# The Brothers Karamazov, A Young Man Bent on a Career

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c7. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c7.json.


Алеша довел своего старца в спаленку и усадил на кровать.  
Alyosha brought his elder into the little bedchamber and settled him on the bed.
> «старец» — the elder: A «старец» (here accusative «старца») is an elder, a spiritually authoritative monk who serves as confessor and guide. It is the central institution of this book; we keep "elder" rather than the plain "old man" the word can also mean, because Dostoevsky means the monastic office.
> «спаленка» — the little bedchamber: «Спаленка» is a double diminutive of «спальня» (bedroom): the expressive suffix shrinks and tenderizes the cramped monastic cell into a cosy "little bedchamber." The diminutive carries warmth and pity, not just size.
> A chain of perfectives: Both «довёл» (led, brought) and «усадил» (seated, settled) are perfective pasts: each names a single completed act, moving the narrative forward step by step. Note «у-садил», the causative "made him sit," against «сесть» "to sit oneself."

Это была очень маленькая комнатка с необходимою мебелью; кровать была узенькая, железная, а на ней вместо тюфяка один только войлок.  
It was a very small room with only the barest furniture; the bed was narrow and made of iron, and on it, in place of a mattress, lay nothing but a strip of felt.
> The bookish instrumental ending «-ою»: «Необходимою» is the feminine instrumental of the adjective after «с» (with). The fuller ending «-ою» (for modern «-ой») is a literary, slightly archaic variant common in 19th-century prose and verse, agreeing with «мебелью».
> Predicate adjectives in the nominative: After past-tense «была», the predicate adjectives «узенькая, железная» stand in the long (full) form and nominative, agreeing with feminine «кровать». Russian could use a short form here; the long form keeps the description concrete and pictorial.
> «узенькая» — narrow, with a sigh: The expressive suffix «-еньк-» on «узкий» (narrow) does not change the meaning but adds a tender, diminishing colour — a poor little narrow bed. It signals the speaker's sympathy for the elder's austerity.
> «тюфяк» and «войлок»: «Тюфяк» is a stuffed mattress or pallet; «войлок» is felt — matted wool cloth. The detail "in place of a mattress, only a strip of felt" measures the elder's ascetic poverty. «Вместо» governs the genitive «тюфяка».

В уголку, у икон, стоял налой, а на нем лежали крест и Евангелие.  
In the corner, by the icons, stood a lectern, and on it lay a cross and the Gospel.
> «налой» — the lectern: «Налой» (also «аналой») is a Church-Slavonic word for the slanted reading-stand on which the Gospel, cross, or an icon is laid for veneration in Orthodox worship. Its presence marks the cell as a place of prayer.
> Verb-first existential word order: Both clauses front the verb («стоял… лежали») before the new item — "there stood a lectern, and on it lay…" This presentational order introduces objects into the scene; the location is the topic, the thing the comment. «Стоять/лежать» also choose the posture of inanimate things.

Старец опустился на кровать в бессилии; глаза его блестели, и дышал он трудно.  
The elder sank onto the bed in exhaustion; his eyes glittered, and he breathed with difficulty.
> «бессилие» — powerlessness: «Бессилие» is literally "without-strength" (без + сила), here in the prepositional after «в»: he sank down "in powerlessness," i.e. utterly spent. The abstract -ие noun is bookish and weightier than a plain "weakly."
> Imperfective description, inverted: The two imperfectives «блестели» and «дышал» paint a continuing state, not an event — his eyes were glittering, he was breathing hard. Note the expressive inversions: possessive after the noun («глаза его»), and verb before subject («дышал он»), shifting the weight onto the manner «трудно».

Усевшись, он пристально и как бы обдумывая нечто посмотрел на Алешу.  
Once seated, he looked at Alyosha intently, as though turning something over in his mind.
> Perfective gerund «усевшись»: «Усевшись» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) in «-вшись»: "having seated himself," a single prior action sharing the subject of «посмотрел». The reflexive «-сь» makes the sitting his own act. Such gerund-openers are a hallmark of literary narration.
> Imperfective gerund «обдумывая» + «как бы»: «Обдумывая» is an imperfective present gerund — a simultaneous "while turning over" — paired with «посмотрел». «Как бы» softens it to "as though," and «нечто» is the bookish word for "something."

— Ступай, милый, ступай, мне и Порфирия довольно а ты поспеши.  
"Go now, my dear, go; Porfiry is enough for me, and you must hurry.
> «ступай» — go, be off: «Ступай» is the imperative of «ступать», an old, homely command "go / be off with you," warmer and more folk-flavoured than «иди». The elder's speech throughout mixes such plain, kindly forms with solemn Slavonic ones.
> Dative + «довольно»: «Мне … довольно» is an impersonal construction: "for me Porfiry is enough." The experiencer stands in the dative «мне» with no nominative subject and an invariable predicate «довольно» — the subjectless pattern Russian uses for states and sufficiency.
> Perfective imperative «поспеши»: «Поспеши» (hurry!) is the perfective imperative of «поспешить», urging one prompt, completed act. The «по-» prefix gives the verb its punctual, "get a move on" force; contrast the imperfective «спеши».

