past passive participle + genitive of negation: «Обнаруженных» is a past passive participle of «обнаружить» ("revealed, come to light"), agreeing with «подробностей». Under the negated «не знал» the object goes genitive: «подробностей» ("the details"). Both features — the participle and the genitive of negation — are quintessential literary Russian.
> «ревновать … к» again; reflexive «сговариваться»: Miusov echoes the construction «ревнует сына к … женщине» ("is jealous of his son over a woman," «к» + dative). «Сговаривается» is the reflexive-reciprocal «сговариваться» ("to conspire, come to an arrangement"), the -ся here marking a mutual scheming with the «тварь». «Засадить» (jail) recurs as the scheme's aim.
> «тварь» — "creature," as a slur: «Тварь» literally means "created thing, creature" (from «творить», to create — compare «творец», the Creator, in s61), but used of a person it is a harsh insult, "vile creature, wretch." Miusov spits it at Grushenka. «Этою же» is the bookish long instrumental of «эта» after «с» ("with this very creature"). The word's theological root makes the contempt bite harder in this holy place.

Я обманут, я заявляю всем, что обманут не меньше других…  
I am deceived; I declare to everyone that I have been deceived no less than the others…
> Short passive participle: «обманут» is the predicative short form of the past passive participle of «обмануть» (to deceive). With an understood «есть», it states a result — 'I have been deceived / I stand deceived' — the bookish equivalent of «меня обманули».
> Genitive after a comparative: After the comparative «меньше» the thing compared stands in the genitive: «других» ('than the others'). This is the case-marked alternative to «чем» plus the nominative.

— Дмитрий Федорович! — завопил вдруг каким-то не своим голосом Федор Павлович, — если бы только вы не мой сын, то я в ту же минуту вызвал бы вас на дуэль… на пистолетах, на расстоянии трех шагов… через платок! через платок! — кончил он, топая обеими ногами.  
"Dmitri Fyodorovich!" Fyodor Pavlovich suddenly screeched in a voice that did not seem his own, "if only you were not my son, I would this very minute call you out to a duel… with pistols, at three paces… across a handkerchief! across a handkerchief!" — and he finished by stamping both feet.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A full irrealis: «если бы» in the if-clause and «вызвал бы» (past form + «бы») in the main clause frame a contrary-to-fact wish — 'if only you weren't my son, I would call you out'. Both halves use the conditional particle «бы».
> Instrumental of manner, subject postposed: «не своим голосом» is the instrumental of manner ('in a voice not his own'). Note too the inverted order: the verb «завопил» comes before the subject «Федор Павлович», a freedom the case endings allow.
> Imperfective gerund of attendant action: «топая» is the present (imperfective) деепричастие of «топать» (to stamp), expressing a simultaneous accompanying action — 'stamping both feet' as he finished. It shares the subject of «кончил».

Есть у старых лгунов, всю жизнь свою проактерствовавших, минуты, когда они до того зарисуются, что уже воистину дрожат и плачут от волнения, несмотря на то, что даже в это самое мгновение (или секунду только спустя) могли бы сами шепнуть себе: «Ведь ты лжешь, старый бесстыдник, ведь ты актер и теперь, несмотря на весь твой „святой“ гнев и „святую“ минуту гнева».  
Old liars who have spent their whole lives play-acting have their moments when they get so carried away with their own performance that they truly tremble and weep with emotion — and this although at that very instant (or only a second later) they could whisper to themselves: "You are lying, you shameless old man, you are an actor even now, for all your 'holy' wrath and your 'holy' minute of wrath."
> Past active participle as modifier: «проактерствовавших» is the past active participle (genitive plural here, agreeing with «лгунов»), condensing 'who had play-acted their whole lives' into one word. The reflexive-possessive «свою» points back to the liars themselves.
> A coined verb from «актёр»: Dostoevsky builds a verb on «актёр» (actor): «актёрствовать» = to play the actor, with «про-» giving 'to spend (a span) play-acting'. The whole rare formation drips with the narrator's scorn for the old liar's lifelong performance.
> Conditional «бы» softening a potential: «могли бы» (could + «бы») marks a hypothetical capacity — 'they could (if they chose) whisper to themselves'. The reflexive «себе» (dative) is the addressee of the whisper.
> «бесстыдник» — shameless one: From «без» (without) + «стыд» (shame): a 'shameless creature'. The agentive «-ник» suffix turns the quality into a person — a vivid term of abuse the old man flings at himself.
> Concessive subordinator: «несмотря на то, что» ('despite the fact that / although') opens a concessive clause. Built on the gerund «несмотря» (literally 'not looking at'), it is a fixed bookish conjunction here, set off by commas.

Дмитрий Федорович страшно нахмурился и с невыразимым презрением поглядел на отца.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich frowned terribly and looked upon his father with inexpressible contempt.
> Instrumental of manner after «с»: «с невыразимым презрением» ('with inexpressible contempt') uses «с» + instrumental for manner. The perfective «поглядел» frames a single completed glance.
> «невыразимый» — inexpressible: A negated participial adjective: «не-» + «выразить» (to express) + «-имый» — 'that cannot be expressed'. The bookish «-имый» passive-potential suffix marks the elevated narratorial register.

— Я думал… я думал, — как-то тихо и сдержанно проговорил он, — что я приеду на родину с ангелом души моей, невестою моей, чтобы лелеять его старость, а вижу лишь развратного сладострастника и подлейшего комедианта!  
"I thought… I thought," he said quietly and with restraint, "that I was coming home to my native land with the angel of my soul, with my betrothed, to cherish him in his old age — and instead I find only a depraved sensualist and the basest of buffoons!"
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы лелеять» expresses purpose — 'in order to cherish'. When the subject of the purpose is the same as the main clause, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive rather than a past-form clause.
> Instrumental of accompaniment; bookish ending: «с ангелом… невестою» is «с» + instrumental for 'together with'. «невестою» is the elevated literary instrumental ending in «-ою» (vs everyday «-ой»), and «души моей» postposes the possessive for solemn weight.
> Superlative «-ейший» + «комедиант»: «подлейшего» is the bookish superlative of «подлый» (base, vile) — 'the basest'. «комедиант» is a stage-player, here a contemptuous 'mountebank, buffoon', echoing the novel's theme of Fyodor Pavlovich as eternal performer.
> «сладострастник» — voluptuary: A heavy compound, «сладкий» (sweet) + «страсть» (passion): a person given over to «сладострастие», sensual lust. It is one of the novel's keywords for the Karamazov nature, and Dmitri hurls it at his father.