Ты там нужен, ступай к отцу игумену, за обедом и прислужи.  
You are needed there; go to the Father Superior and wait at table for the dinner."
> «за обедом» and the prefix «при-»: «За обедом» is the instrumental after «за» meaning "at / during dinner." «Прислужи» is the perfective imperative of «прислужить» — to wait at table, serve; the prefix «при-» adds the sense of attendant service.

— Благословите здесь остаться, — просящим голосом вымолвил Алеша.  
"Bless me to stay here," Alyosha brought out in a pleading voice.
> «вымолвить» — to bring out (a word): «Вымолвил» means to utter with effort, to "bring out" a word — the «вы-» prefix draws the speech out of him. It suits the «просящим голосом» (pleading voice, instrumental of manner) and Alyosha's reluctance to obey.

— Ты там нужнее.  
"You are needed there more.
> Comparative «нужнее»: «Нужнее» is the invariable predicative comparative of «нужный» (needed): "more needed." The «-ее» comparative does not decline; it pins the new information "more there" against the elder's earlier «ты там нужен».

Там миру нет.  
There is no peace there.
> Genitive of negation: «миру нет»: «Нет» (there is not) demands the genitive of the absent thing: «миру» is the genitive of «мир». "There no peace exists." The elder plays on «мир», which means both "peace" and "the world" — fitting, since he is sending Alyosha into the unpeaceful world.

Прислужишь и пригодишься.  
You will wait at table and make yourself useful.
> Perfective futures, no auxiliary: Both verbs are perfective, conjugated like a present but meaning the future: "you will serve and will prove useful." There is no «будешь» — the future sits in the ending. «Пригодишься» carries the reflexive «-ся» of «пригодиться», to come in useful.

Подымутся беси, молитву читай.  
If demons rise up, recite a prayer.
> «беси» — demons (old plural): «Беси» is an archaic, Church-Slavonic-flavoured nominative plural of «бес» (demon), where modern Russian writes «бесы». Such old forms colour the elder's speech as scriptural and grave.
> Conditional by juxtaposition: Two clauses laid side by side make an "if … then": "[if] demons rise up, recite a prayer." «Подымутся» is a perfective future (one possible event), «читай» an imperfective imperative urging the ongoing act of prayer. No «если» is needed — the bare sequence carries the condition.

И знай, сынок (старец любил его так называть), что и впредь тебе не здесь место.  
And know, my son" (the elder loved to call him so), "that henceforth, too, this is not your place.
> «сынок» — little son: «Сынок» is the affectionate diminutive of «сын» (son), "my son, my boy." The narrator notes the elder "loved to call him so" — the suffix is pure tenderness, an old man's endearment for the youth he sends away.
> Dative of possession: «тебе место»: «Тебе … место» frames it as "your place is not here," with the dative «тебе» marking the person to whom the place belongs and no verb "to be" in the present. «Впредь» (henceforth) is a bookish adverb of future time.

Запомни сие, юноша.  
Remember this, young man.
> «сие» — this (archaic): «Сие» is the neuter of the archaic demonstrative «сей» ("this"), long replaced in speech by «это» but kept for solemn, scriptural weight. "Remember this" rings like a commandment. «Юноша» (young man) is likewise an elevated word for a youth.

Как только сподобит бог преставиться мне — и уходи из монастыря.  
As soon as God grants me to depart this life — leave the monastery.
> «сподобить» — to deem worthy, vouchsafe: «Сподобит» (perfective of «сподоблять») is Church-Slavonic for God's granting or deeming one worthy of something — here, worthy "to depart." It frames death as a grace bestowed, the very heart of the elder's joy in dying.
> «преставиться» — to pass away: «Преставиться» is the reverent, ecclesiastical verb for a Christian's death — to "depart this life," literally to be "transferred" (пре-стави-ться) to God. One would never use it for a beast or an enemy; it sanctifies the dying.
> Dative subject of the infinitive: «Мне» is dative: "as soon as God grants to me to pass away." The one who will die stands in the dative as the experiencer of an act granted from above, with «бог» the grammatical subject — a quietly theological grammar.

Совсем иди.  
Leave it for good."
> Imperfective imperative «иди»: «Иди» is the imperfective imperative of the unidirectional motion verb «идти» — a plain, urging "go." With «совсем» (entirely, for good) it means leave once and finally. The imperfective imperative here commands the action itself, bluntly.

Алеша вздрогнул.  
Alyosha gave a start.
> «вздрогнуть» — to give a start: «Вздрогнул» is a perfective with the «-ну-» suffix of a single sudden motion: he gave one involuntary shudder. The momentary suffix and «вз-» prefix together capture the instant jolt of his fear.

— Чего ты?  
"What is the matter with you?
> Genitive «чего» in an elliptical question: «Чего ты?» is colloquial ellipsis for "what's with you?" — the verb is dropped and «что» appears in the genitive «чего», as it does in many fixed exclamatory questions. Curt and intimate, fitting the elder's gentle prodding.

Не здесь твое место пока.  
Your place is not here for the time being.
> Fronted negation for contrast: «Не» negates the adverb «здесь», not the whole clause: "not here is your place — for now." Russian places «не» directly before the word it denies, and fronting «не здесь» throws the contrastive weight onto place. «Пока» (for now) leaves the door open.

Благословляю тебя на великое послушание в миру.  
I bless you for a great obedience out in the world.
> «в миру» — out in the world: «Мир» here means the lay, secular world as opposed to the monastery, and «в миру» is a fixed monastic phrase for life outside the walls. The stressed locative «в миру́» is the old set ending; contrast «в ми́ре» (in peace / the universe).

Много тебе еще странствовать.  
You have much wandering still ahead of you.
> Dative + infinitive of destiny: A subjectless construction: "[there is] much for you still to wander." The dative «тебе» names the one fated to it, and the bare infinitive «странствовать» carries the sense of what must or will be — a fortune-telling grammar of necessity.
> «странствовать» — to wander, journey: «Странствовать» means to roam or make a long journey, with overtones of pilgrimage and the wandering «странник» (holy wayfarer) of Russian spiritual life. It frames Alyosha's coming years as a pilgrim's road, not mere travel.

И ожениться должен будешь, должен.  
And you will have to marry — you must.
> Compound future of obligation, with insistent «же»: «Должен будешь» is the future of «быть» plus the short adjective «должен» (obliged): "you will have to." The repetition «должен будешь… должен» drives the certainty home. «И» here leans toward the emphatic particle «же» in tone — the elder insists Alyosha must even marry.
> «ожениться» — to marry (of a man): «Ожениться» (a folk variant of «жениться») is used of a man taking a wife, distinct from «выйти замуж» said of a woman. The reflexive «-ся» is built into the verb. The elder's prophecy that the would-be monk must marry is one of his startling reversals.

Всё должен будешь перенести, пока вновь прибудеши.  
You will have to endure everything before you come back again.
> «прибудеши» — thou shalt return (archaic): «Прибудеши» is an archaic Church-Slavonic second-person singular future in «-ши» where modern Russian has «прибудешь». The old ending lifts the line into prophecy, sounding like Scripture: "before thou come again."
> «пока» + perfective: "before you return": «Пока» with a perfective verb means "until / before" a completed event: endure everything "before you come back." «Перенести» (perfective) is to bear through to the end, and «прибудеши» (perfective future) marks the one decisive return.

А дела много будет.  
And there will be a great deal of work to do.
> Genitive of quantity: «дела много»: «Много» (much) governs the genitive: «дела» is the genitive singular of «дело» (work, business), and the predicate «будет» is neuter-singular impersonal — "there will be much of work." The opening «а» softly turns to a new thought.

Но в тебе не сомневаюсь, потому и посылаю тебя.  
But I have no doubt of you, and that is why I am sending you out.
> Reflexive «сомневаться» + «в»: «Сомневаюсь» is a «-ся» verb (existing only in this form) meaning "I doubt," governing «в» + prepositional: «в тебе» "in you." «Потому … посылаю» pairs cause and consequence: "and that is why I am sending you," the imperfective «посылаю» giving a present, deliberate sending.

С тобой Христос.  
Christ is with you.
> Zero copula: "Christ is with you": There is no verb "to be" in the present: «С тобой Христос» is literally "with you — Christ." Russian leaves the present copula unspoken, and fronting «с тобой» (instrumental of accompaniment after «с») makes the blessing land on the closing name.

Сохрани его, и он сохранит тебя.  
Keep Him, and He will keep you.
> Imperative then perfective future: «Сохрани» is a perfective imperative ("keep [Him]!"), and «сохранит» the matching perfective future ("He will keep [you]"). The mirror of command and consequence — you keep Him, He keeps you — is built from the same verb in two moods, a small liturgical chiasmus.

Горе узришь великое и в горе сем счастлив будешь.  
You will behold great sorrow, and in that sorrow you will be happy.
> «узришь» — thou shalt behold: «Узришь» is the archaic/Church-Slavonic perfective future of «узреть» (to behold, perceive with the eyes), far loftier than the everyday «увидишь». It belongs to the register of prophecy and Scripture.
> «сем» — this (archaic locative): «Сем» is the prepositional of the archaic demonstrative «сей»: "in this sorrow." Like «сие» above, it lends the elder's promise — sorrow that holds happiness — the cadence of an oracle. «Горе» here is grief, distinct from the homonym "mountain."
> Short adjective «счастлив» in the future: «Счастлив» is the short (predicative) form of «счастливый» (happy), joined to «будешь» for the future: "you will be happy." The short form, bookish and stative, suits a solemn promise; the inversion places "happy" first for emphasis.

Вот тебе завет: в горе счастья ищи.  
Here is my charge to you: in sorrow, seek happiness.
> «завет» — covenant, charge: «Завет» means a testament, covenant, or solemn behest — the word in «Ветхий/Новый Завет» (Old/New Testament). The elder's «вот тебе завет» frames his words as a sacred bequest, almost a last will. We render it "my charge to you."
> Genitive object after «искать»: «Искать» (to seek) takes a genitive object for the abstract or sought-after: «счастья» is the genitive of «счастье» (happiness). The imperfective imperative «ищи» commands an ongoing search, and fronting «в горе» sets the paradox: in sorrow, keep seeking joy.