— На дуэль! — завопил опять старикашка, задыхаясь и брызгаясь с каждым словом слюной.  
"To a duel!" the little old man screeched again, gasping for breath and spraying spittle with every word.
> Pejorative diminutive «старикашка»: «старик» (old man) + the contemptuous «-ашка» suffix: 'wretched/nasty little old man'. Unlike the affectionate «старичок», this expressive form is purely belittling — the narrator's voice turning against Fyodor Pavlovich.
> Paired reflexive gerunds: Two imperfective деепричастия on reflexive verbs, «задыхаться» (to gasp) and «брызгаться» (to spray/splatter), paint simultaneous action. «слюной» is instrumental — spraying 'with spittle'.

— А вы, Петр Александрович Миусов, знайте, сударь, что, может быть, во всем вашем роде нет и не было выше и честнее — слышите, честнее — женщины, как эта, по-вашему, тварь, как вы осмелились сейчас назвать ее!  
"And you, Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov, know this, sir: that perhaps in all your line there is not and never was a woman higher and more honorable — do you hear, more honorable — than this 'creature,' as you have dared to call her just now!"
> Plural/polite imperative: «знайте» is the polite imperative of «знать» — formed by adding «-те» to the «-й» imperative «знай». It commands Miusov with mock-ceremonious «вы»-deference.
> Genitive of negated existence + comparative: «нет и не было… женщины» puts the absent subject in the genitive after «нет / не было» — the existential genitive of negation. «выше и честнее» are predicative comparatives ('higher and more honourable').
> «сударь» — sir: An archaic, deferential term of address ('sir'), already old-fashioned by the 1870s. Fyodor Pavlovich deploys it with venomous courtesy toward Miusov.

А вы, Дмитрий Федорович, на эту же «тварь» вашу невесту променяли, стало быть, сами присудили, что и невеста ваша подошвы ее не стоит, вот какова эта тварь!  
"And you, Dmitri Fyodorovich, you traded your own betrothed for this very 'creature,' which means you yourself have judged that your betrothed is not worth the sole of her shoe — that is what kind of 'creature' she is!"
> «стало быть» — 'consequently': A fixed parenthetical meaning 'therefore, so it follows' (literally 'it has become to be'). It is a colloquial reasoning-marker, very characteristic of Fyodor Pavlovich's wheedling logic.
> Genitive object of «стоить» under negation: «не стоит подошвы» — 'is not worth (even) the sole of her shoe'. «стоить» in the sense 'be worth' governs the genitive, reinforced here by the negation; «ее» is the frozen possessive 'her'.
> Short interrogative «каков»: «какова» is the short, predicative form of «каков» (what sort), agreeing feminine with «тварь»: 'that's what kind of creature she is'. The short «каков» is exclamatory and emphatic, distinct from attributive «какая».

— Стыдно! — вырвалось вдруг у отца Иосифа.  
"For shame!" suddenly burst from Father Iosif.
> Reflexive verb, impersonal 'у' construction: «вырвалось» (reflexive «вырваться», to burst out) is used impersonally with «у» + genitive — the exclamation 'burst out of' Father Iosif, as if independent of his will. Neuter «-лось» agrees with no overt subject.

— Стыдно и позорно! — своим отроческим голосом, дрожащим от волнения, и весь покраснев, крикнул вдруг Калганов, всё время молчавший.  
"For shame, and a disgrace!" Kalganov, who had been silent the whole time, suddenly cried out in his boyish voice, trembling with emotion and flushing crimson all over.
> Instrumental of manner + agreeing participle: «своим… голосом» is instrumental of manner; «дрожащим» is the present active participle of «дрожать» (to tremble), in the instrumental to agree with «голосом» — 'in his trembling voice'.
> Past active participle as appositive: «молчавший» (past active participle of «молчать», to be silent) modifies «Калганов» — 'who had been silent the whole time'. Set off by a comma, it packs a relative clause into one adjective.
> «отроческий» — adolescent: From «отрок», an archaic/bookish word for a boy or youth (roughly 7–15). «отроческий голос» is a not-yet-broken, boyish voice — marking Kalganov as the youngest, most innocent witness to the scandal.

— Зачем живет такой человек! — глухо прорычал Дмитрий Федорович, почти уже в исступлении от гнева, как-то чрезвычайно приподняв плечи и почти от того сгорбившись, — нет, скажите мне, можно ли еще позволить ему бесчестить собою землю, — оглядел он всех, указывая на старика рукой.  
"Why is such a man alive!" Dmitri Fyodorovich growled dully, almost beside himself now with rage, hunching his shoulders extraordinarily high and stooping nearly double from the effort. "No, tell me, can he be allowed any longer to disgrace the earth with his presence?" — and he looked round at them all, pointing at the old man with his hand.
> Two perfective past gerunds: «приподняв» (having raised up) and «сгорбившись» (having hunched, reflexive) are perfective past деепричастия in «-в»/«-вшись», describing completed postures taken before/while he growled. They share Dmitri's subject.
> Particle «ли» in an impersonal modal: «можно ли… позволить» fronts «можно» and follows it with the interrogative «ли» — 'is it (even) possible to allow…'. The impersonal «можно» takes a dative «ему» for the one permitted; «собою» is instrumental ('with himself').
> «исступление» — frenzy: A strong bookish noun for a state of being beside oneself — frenzy, rapture, derangement. Dostoevsky loves it for the moments when his characters cross from reason into ecstatic or violent excess.
> «бесчестить» — to dishonour: «бесчестить» (from «без» + «честь», honour) means to defile or disgrace. The phrase 'to dishonour the earth with his very being' is biblical-toned hyperbole, weighing the father's mere existence as a stain.

Он говорил медленно и мерно.  
He spoke slowly and deliberately.
> Imperfective for manner of speaking: The imperfective «говорил» views the speaking as an ongoing process, fit for the adverbs of manner «медленно и мерно» ('slowly and measuredly') — a held, deliberate tempo rather than a single utterance.

— Слышите ли, слышите ли вы, монахи, отцеубийцу, — набросился Федор Павлович на отца Иосифа.  
"Do you hear, do you hear, monks, the parricide," Fyodor Pavlovich turned upon Father Iosif.
> «ли» question + animate accusative: «Слышите ли вы… отцеубийцу» — 'do you hear the parricide'. «ли» makes the address an emphatic question; «отцеубийцу» is the animate accusative direct object (the object of 'hear'), ending in «-у».
> «отцеубийца» — parricide: A grim compound: «отец» (father) + «убийца» (killer) = one who kills his father. Hurled by Fyodor Pavlovich at the son who just asked why he is allowed to live, it darkly foreshadows the novel's central crime.

— Вот ответ на ваше «стыдно»! Что стыдно?  
"There is your answer to your 'for shame'! What is shameful here?
> Impersonal predicative «стыдно»: «стыдно» is a predicative adverb ('it is shameful') used in subjectless constructions; «что стыдно?» asks 'what (here) is shameful?'. Such impersonal -о predicatives normally pair with a dative experiencer.

Эта «тварь», эта «скверного поведения женщина», может быть, святее вас самих, господа спасающиеся иеромонахи!  
This 'creature,' this 'woman of disreputable conduct,' may well be holier than you yourselves, you salvation-seeking monastic fathers!
> Comparative + genitive of comparison: «святее» is the predicative comparative of «святой» (holy); the standard of comparison «вас самих» ('than you yourselves') stands in the genitive. «самих» is the intensifier «сам» agreeing with «вас».
> Present active participle of a -ся verb: «спасающиеся» is the present active participle of reflexive «спасаться» (to save one's soul), modifying «иеромонахи» — 'salvation-seeking monks'. The «-ся» rides along on the participle ending.

Она, может быть, в юности пала, заеденная средой, но она «возлюбила много», а возлюбившую много и Христос простил…  
She may have fallen in her youth, gnawed at by her surroundings, but she 'loved much,' and her who loved much even Christ forgave…"
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «заеденная» is the long past passive participle of «заесть» ('to eat up, devour'), agreeing feminine with the implied 'she'. Its agent «средой» (one's social environment) stands in the instrumental — the standard way to name 'by whom'.
> Substantivized past active participle as object: «возлюбившую» (past active participle of «возлюбить», archaic 'to come to love') stands in for a noun — 'the woman who loved much' — and takes the animate accusative «-ую» as object of «простил».

— Христос не за такую любовь простил… — вырвалось в нетерпении у кроткого отца Иосифа.  
"It was not for such love that Christ forgave…" broke impatiently from the gentle Father Iosif.
> Negation scoping a «за» phrase: «не за такую любовь» places «не» before the «за» + accusative phrase it denies — 'it was not for such love (that he forgave)'. The focus of the negation is the kind of love, not the verb.
> «кроткий» — meek, gentle: «кроткий» means meek, mild, gentle — a virtue prized in Orthodox spirituality (cf. the Beatitude 'blessed are the meek'). The epithet marks Father Iosif's character against Fyodor Pavlovich's clamour.

— Нет, за такую, за эту самую, монахи, за эту! Вы здесь на капусте спасаетесь и думаете, что праведники!  
"No, for just such love, for this very kind, monks, for this very kind! Here you save your souls on cabbage and fancy yourselves the righteous!
> Repeated «за» + accusative for emphasis: Fyodor Pavlovich pounds the preposition «за» + accusative three times ('for such, for this very, for this!'), the demonstratives «эту самую / эту» narrowing the focus. The repetition is pure rhetorical insistence.
> Reflexive «спасаться»: «спасаетесь» is reflexive «спасаться» — here in its religious sense 'to save one's (own) soul, work out one's salvation'. «на капусте» ('on cabbage') sneers that their asceticism is a cheap diet.

Пескариков кушаете, в день по пескарику, и думаете пескариками бога купить!  
You eat little gudgeons, a gudgeon a day, and you think with your gudgeons to buy God!"
> «пескарик» — little gudgeon (diminutive): «пескарик» is the diminutive of «пескарь», a tiny freshwater gudgeon. The threefold diminutive mocks the monks' meagre Lenten fare; «по пескарику» ('a gudgeon apiece/per day') uses «по» + dative in its distributive sense.
> Instrumental of means: «пескариками… купить» — 'to buy (God) with little gudgeons' — uses the instrumental for the means of an action. The taunt: their fasting is a transaction to purchase salvation.

— Невозможно, невозможно! — слышалось в келье со всех сторон.  
"This is impossible, impossible!" came from every side of the cell.
> Reflexive-impersonal «слышалось»: «слышалось» (reflexive «слышаться») is impersonal — 'it was heard / could be heard' from every side, with no agent named. The middle «-ся» turns an active verb into a backgrounded passive impression.

Но вся эта дошедшая до безобразия сцена прекратилась самым неожиданным образом.  
But this whole scene, which had reached the point of outright ugliness, was cut short in the most unexpected manner.
> Past active participle + reflexive verb: «дошедшая» (past active participle of «дойти», to reach) modifies «сцена» — 'the scene that had reached the point of ugliness'. «прекратилась» is reflexive «прекратиться» (to cease, intransitive), the middle-voice counterpart to transitive «прекратить».
> «безобразие» — outrage, ugliness: Literally 'without form/image' («без» + «образ»), «безобразие» means both physical hideousness and moral outrage/disgrace. «дошедшая до безобразия» — 'gone to the point of outright scandal' — is a key Dostoevskian register for a scene gone monstrous.

Вдруг поднялся с места старец.  
Suddenly the elder rose from his place.
> Verb-first, subject last: The subject «старец» comes last, after the reflexive verb «поднялся» (rose) and the adverbials — putting the new, decisive information (it is the elder who rises) in the stressed final slot.

Совсем почти потерявшийся от страха за него и за всех, Алеша успел, однако, поддержать его за руку.  
Alyosha, nearly out of his wits with fear for him and for them all, nonetheless managed to support him by the arm.
> Fronted past active participle: «потерявшийся» (past active participle of reflexive «потеряться», to be lost/bewildered) is fronted before its noun «Алеша» for emphasis — 'almost utterly bewildered with fear, Alyosha…'. «от страха» gives the cause via «от» + genitive.
> «успеть» + perfective infinitive: «успел поддержать» — 'managed to support (in time)'; «успеть» plus a perfective infinitive means to succeed in doing something. The parenthetical «однако» ('however') is set off by commas.