Работай, неустанно работай.  
Work, work without ceasing.
> Imperfective imperative, repeated: «Работай» is the imperfective imperative of «работать», commanding the activity as a continuing way of life — not one finished task but ceaseless labour, reinforced by «неустанно» (untiringly) and the doubling. The imperfective is exactly right for an open-ended charge.

Запомни слово мое отныне, ибо хотя и буду еще беседовать с тобой, но не только дни, а и часы мои сочтены.  
Remember my words from this day on, for though I shall yet speak with you, not only my days but my very hours are numbered."
> «ибо» — for, because (bookish): «Ибо» is the archaic, elevated conjunction "for, because," at home in Scripture and 19th-century prose where speech would use «потому что». It binds the command to remember to its reason: his hours are numbered.
> «хотя… но» and the «не только… а и» pairing: «Хотя (и)… но» frames a concession: "though I shall yet speak… still…" «Буду беседовать» is the compound imperfective future (ongoing talk). The correlative «не только… а и» ("not only… but also") with the contrastive «а» heightens "not only my days but my very hours."
> «сочтены» — are numbered: «Сочтены» is the short past passive participle of «сосчитать» (to count up): "are counted / numbered." The phrase «дни сочтены» is itself a scriptural idiom for approaching death; the short participle states the settled result.

В лице Алеши опять изобразилось сильное движение.  
A strong emotion passed once more over Alyosha's face.
> Reflexive «изобразилось» with inverted subject: The «-ся» verb «изобразилось» is here middle/intransitive — emotion "showed itself / was depicted" on his face, with no agent. The grammatical subject «движение» (a stir, emotion) comes last, after the locative «в лице», so the new feeling lands at the end.

Углы губ его тряслись.  
The corners of his lips trembled.
> Imperfective «тряслись» and a chain of genitives: «Тряслись» is imperfective past, painting a continuing tremble. The subject is built of stacked genitives: «углы губ» (corners of [the] lips), with «его» (his) a frozen possessive — "the corners of his lips were trembling."

— Чего же ты снова? — тихо улыбнулся старец. — Пусть мирские слезами провожают своих покойников, а мы здесь отходящему отцу радуемся.  
"What is it now?" the elder smiled gently. "Let the worldly see off their dead with tears; here we rejoice over a departing father.
> Elliptical «чего» with insistent «же»: Again the bare genitive «чего» ("what now?") with the verb dropped, now flavoured by the particle «же», which adds gentle, knowing insistence — "what is it this time?" «Же» colours the elder's tone as fond and a little chiding.
> Third-person imperative with «пусть»: «Пусть … провожают» is the let-imperative: «пусть» plus a present-tense verb forms a third-person command, "let the worldly see [them] off." «Слезами» is the instrumental of means (with tears), and «мирские» is a substantivized adjective, "the worldly ones."
> «отходящий» — the departing one: «Отходящему» is the present active participle of «отходить», dative after «радоваться»; «отходить» is a soft idiom for dying — "passing away." The monks «радуемся» (rejoice, a «-ся» verb) over "a departing father," reversing worldly grief into joy.

Радуемся и молим о нем.  
We rejoice and pray for him.
> «молить» + «о» and the н- of «нём»: «Молим» (we pray) takes «о» + prepositional for the one prayed about: «о нём» — note the н- prefixed to the pronoun after a preposition. Both verbs are imperfective "we"-forms; the subject is dropped, carried by the endings.

Оставь же меня.  
Now leave me.
> Imperative softened by «же»: «Оставь» is the perfective imperative "leave (me)." The particle «же» here urges gently, "now do leave me," pressing a request the speaker has already half-made. It adds the affective nudge English would carry by intonation.

Молиться надо.  
I must pray.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо» (it is necessary) with the infinitive «молиться» forms a subjectless statement of need — "[I] must pray." No nominative; the dative experiencer «мне» is even omitted as obvious. «Молиться» keeps its inherent «-ся».

Ступай и поспеши.  
Go, and make haste.
> Pairing imperfective and perfective imperatives: The elder pairs «ступай» (imperfective, the general "go, be off") with «поспеши» (perfective, "make one quick haste"). The shift in aspect is meaningful: set out, and get there fast. He uses the same pairing as in his first dismissal of Alyosha.

Около братьев будь.  
Stay close to your brothers.
> Imperative «будь» + «около» + genitive: «Будь» is the irregular imperative of «быть» (be). «Около» (near, beside) governs the genitive «братьев» (of «братья», the irregular plural of «брат»). Word order throws the verb to the end for an urgent, almost telegraphic command.

Да не около одного, а около обоих.  
And not to one only, but to both."
> Initial «да» and the contrastive «а»: Sentence-initial «да» here is an emphatic continuative, "and (mind you)…," not the word for "yes." The «не… а» correction ("not… but") with contrastive «а» insists: not one only, but both. «Обоих» is the genitive of «оба/обоих» (both), demanded by «около».

Старец поднял руку благословить.  
The elder raised his hand to bless him.
> Infinitive of purpose: The bare infinitive «благословить» expresses purpose after the main verb — "raised his hand [in order] to bless." Russian can use a plain infinitive of purpose with verbs of motion and gesture, without «чтобы».

Возражать было невозможно, хотя Алеше чрезвычайно хотелось остаться.  
There was no arguing, though Alyosha longed intensely to stay.
> Impersonal «было невозможно» + infinitive: A subjectless predicate: «возражать было невозможно» — "to object was impossible." The neuter «было» plus the invariable «невозможно» and an infinitive state a general impossibility, with no nominative subject.
> Dative experiencer with «хотелось»: «Хотелось» is the impersonal reflexive of wanting: the desire "came over" Alyosha, who stands in the dative «Алеше», with «остаться» the wished-for act. This dative-subject pattern frames feeling as something that happens to a person — pervasive in Dostoevsky's inner life.

Хотелось ему еще спросить, и даже с языка срывался вопрос: «Что предозначал этот земной поклон брату Дмитрию?» — но он не посмел спросить.  
He longed, too, to ask one thing more, and the question all but broke from his tongue: "What did that earthly bow to his brother Dmitri foretell?" — but he did not dare to ask.
> Imperfective «срывался»: the question kept breaking loose: The reflexive imperfective «срывался» (from «срываться», to tear/break loose) gives a vivid durative: the question "kept all but breaking from his tongue." The «-ся» makes it intransitive — the question rises of itself, against his will.
> «предозначать» — to foreshadow, presage: «Предозначал» ("what did it foretell / signify in advance") layers «пред-» (fore-) onto «означать» (to mean), a heightened, almost portentous word. It casts the bow as an omen whose meaning lies ahead — exactly Alyosha's dread.

Он знал, что старец и сам бы, без вопроса, ему разъяснил, если бы можно было.  
He knew that the elder would have explained it to him of his own accord, without being asked, if it had been possible.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A classic past-irrealis: «разъяснил бы … если бы можно было» — "would have explained… if it had been possible." Both halves use a past-form verb plus «бы»; the «если бы» protasis sets the unreal condition. «Сам» (himself, of his own accord) intensifies the subject.

Но значит, не было на то его воли.  
But it meant, then, that it was not his will to do so.
> Genitive of negation: «не было … воли»: The negated existential «не было» forces the absent thing into the genitive: «воли» (of «воля», will). "There was not his will for it (на то)." The neuter «было» is the fixed impersonal form regardless of the noun's gender.
> «значит» as a parenthetical inference: «Значит» here is not "means" with an object but a discourse word, "so / it follows that," voicing Alyosha's reasoning — free indirect thought slipped into the narration. «Но» opens the turn of inference.

А поклон этот страшно поразил Алешу; он веровал слепо, что в нем был таинственный смысл.  
And that bow had struck Alyosha to the core; he believed blindly that there was a mysterious meaning in it.
> «веровать» — to believe (in faith): «Веровать» is the elevated, religious verb "to believe / have faith," distinct from everyday «верить»; it governs the dative or стоic «в». «Веровал слепо» — he believed blindly — marks Alyosha's faith as the deep, creedal kind, not mere opinion.
> Postposed demonstrative «поклон этот»: Placing «этот» after its noun («поклон этот» rather than «этот поклон») is an emphatic, anaphoric word order: "that bow, that one." It picks up the already-known bow as the topic, with the opening «а» marking a shift back to it.

Таинственный, а может быть, и ужасный.  
Mysterious, and perhaps terrible as well.
> Elliptical fragment with concessive «а … и»: A verbless fragment echoing «таинственный смысл» of the previous sentence: "Mysterious — and perhaps terrible too." «А может быть, и» ("and maybe even") uses the soft contrastive «а» plus additive «и» to push the thought one ominous step further.

Когда он вышел за ограду скита, чтобы поспеть в монастырь к началу обеда у игумена (конечно, чтобы только прислужить за столом), у него вдруг больно сжалось сердце, и он остановился на месте: пред ним как бы снова прозвучали слова старца, предрекавшего столь близкую кончину свою.  
When he came out beyond the fence of the hermitage, to reach the monastery in time for the start of the dinner at the Father Superior's (only to wait at table, of course), his heart suddenly contracted with pain, and he stopped where he stood: the elder's words seemed to ring out before him anew, foretelling his own end, so very near.
> Past active participle «предрекавшего»: «Предрекавшего» is an imperfective past active participle (от «предрекать», to foretell) in the genitive, agreeing with «старца»: "the elder, who was foretelling…" It compresses a который-clause into one bookish modifier. «Столь» (so) and «кончина» (demise) are elevated, and «свою» reflexively ties the death back to the elder himself.
> Middle «сжалось» with a possessor in «у»: The reflexive «сжалось» ("contracted, of itself") is an intransitive change-of-state; the heart is the subject, while «у него» (at him) names the possessor — Russian's normal way of saying "his heart contracted." The adverb «больно» (painfully) colours the spasm of grief.