Старец шагнул по направлению к Дмитрию Федоровичу и, дойдя до него вплоть, опустился пред ним на колени.  
The elder took a step in the direction of Dmitri Fyodorovich and, having come right up to him, lowered himself onto his knees before him.
> Perfective gerund of prior action: «дойдя» (perfective past деепричастие of «дойти») marks a completed action prior to the main verb — 'having come right up to him, he lowered himself'. The reflexive «опустился» (sank down) is intransitive.
> «пред» — bookish 'before': «пред» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «ним». It lends the elder's gesture of kneeling a solemn, almost liturgical gravity.

Алеша подумал было, что он упал от бессилия, но это было не то.  
Alyosha thought at first that he had fallen from weakness, but it was nothing of the sort.
> The particle «было» of a thwarted action: «подумал было» uses the special particle «было», which signals an action begun or assumed but then cancelled/corrected — 'Alyosha thought at first (mistakenly)…'. The next clause overturns the thought.
> Negated «то» — 'not that': «это было не то» — literally 'it was not that', i.e. 'it was nothing of the sort'. The neuter demonstrative «то» here stands for the wrong supposition just named, negated by «не».

Став на колени, старец поклонился Дмитрию Федоровичу в ноги полным, отчетливым, сознательным поклоном и даже лбом своим коснулся земли.  
Having knelt, the elder bowed down to Dmitri Fyodorovich's feet with a full, distinct, deliberate bow, and even touched the ground with his forehead.
> Perfective gerund opening the sentence: «Став» (perfective past деепричастие of «стать») expresses the completed prior action — 'having knelt'. It shares the subject «старец» of the main verb «поклонился» (bowed).
> Dative + instrumental of manner: «поклониться» governs a dative for the person honoured (Дмитрию) and an instrumental for the kind of bow («полным… поклоном»). «в ноги» ('to the feet') specifies the deepest, ground-touching prostration.

Алеша был так изумлен, что даже не успел поддержать его, когда тот поднимался.  
Alyosha was so astonished that he did not even manage to support him as he rose.
> Result clause «так…, что»: «так изумлён, что…» — 'so astonished that…' — is the correlative result construction. «изумлён» is a short passive participle ('astounded'); «не успел поддержать» = 'did not manage to support'.
> Demonstrative «тот» as he-the-other: «тот» ('that one') tracks the elder as distinct from Alyosha — Russian uses «тот» vs «он» to disambiguate which of two males is meant. «поднимался» is imperfective, viewing the rising as a process underway.

Слабая улыбка чуть-чуть блестела на его губах.  
A faint smile glimmered ever so slightly on his lips.
> Imperfective for a lingering state: Imperfective «блестела» (gleamed) paints a continuing, faint condition rather than a momentary flash — reinforced by the reduplicated adverb «чуть-чуть» ('ever so slightly'). «на… губах» is prepositional of location.

— Простите! Простите все! — проговорил он, откланиваясь на все стороны своим гостям.  
"Forgive me! Forgive me, all of you!" he said, bowing on every side to his guests.
> Imperative + nominative «все» as address: «Простите» is the polite/plural imperative of «простить» (to forgive). «все» ('all of you') is the addressee. The elder asks forgiveness of everyone — a characteristic Zosima reversal of who owes whom.
> Imperfective reflexive gerund: «откланиваясь» (imperfective gerund of reflexive «откланиваться», to bow in farewell) gives the accompanying action — 'bowing on all sides as he spoke'. «на все стороны» = 'in every direction'.

Дмитрий Федорович стоял несколько мгновений как пораженный: ему поклон в ноги — что такое?  
Dmitri Fyodorovich stood for several moments as though thunderstruck: a bow to his feet — what did it mean?
> «как» + past passive participle: «как пораженный» — 'as though thunderstruck' — uses «как» plus the long past passive participle of «поразить» (to strike). The imperfective «стоял» holds the frozen, stunned posture across several moments.
> Dative of the affected person: «ему поклон в ноги» — 'a bow to the feet, to him' — fronts the dative «ему» (the one bowed to). The terse «что такое?» ('what is this?') renders Dmitri's stunned, ungrammatical inner question.

Наконец вдруг вскрикнул: «О боже!» — и, закрыв руками лицо, бросился вон из комнаты.  
At last he suddenly cried out, "O God!" and, covering his face with his hands, rushed out of the room.
> Perfective gerund + instrumental of means: «закрыв» (perfective gerund of «закрыть», to cover) marks the prior action; «руками» is instrumental, the means by which he covered «лицо». Then «бросился» (reflexive, flung himself) carries the main event.
> «Боже» — the old vocative: «Боже» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» (God), used only in exclamation and prayer. Dmitri's cry 'O God!' carries the weight of that liturgical form at the moment of overwhelming feeling.

За ним повалили гурьбой и все гости, от смущения даже не простясь и не откланявшись хозяину.  
After him all the guests poured out in a crowd, in their confusion not even taking leave of or bowing to their host.
> Negated perfective gerunds: Two perfective past gerunds under negation — «не простясь» (without taking leave) and «не откланявшись» (without bowing farewell) — both reflexive in «-сь/-вшись». «хозяину» is the dative object of the farewell.
> «гурьбой» — in a crowd: «гурьба» is a disorderly throng; the instrumental «гурьбой» means 'in a crowd, all together pell-mell'. «повалили» ('poured/streamed out') is colloquial and vivid — the dignified guests now bolting as a herd.

Одни только иеромонахи опять подошли под благословение.  
Only the hieromonks came up once more for the blessing.
> «один только» — 'only'; prefixed motion: «одни только» (here plural 'only the…') restricts the subject. «подошли» is the perfective of prefixed «подойти» (to come up to), the prefix «под-» giving 'approach'. «под благословение» = to receive the blessing.

— Это что же он в ноги-то, это эмблема какая-нибудь? — попробовал было разговор начать вдруг почему-то присмиревший Федор Павлович, ни к кому, впрочем, не осмеливаясь обратиться лично.  
"What was that about, his bowing to the feet — is it some sort of emblem?" Fyodor Pavlovich ventured, suddenly grown subdued for some reason, attempting to start a conversation, though not daring to address anyone in particular.
> Particles «же» and «-то»: «что же» adds insistent puzzlement ('what on earth'), and the clitic «-то» on «в ноги-то» flags it as the known, salient topic ('that bowing-to-the-feet business'). Together they give Fyodor Pavlovich's flustered, colloquial voice.
> Participle + negated gerund: «присмиревший» is the past active participle of «присмиреть» (to grow subdued), modifying Fyodor Pavlovich; «не осмеливаясь» is a negated imperfective gerund ('not daring'). The pair shows him newly cowed.
> «эмблема» — emblem, symbol: A French/Latinate loan; Fyodor Pavlovich gropes for it to ask whether the elder's prostration is 'some sort of symbolic act'. The fancy foreign word in his mouth makes the question half-buffoonish, half-genuinely shaken.

Они все выходили в эту минуту из ограды скита.  
At that moment they were all going out through the gate of the hermitage.
> Imperfective of motion in progress: «выходили» (imperfective, prefixed «выходить», to be going out) frames the exit as ongoing at that moment, paired with «в эту минуту». «из ограды» is «из» + genitive ('out of the enclosure').

— Я за сумасшедший дом и за сумасшедших не отвечаю, — тотчас же озлобленно ответил Миусов, — но зато избавлю себя от вашего общества, Федор Павлович, и поверьте, что навсегда.  
"I am not answerable for a madhouse or for madmen," Miusov retorted at once, with rancor, "but for that very reason I will rid myself of your company, Fyodor Pavlovich, and believe me, for good.
> Animacy split in the accusative: After «за» both objects are accusative, but animacy splits them: inanimate «сумасшедший дом» keeps the nominative shape, while animate «сумасшедших» borrows the genitive form. «отвечать за» = 'to answer/be responsible for'.
> Perfective future + reflexive object: «избавлю» is the simple (perfective) future of «избавить» (to rid) — 'I will rid'; «себя» is the reflexive object. «зато» ('but in return / for that very reason') contrasts with the preceding clause.

Где этот давешний монах?.  
Where is that monk from before?"
> «давешний» — the one from earlier: A colloquial, now-dated adjective from «давеча» ('a while ago, earlier today') meaning 'that recent / aforementioned' one. Miusov means the monk who came with the dinner invitation a short time before.

Но «этот монах», то есть тот, который приглашал их давеча на обед к игумену, ждать себя не заставил.  
But "that monk" — that is, the one who had earlier invited them to dine with the Father Superior — did not keep them waiting.
> Correlative «тот, который»: «тот, который…» is the classic correlative: the demonstrative «тот» ('the one') is filled out by the relative clause with «который» ('who'). «приглашал» is imperfective, viewing the earlier invitation as a remembered act.
> Idiom «не заставить себя ждать»: «не заставить себя ждать» literally 'did not force himself to be waited for' = 'did not keep them waiting, came at once'. «себя» is the reflexive object; «заставить» + infinitive means 'to make (someone) do'.

Он тут же встретил гостей, тотчас же как они сошли с крылечка из кельи старца, точно дожидал их всё время.  
He met the guests at once, the moment they came down from the porch of the elder's cell, as though he had been waiting for them the whole time.
> «точно» as 'as if': «точно» here is not 'exactly' but the comparative 'as though, as if', introducing a hypothetical comparison — 'as if he had been waiting for them all along'. «дожидал» is imperfective, a sustained waiting.
> «крылечко» — little porch: Diminutive of «крыльцо», the external steps/porch of a building — affectionately scaled down to 'the little porch' of the elder's cell. «с крылечка» = 'down from the porch'.

— Сделайте одолжение, почтенный отец, засвидетельствуйте всё мое глубокое уважение отцу игумену и извините меня лично, Миусова, пред его высокопреподобием в том, что по встретившимся внезапно непредвиденным обстоятельствам ни за что не могу иметь честь принять участие в его трапезе, несмотря на всё искреннейшее желание мое, — раздражительно проговорил монаху Петр Александрович  
"Do me the kindness, reverend father, of conveying my deepest respect to the Father Superior, and offer him my personal apologies — Miusov's — before his Reverence, that owing to circumstances that have arisen suddenly and unforeseen, I am by no means able to have the honor of joining his repast, however sincerely I should wish to," Pyotr Alexandrovich said to the monk with irritation.
> Chain of polite imperatives: Three plural/polite perfective imperatives — «сделайте» (do), «засвидетельствуйте» (convey), «извините» (excuse) — pile up Miusov's elaborately courteous request. The perfective imperative asks for a single, completed favour.
> Participial chain in the dative after «по»: «по… обстоятельствам» (dative after «по» = 'owing to') is stacked with modifiers, including the past active participle «встретившимся» (reflexive «встретиться», 'having arisen'). This dense participial pile-up is the bureaucratically genteel register Miusov affects.
> Superlative «искреннейший»: «искреннейшее» is the bookish «-ейший» superlative of «искренний» (sincere) — 'my most sincere wish'. The overwrought superlative caps Miusov's frigidly formal apology.

— А ведь непредвиденное-то обстоятельство — это ведь я! — сейчас же подхватил Федор Павлович.  
"And the unforeseen circumstance — why, that's me!" Fyodor Pavlovich at once chimed in.
> Double «ведь» + topic «-то»: Fyodor Pavlovich frames his interruption with «ведь» twice ('why, after all') and tags the topic with «-то» on «непредвиденное-то». The particles seize Miusov's phrase ('unforeseen circumstance') and gleefully claim it.

— Слышите, отец, это Петр Александрович со мной не желает вместе оставаться, а то бы он тотчас пошел.  
"Do you hear, father, it is Pyotr Alexandrovich who has no wish to remain in my company, otherwise he would go this instant.
> «а то бы» — elliptical counterfactual: «а то бы он… пошел» = 'otherwise he would go (at once)' — an elliptical conditional where «а то» ('or else') replaces a full «если бы не…», and «бы» + past «пошел» carries the would-be result.
> «отец» as address, no vocative: Modern Russian addresses the monk with the plain nominative «отец», not a vocative form. «Слышите» is the polite imperative used as an attention-grabber ('do you hear / listen').

И пойдете, Петр Александрович, извольте пожаловать к отцу игумену, и — доброго вам аппетита!  
And go you shall, Pyotr Alexandrovich, be so good as to call upon the Father Superior — and a good appetite to you!
> Future as mock-command + «извольте»: «пойдете» (perfective future, 2nd pl.) is used quasi-imperatively ('and off you'll go'). «извольте пожаловать» is an archaic deferential formula ('be so good as to proceed'), here dripping with Fyodor Pavlovich's mock-politeness.
> Genitive in a wish + dative addressee: Good wishes take the genitive of the thing wished: «доброго… аппетита» ('a good appetite (to you)'), with the recipient in the dative «вам». The understood verb is «желаю» ('I wish').