Что предрекал, да еще с такою точностию, старец, то должно было случиться несомненно Алеша веровал тому свято.  
What the elder foretold, and with such precision at that, was bound to come to pass beyond all doubt — Alyosha held that as an article of faith.
> Correlative «что… то»: A bookish relative frame: «что … то …» — "what [the elder] foretold, that was bound to happen." The neuter «что» opens the clause and «то» resumes it as the main subject. «Должно было случиться» is an impersonal "was bound to come to pass."
> Archaic endings «-ою / -ию»: «С такою точностию» shows two literary-archaic instrumental endings: «-ою» on the determiner «такою» and «-ию» on «точностию» (modern «точностью»). The older forms lend the sentence a measured, written gravity. «Свято веровал» (held as holy faith) closes the religious key.

Но как же он останется без него, как же будет он не видеть его, не слышать его?  
But how was he to be left without him, how was he to live without seeing him, without hearing him?
> «как же» and the perfective future: The particle «же» behind interrogative «как» voices anguished insistence — "but how on earth will he…?" «Останется» is a perfective future ("will be left"), and «без него» uses «без» + genitive. The line is free indirect discourse, Alyosha's own cry inside the narration.
> Negated imperfective infinitives: After «как же будет он», the imperfective infinitives «не видеть… не слышать» express the ongoing deprivation — "how will he go on not seeing, not hearing him." The imperfective fits the endless, durative loss; «не» negates each verb directly.

И куда он пойдет?  
And where was he to go?
> Perfective future of motion «пойдёт»: «Пойдёт» is the perfective future of «пойти» (to set off), prefixed «по-» giving the sense of beginning a single journey: "where will he go (set out)?" «Куда» asks direction (motion-toward), as opposed to «где» (location).

Велит не плакать и идти из монастыря, господи!  
He bids me not to weep and to leave the monastery — Lord!
> «велеть» — to bid, command: «Велит» (from «велеть», to bid) is a bookish verb for issuing an order, governing the dative of the person and an infinitive. The subjectless "He bids [me] not to weep and to leave" keeps Alyosha's stunned, second-hand reporting of the elder's command.

Давно уже Алеша не испытывал такой тоски.  
It was long since Alyosha had felt such anguish.
> «тоска» — anguish, longing: «Тоска» (here genitive «тоски» after «такой») is the famously untranslatable Russian word for a heavy spiritual ache — anguish, yearning, soul-sickness all at once. "Such anguish" only approximates it; it names the very mood of Dostoevsky's world.
> Imperfective past with «давно … не»: «Давно уже не испытывал» — "for a long time he had not felt" — uses the imperfective past for a state stretching back; «давно… не» plus imperfective is the set way to say "it had been long since." Fronting «давно уже» marks the time-span as the topic.

Он пошел поскорее лесом, отделявшим скит от монастыря, и, не в силах даже выносить свои мысли, до того они давили его, стал смотреть на вековые сосны по обеим сторонам лесной дорожки.  
He walked quickly through the wood that divided the hermitage from the monastery, and, unable even to bear his own thoughts, so heavily did they press upon him, he began to gaze at the ancient pines on either side of the forest path.
> Past active participle + instrumental of route: «Лесом» is an instrumental of path ("through / by way of the wood"), and «отделявшим» an imperfective past active participle agreeing with it in the instrumental: "the wood, which divided the skete from the monastery." «Отделять … от» governs «от» + genitive.
> «не в силах» + infinitive: «Не в силах» (literally "not in [his] strengths") is an idiom for "unable, powerless to," taking an infinitive: «выносить свои мысли» — to bear his own thoughts. The reflexive possessive «свои» refers the thoughts back to the clause's subject, Alyosha.
> «до того … что» of degree: «До того … они давили» is the "to such a degree" construction ("so heavily did they press him [that]"), with the result clause folded in. «Давили» is imperfective, the thoughts pressing continuously; «стал смотреть» (he began to look) then turns to the pines as relief.
> «вековые» — age-old: «Вековые» (from «век», century/age) means "centuries-old, ancient," describing the great pines. The word sets the timeless forest against Alyosha's churning, mortal grief — nature's permanence beside the elder's coming death.

Переход был не длинен, шагов в пятьсот, не более; в этот час никто бы не мог и повстречаться, но вдруг на первом изгибе дорожки он заметил Ракитина.  
The walk was not long, no more than five hundred paces; at such an hour no one could possibly cross his path, yet suddenly, at the first bend in the path, he caught sight of Rakitin.
> Approximation by inversion: «шагов в пятьсот»: Putting the noun before the numeral and inserting «в» turns the count into an estimate — "some five hundred paces." «Шагов» is genitive plural after the large numeral «пятьсот». The exact phrase «в пятьсот шагов» would simply state the number; the inversion guesses it.
> Conditional «бы» with negative concord: «Никто… не мог бы» combines the irrealis «бы» ("could not possibly") with negative concord: the ни-word «никто» still requires «не» on the verb. «Повстречаться» (perfective, «-ся») is to chance to meet. The emphatic/additive particle «и» before it adds "even."
> Animate accusative «Ракитина»: «Ракитина» takes the genitive-shaped accusative because it is an animate masculine noun (a surname): the object of «заметил» looks like the genitive «нет Ракитина». This is how Russian keeps subject and object apart once word order is free.