Знайте, что это я уклоняюсь, а не вы.  
Know that it is I who am declining, not you.
> Cleft emphasis + contrastive «а»: «это я уклоняюсь, а не вы» — 'it is I who decline, and not you'. The «это… я» cleft fronts the emphasized person, and «а не» sets up the pointed contrast. «уклоняюсь» is reflexive «уклоняться» (to evade, decline).

Домой, домой, дома поем, а здесь чувствую себя неспособным, Петр Александрович, мой любезнейший родственник.  
Home, home, I'll eat at home — here I feel myself incapable of it, Pyotr Alexandrovich, my most amiable kinsman."
> «домой» vs «дома» — direction vs location: Russian distinguishes «домой» ('homeward', motion-to) from «дома» ('at home', location). The same English 'home' splits across the two; Fyodor Pavlovich rattles off both. «поем» is the perfective future of «поесть» ('I'll have a bite').
> Instrumental predicate of «чувствовать себя»: «чувствовать себя» + instrumental means 'to feel oneself (to be) …': «неспособным» (instrumental of «неспособный», incapable). The reflexive «себя» is the object, the instrumental the assumed state.
> Ironic superlative «любезнейший»: «любезнейший» is the «-ейший» superlative of «любезный» (amiable, courteous) — 'most amiable'. Aimed at the man who has just disowned him, it is pure sarcasm.

— Не родственник я вам и никогда им не был, низкий вы человек!  
"I am no kinsman of yours and never was, you base man!"
> Negative concord + instrumental predicate: «никогда… не был» shows negative concord (the «ни»-adverb still requires «не» on the verb). «им» is the instrumental predicate of «быть» in the past — 'was never a kinsman to you'.
> Pronoun wedged into the noun phrase: «низкий вы человек» — 'you base man' — drops «вы» between adjective and noun, a vivid colloquial insult-frame. «низкий» here is moral ('base, low'), not physical.

— Я нарочно и сказал, чтобы вас побесить, потому что вы от родства уклоняетесь, хотя все-таки вы родственник, как ни финтите, по святцам докажу; за тобой, Иван Федорович, я в свое время лошадей пришлю, оставайся, если хочешь, и ты.  
"I said it on purpose, precisely to enrage you, because you shy away from the kinship — though all the same you are a kinsman, however you wriggle out of it, and I'll prove it by the church calendar. As for you, Ivan Fyodorovich, I'll send horses for you in good time; stay on too, if you like.
> Purpose «чтобы» + perfective infinitive: «чтобы… побесить» ('in order to enrage you') is a purpose clause with a bare infinitive, since the subject is the same. The perfective «побесить» aims at the achieved result of provoking Miusov.
> Concessive «как ни»: «как ни финтите» = 'however much you wriggle'. The «как ни» (+ verb) construction concedes 'no matter how…', a fixed pattern where «ни» does not negate but universalizes.
> Shift to intimate «ты»; perfective future: Fyodor Pavlovich switches to «ты» («за тобой… оставайся») with his son Ivan, the familiar pronoun, versus the cold «вы» to Miusov. «пришлю» is the perfective future of «прислать» ('I'll send'); «оставайся» is the «ты»-imperative.

Вам же, Петр Александрович, даже приличие велит теперь явиться к отцу игумену, надо извиниться в том, что мы с вами там накутили…  
And as for you, Pyotr Alexandrovich, even common decency requires that you present yourself now to the Father Superior, to apologize for the disturbance we kicked up in there…"
> Dative object of «велеть» + particle «же»: «велеть» ('to bid, require') governs a dative — «вам» ('you'). «же» adds insistence ('as for you, decency itself bids you…'). «приличие» (propriety) is the nominative subject doing the bidding.
> «накутить» — to kick up a row: Colloquial: «кутить» means to carouse/revel; with «на-» it gives 'we made a scene / raised a rumpus'. Fyodor Pavlovich blithely lumps himself and Miusov together («мы с вами») as joint culprits.

— Да правда ли, что вы уезжаете? Не лжете ли вы?  
"But is it true you're leaving? Aren't you lying?"
> «ли» questions, one negated: Both are «ли» yes/no questions: «правда ли» ('is it true') and «не лжете ли вы» ('aren't you lying'). The negated «не… ли» form expects or fears a 'yes', voicing Miusov's suspicion.

— Петр Александрович, как же бы я посмел после того, что случилось! Увлекся, простите, господа, увлекся!  
"Pyotr Alexandrovich, how could I dare to, after what has happened! I got carried away — forgive me, gentlemen, I got carried away!
> Conditional «бы» + intensifying «же»: «как же бы я посмел» — 'how could I ever have dared'. «посмел» (past) + «бы» makes the hypothetical; «же» intensifies the rhetorical incredulity. The mobile «бы» leans on «как же» rather than the verb.
> Subject-drop with reflexive past: «Увлекся» (reflexive «увлечься», 'got carried away') drops the pronoun «я» — the «-ся» past form and context supply the 1st person. The doubled verb conveys Fyodor Pavlovich's theatrical self-reproach.

И, кроме того, потрясен! Да и стыдно.  
And besides, I'm shaken! And, well, ashamed.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «потрясён» is the short past passive participle of «потрясти» (to shake, shock) — predicative, '(I am) shaken/stunned'. With dropped «я (есть)» it states his shaken state.
> Impersonal «стыдно»: «стыдно» again as impersonal predicative ('(I'm) ashamed'), with an understood dative «мне». «Да и» ('and besides, and what's more') tacks on the admission.

Господа, у иного сердце как у Александра Македонского, а у другого — как у собачки Фидельки.  
Gentlemen, one man has a heart like Alexander of Macedon, and another like the little lapdog Fidelka.
> Possessive «у» + contrastive «а»: «у иного… а у другого» ('one man has… while another…') uses «у» + genitive for possession and the contrastive «а» to balance the two types. «иной» here is the bookish 'one (kind of person)'.

У меня — как у собачки Фидельки.  
Mine is like the little lapdog Fidelka's.
> Elliptical possessive with «у»: An ellipsis: '(My heart is) — like the lapdog Fidelka's'. The «у меня» / «у… Фидельки» frames possession with «у» + genitive, and the verb and noun «сердце» are simply dropped, the dash carrying them.

Обробел!  
I've turned coward!
> «оробеть» — to lose one's nerve: «оробел» (here colloquially spelled «обробел») is the perfective of «робеть» (to be timid), with «о-» — 'I've grown timid / turned coward'. The one-word exclamation, subject dropped, is Fyodor Pavlovich's comic confession of cowardice.

Ну как после такого эскапада да еще на обед, соусы монастырские уплетать?  
Why, after such an escapade, how could I go to dinner and gobble up the monastery's sauces?
> «уплетать» — to gobble up: «уплетать» is expressive colloquial for eating greedily, 'to wolf/gobble down'. The imperfective infinitive after «как… да… уплетать» ('how could I go gobbling…') paints the gluttony he claims to be too ashamed for.
> «эскапада» — escapade: A French loan («escapade») for a wild, scandalous prank. Like «эмблема» earlier, the dandyish foreign word sits comically in Fyodor Pavlovich's mouth as he names his own disgraceful scene.

Стыдно, не могу, извините!  
I'm ashamed, I can't, forgive me!"
> Telegraphic subjectless string: Three clipped clauses with dropped subjects: impersonal «стыдно» ('(it's) shameful (to me)'), «не могу» ('I can't'), and the polite imperative «извините» ('forgive me'). The breathless ellipsis conveys his flustered retreat.

«Черт его знает, а ну как обманывает!» — остановился в раздумье Миусов, следя недоумевающим взглядом за удалявшимся шутом.  
"The devil knows — what if he's deceiving us!" Miusov halted in perplexity, following the retreating buffoon with a bewildered gaze.
> Colloquial «а ну как» — 'what if': «а ну как» is a colloquial 'what if / suppose that' introducing a feared possibility — 'what if he's deceiving (us)'. «обманывает» is imperfective, the deception viewed as an ongoing ploy.
> Gerund + past active participle as modifier: «следя» is the imperfective gerund of «следить» (to watch), 'while following'; «удалявшимся» is the past active participle of reflexive «удаляться» (to recede), modifying «шутом» — 'the retreating buffoon'. «следить за» governs the instrumental.
> «шут» — buffoon, jester: «шут» is a court jester or clown, and the narrator's settled name for Fyodor Pavlovich, who casts himself as the buffoon to wound others. «Черт его знает» ('the devil knows') opens Miusov's exasperated thought.

Тот обернулся и, заметив, что Петр Александрович за ним следит, послал ему рукою поцелуй.  
The other turned round and, noticing that Pyotr Alexandrovich was watching him, blew him a kiss with his hand.
> Perfective gerund of prior action: «заметив» (perfective gerund of «заметить», to notice) marks the completed prior action before the main «послал» (sent). «рукою» is the bookish instrumental ('with his hand'); «ему» is the dative recipient of the kiss.
> Demonstrative «тот» as 'the other': «Тот» ('that one, the other') refers back to Fyodor Pavlovich, distinguishing him from Miusov in the previous sentence — Russian's way of keeping two third persons apart without repeating the name.

— Вы-то идете к игумену? — отрывисто спросил Миусов Ивана Федоровича.  
"And you — are you going to the Father Superior?" Miusov asked Ivan Fyodorovich abruptly.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The clitic «-то» on «вы-то» singles out the addressee with mild contrast — 'and you, for your part, are you going…?'. «к игумену» is «к» + dative ('to the Father Superior').

— Почему же нет? К тому же я особенно приглашен игуменом еще вчерашнего дня.  
"Why not? Besides, I was specially invited by the Superior only yesterday."
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «приглашён» is the short past passive participle of «пригласить» (to invite), '(I) was invited'; its agent «игуменом» stands in the instrumental, the standard way to name the doer in a passive.
> Particle «же» in a retort: «Почему же нет?» — 'why ever not?'. «же» here lends a touch of challenge or self-evidence to Ivan's curt reply, the texture of spoken Russian English would carry by stress alone.

— К несчастию, я действительно чувствую себя почти в необходимости явиться на этот проклятый обед, — всё с тою же горькою раздражительностью продолжал Миусов, даже и не обращая внимания, что монашек слушает.  
"Unfortunately, I really do feel myself almost obliged to appear at this cursed dinner," Miusov went on with the same bitter irritation, not even minding that the little monk was listening.
> «к несчастию» — alas, unfortunately: A fixed adverbial phrase, «к» + dative, literally 'to (one's) misfortune'. The old spelling «несчастию» (modern «несчастью») is a period dative ending; it functions as a sentence adverb, 'unfortunately'.
> Reflexive «чувствовать себя»: «чувствую себя» uses the full reflexive pronoun «себя» (accusative), not the verbal clitic -ся: literally 'I feel myself'. «себя» points back to the subject and has no nominative; here it makes 'feel' introspective — to feel oneself to be in some state.
> Perfective infinitive «явиться»: «явиться» is the perfective of «являться», viewing the appearance as a single completed act — to show up the one time. «на» + accusative «этот… обед» marks motion/direction toward the event he is obliged to attend.
> Instrumental of manner with archaic endings: «с» + instrumental «горькою раздражительностью» states the manner of speaking — 'with the same bitter irritation'. The endings «-ою/-ою» and «тою же» are 19th-century literary variants of modern «-ой» («горькой раздражительностью», «той же»), lending an elevated, bookish cadence.
> Gerund «не обращая внимания»: «обращая» is an imperfective present деепричастие (adverbial participle) sharing Miusov's subject: 'while not paying any attention'. The idiom «обращать внимание на» governs «на» + accusative, here displaced into the «что»-clause that follows.
> «монашек» — the little monk: An affectionate-diminutive of «монах» (monk), with the suffix -ек conveying his youth and smallness, hence 'the little monk'. The word recurs through the scene as the silent escort of the quarrelling gentlemen.

— Хоть там-то извиниться надо за то, что мы здесь натворили, и разъяснить, что это не мы… Как вы думаете?  
"At least there we ought to apologize for what we did here, and explain that it was not us… What do you think?"
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «надо» is an impersonal predicate of necessity taking a bare infinitive («извиниться»), with no nominative subject — 'one ought to apologize'. The experiencer, if named, would stand in the dative; here it is left general.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «там» is the emphatic topic particle, not the indefinite one: 'there at least / there of all places'. It singles out the dinner as the place where amends can still be made, contrasting with the disgrace just committed.
> Correlative «за то, что»: «извиниться за» + accusative governs the correlative «то», expanded by a «что»-clause: 'apologize for (that which) we did here'. The neuter «то» holds the object slot while the subordinate clause supplies the content.
> «натворить» — to get up to (mischief): Perfective «натворить» (from «творить», to make/do) is colloquial and pejorative: to have done a whole lot of something bad, to make a mess of things. The prefix на- adds the sense of an accumulated quantity of misdeeds.