Тот поджидал кого-то.  
He was waiting for someone.
> «тот» as "he" and indefinite «кого-то»: «Тот» ("that one") here simply tracks the just-named Rakitin — Russian often uses the demonstrative to switch reference cleanly to a non-subject of the prior clause. «Кого-то» is «кто» + the indefinite clitic «-то», a specific-but-unidentified "someone." «Поджидал» (imperfective) is to lie in wait, "-жидать" colouring it as deliberate watching.

— Не меня ли ждешь? — спросил, поравнявшись с ним, Алеша.  
"Is it me you're waiting for?" Alyosha asked, drawing level with him.
> Question particle «ли» with negation: «Не меня ли ждёшь?» fronts the focused «меня» (me) and follows it with the enclitic «ли»: "is it me you're waiting for?" The «не… ли» frame makes a tentative, expectant yes/no question — more literary than a plain rising intonation. «Ждать» takes the accusative/genitive of the awaited person.
> Perfective gerund «поравнявшись»: «Поравнявшись» is a perfective past gerund (от «поравняться с», to draw level with), sharing Alyosha's subject: "[having] drawn level with him, [he] asked." The «-ся» verb governs «с» + instrumental «с ним».

— Именно тебя, — усмехнулся Ракитин. — Поспешаешь к отцу игумену.  
"You, precisely," Rakitin smirked. "You're hurrying to the Father Superior.
> «усмехнуться» — to smirk: «Усмехнулся» (perfective, «-ся», one momentary act) is a small, often sardonic or knowing smile — a smirk — quite unlike the warm «улыбнулся» the elder gave above. The word instantly characterizes the cynical Rakitin against the gentle monk.
> «поспешать» — bookish/folksy "to hasten": «Поспешаешь» is the imperfective «поспешать», a slightly archaic-folksy variant of «спешить» (to hurry), echoing the elder's own «поспеши». In Rakitin's mouth it carries a faint mockery of monastic haste.

Знаю; у того стол.  
I know; he's giving a dinner.
> «у того» + zero copula: «У того стол» is "he's giving a dinner," literally "at that one [there is] a feast," the «у» + genitive possessive construction with no verb. «Того» again uses the demonstrative for "him" (the abbot). «Стол» here means not "table" but a laid feast, a formal dinner.

С самого того времени, как архиерея с генералом Пахатовым принимал, помнишь, такого стола еще не было.  
There's been no spread like it since he received the bishop and General Pakhatov, you remember.
> «с самого того времени, как» — ever since: This is the "ever since…" frame: «с самого того времени, как» ("from that very time when…") plus the imperfective past «принимал» for the act of receiving guests. «Самого» (intensifier "the very") and the genitive after «с» mark the long span back to that day.
> Genitive of negation: «такого стола не было»: The negated existential «не было» again pulls its noun into the genitive: «такого стола» (of such a feast). "There had not yet been such a spread." The «-ого» on «такого» makes the case audible where the noun's own ending might be ambiguous.

Я там не буду, а ты ступай, соусы подавай.  
I shan't be there, but you go along and hand round the sauces.
> Contrastive «а» and a soft command: «а» is the gentle contrastive 'and/but' that pivots topic from one speaker to the other — 'I won't be there, while you go.' «не буду» is the simple (synthetic) future of «быть» in its existential/copular use — 'I won't be there' — refusing the state outright; there is no second infinitive, so it is not a compound future.
> «ступай» — a folksy 'go along': An imperative of «ступать», colloquial and faintly condescending for 'off you go.' It carries a homely, peremptory tone, fitting Rakitin's condescending, needling tone as he sneers at Alyosha for hurrying off to the Father Superior's dinner — 'off you go, serve the sauces.'

Скажи ты мне, Алексей, одно: что сей сон значит?  
Tell me one thing, Alexei: what does this vision mean?
> An archaic, mocking idiom: «Сей» is an archaic word for 'this' (modern «этот»). The phrase «что сей сон значит?» literally means 'what does this dream/vision mean?' and is a stock bookish expression Rakitin trots out sarcastically to mock the monks' supposedly prophetic gestures. We keep the lofty register with 'what does this vision mean?'
> Imperative with an emphatic pronoun: «Скажи» is the perfective imperative ('tell, just this once'), and the normally-droppable «ты» is added for buttonholing emphasis — 'you, tell me.' The full name «Алексей» in direct address sits outside the clause's grammar.
> The bookish demonstrative «сей»: «сей» (this) is an archaic, period-elevated demonstrative the 19th-century reader meets far more than the speaker uses; Rakitin reaches for it precisely to sound mock-solemn. Modern Russian says «этот».

Я вот что хотел спросить.  
That's just what I wanted to ask."
> Fronted «вот что» for focus: Word order puts the object «вот что» ('this is the thing that') up front, ahead of the verb, to spotlight the coming question — Russian's free order signalling comment-focus rather than grammatical role.