— Да, надо разъяснить, что это не мы. К тому же батюшки не будет, — заметил Иван Федорович.  
"Yes, we must explain that it was not us. Besides, the old man won't be there," Ivan Fyodorovich remarked.
> Zero-copula «это не мы»: Present-tense 'to be' is unexpressed: «это не мы» = 'it is not us', with the predicate pronoun «мы» left in the nominative and only «не» doing the negating. Russian needs no copula in the present, so the bare «не мы» carries the whole denial.
> Genitive of negation with «не будет»: An absent future existential: «батюшки не будет» — 'the father won't be (there)'. The subject «батюшка» drops into the genitive «батюшки» because negated existence with «нет / не было / не будет» governs the genitive, not the nominative.
> «батюшка» — father (old man): Literally a warm diminutive of «батя/отец», 'dear father'. Here it is the family's half-mocking name for old Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov; the same word also serves as the respectful address for an Orthodox priest, an ambiguity Dostoevsky enjoys.

— Да еще же бы с вашим батюшкой! Проклятый этот обед!  
"Yes, just imagine it with your father there! This cursed dinner!"
> Stacked particles «да… же… бы»: A pile-up of modal particles carries the exclamation's whole force: «да» (and, intensifying), «же» (insistent emphasis), and «бы» (the irrealis, imagining the scene). Together with no finite verb they conjure a hypothetical horror — 'and just imagine it, with your father there too!'
> Comitative «с» + instrumental: «с» meaning 'with' (accompaniment) governs the instrumental «вашим батюшкой». The possessive «вашим» agrees with it in case, gender, and number — the visible instrumental ending on the adjective confirms the noun's case.
> Emphatic inversion «Проклятый этот обед»: Normal order would be «этот проклятый обед»; fronting the adjective «проклятый» before the demonstrative throws the curse-word into focus — 'this cursed dinner!'. Free word order lets Russian stage emotion through position alone.

И однако, все шли.  
And yet, for all that, they all went.
> Imperfective «шли» as background: «шли» is the imperfective past of the unidirectional motion verb «идти» — they were (all) going, walking along. The imperfective frames the walk as an ongoing process and sets the scene; the contrastive «и однако» ('and yet') turns it ironic against their protests.

Монашек молчал и слушал.  
The little monk was silent and listened.
> Imperfective pair «молчал и слушал»: Both verbs are imperfective past, painting two simultaneous, durative states — he kept silent and kept listening. There is no event here, only ongoing background; the perfective would have flattened it into a single point.

Дорогой через лесок он только раз лишь заметил, что отец игумен давно уже ожидают и что более получаса опоздали.  
On the way through the little wood he remarked only once that the Father Superior had long been waiting and that they were over half an hour late.
> Perfective «заметил» as a single remark: «заметил» is perfective past (from «замечать/заметить») — a single completed act of remarking, reinforced by «только раз лишь», 'only the one time'. Against the imperfective walking, this is the one discrete event in the sentence.
> Honorific plural «ожидают»: The singular subject «отец игумен» (the Father Superior) takes a plural verb «ожидают», a deferential 19th-century usage by which servants and inferiors spoke of a respected person in the plural — 'his Reverence have long been waiting'. It marks the monk's humble register.
> «лесок» — a little wood: Diminutive of «лес» (forest/wood) with the suffix -ок, here neutral-descriptive: a small wood or copse on the path from the hermitage to the monastery proper. Russian readily diminishes landscape nouns this way.
> Genitive «получаса» of quantity: «более» ('more than') governs the genitive «получаса» (of half an hour); «полчаса» itself fuses «пол-» (half) with the genitive «часа». «опоздали», perfective past plural, states the completed fact: they had arrived more than half an hour late.

Ему не ответили.  
No one answered him.
> Dative object + subjectless 3pl: «ответить» governs the dative of the person answered, so 'him' is «ему». The verb «не ответили» is an impersonal 3rd-plural with no stated subject — a common Russian way to say 'no one answered him' without naming an agent.

Миусов с ненавистью посмотрел на Ивана Федоровича.  
Miusov looked at Ivan Fyodorovich with hatred.
> Instrumental of manner «с ненавистью»: «с» + instrumental «ненавистью» expresses the manner of the look — 'looked with hatred'. «посмотрел» is perfective past, a single completed glance directed «на» + accusative «Ивана Федоровича».
> Animate accusative of the name + patronymic: «посмотреть на» + accusative; because «Иван Фёдорович» is animate masculine, the accusative borrows the genitive form «Ивана Фёдоровича». Both the given name and the patronymic decline, the polite name-plus-patronymic address marking adult respect.

«А ведь идет на обед как ни в чем не бывало! — подумал он. — Медный лоб и карамазовская совесть».  
"There he goes to dinner as though nothing had happened!" he thought. "A brazen forehead and a Karamazov conscience."
> Particles «а ведь» of indignant appeal: «а» is the contrastive hinge ('and yet'), and «ведь» appeals to shared, self-evident knowledge — 'why, after all, look — he's going to the dinner!'. The pair stages Miusov's inward astonishment as if inviting the reader to agree.
> Idiom «как ни в чём не бывало»: A frozen idiom: 'as if nothing had happened', perfectly unconcerned. It preserves an archaic «бывало» and shows negative concord — «ни в чём… не» — 'as though there had been nothing in anything', three negations to one English meaning.
> «медный лоб» — a brazen forehead: Literally 'a copper / brass forehead', an idiom for shameless effrontery, a hardened conscience that cannot be made to blush. It pairs with Dostoevsky's coined «карамазовская совесть» (a Karamazov conscience) to brand Ivan's cool composure.
> Possessive adjective «карамазовская»: Russian readily turns a surname into an adjective: «карамазовский, -ая, -ое» — 'Karamazov-ish, of the Karamazovs'. Here «карамазовская совесть» agrees with feminine «совесть» and damns the whole family in one epithet rather than saying 'the conscience of a Karamazov'.
---

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.