— Какой сон?  
"What vision?"
> Interrogative «какой» agreeing: «какой» ('what kind of / which') is an adjectival interrogative and agrees with «сон» in gender, number, and case — here masculine nominative singular.

— А вот земной-то поклон твоему братцу Дмитрию Федоровичу.  
"Why, that earthly bow to your dear brother Dmitri Fyodorovich.
> The topic-marking clitic «-то»: Hyphenated «-то» here is not the indefinite suffix but the emphatic topic clitic: it underlines a known referent — 'that bow, you know the one.' It gives the phrase a knowing, colloquial nudge.
> Diminutive «братец», name + patronymic: «братец» (dear/little brother) is an affectionate-mocking diminutive of «брат», dripping with Rakitin's irony. The respectful triad of given name and patronymic «Дмитрию Фёдоровичу» (dative) clashes pointedly with that needling «братец».

Да еще как лбом-то стукнулся!  
And how he cracked his forehead on the floor, too!"
> Instrumental of means + reflexive «-ся»: «лбом» is the instrumental of «лоб» (forehead) — the means by which he struck — and «стукнулся» carries the reflexive «-ся», here a self-affecting 'banged himself.' The «-то» again flags the shared topic colloquially.
> Exclamatory «да ещё как»: Opening «Да» is not 'yes' but an emphatic discourse particle ('and what's more'); «как» launches an exclamation of degree — 'and how he banged it!' The cluster is pure spoken texture.

— Это ты про отца Зосиму?  
"You mean about Father Zosima?"
> «про» + accusative; animate «отца»: «про» ('about') governs the accusative, and «отца Зосиму» shows animacy: the animate masculine accusative borrows the genitive form «отца». 'You mean about Father Zosima?'

— Да, про отца Зосиму.  
"Yes, about Father Zosima."

— Лбом?  
"His forehead?"
> A one-word instrumental question: The whole incredulous question is a single noun in the instrumental — «лбом», 'with his forehead?' Russian's case endings let one inflected word carry a full query.

— А, непочтительно выразился!  
"Ah, I put it disrespectfully!
> Reflexive «выразиться»; adverb fronted: «выразился» is the perfective of «выражаться» (to express oneself), a -ся verb where the clitic makes the act self-directed. The adverb «непочтительно» ('disrespectfully') is fronted for emphasis ahead of its verb.

Ну, пусть непочтительно.  
Well, disrespectfully, then.
> Concessive «пусть»: «пусть» here is not the third-person imperative ('let him...') but a concessive 'so be it / let it be' — 'fine, disrespectfully, then.' Rakitin waves away the objection and presses on.

Итак, что же сей сон означает?  
So — what does this vision signify?"
> Insistent «же» and archaic «сей»: The particle «же» after «что» sharpens the question into an impatient demand — 'so what on earth does it mean?' Paired with the bookish «сей», it lets Rakitin parody pious solemnity. «Итак» ('and so, therefore') opens the line with mock-rhetorical formality.

— Не знаю, Миша, что значит.  
"I don't know, Misha, what it means."
> Subject-drop and an embedded «что»-clause: The pronoun «я» is dropped — the 1st-person ending of «знаю» already shows it. «что значит» is a subordinate clause introduced by «что» ('what it means'), comma-set as Russian requires.
> «Миша» — familiar form of Mikhail: Alyosha answers Rakitin (Mikhail Osipovich) with the intimate short name «Миша», the everyday diminutive of «Михаил». The warmth of the address quietly contrasts with Rakitin's needling.

— Так я и знал, что он тебе это не объяснит.  
"I knew it — that he wouldn't explain it to you.
> The set frame «так я и знал»: A fixed idiom — 'I knew it (all along).' The particle «и» reinforcing «так... знал» gives the smug confirmation; «он тебе это не объяснит» is the perfective future of «объяснить», a single completed non-act.

Мудреного тут, конечно, нет ничего, одни бы, кажись, всегдашние благоглупости.  
There's nothing clever in it, of course; just the usual pious twaddle, it would seem.
> Genitive of negation: Existential «нет» forces the genitive: «мудрёного... ничего» (gen.) — 'there is nothing clever here.' Both the negated quantity «ничего» and the substantivized adjective «мудрёного» stand in the genitive that «нет» demands.
> Hedging «бы» and «кажись»: The stray «бы» plus the folksy parenthetical «кажись» ('seems like') soften the claim into a guess — 'just the usual pious nonsense, it would seem.' «бы» here lends a tentative, hypothetical colouring rather than a full conditional.
> «благоглупость» — a coined oxymoron: A sardonic compound welding «благо-» ('pious, good') to «глупость» ('stupidity') — 'sanctimonious twaddle.' The mock-elevated «благо-» prefix, borrowed from Church-Slavonic word-building, makes the sneer sting.

Но фокус был проделан нарочно.  
But the trick was done on purpose.
> Periphrastic passive with a short participle: «был проделан» is быть plus the short past passive participle of «проделать» — a result-stating passive, 'the trick was performed.' The short form «проделан» agrees with «фокус» in masculine singular.
> «фокус» — a conjuror's trick: Not 'focus' (a false friend) but a magician's 'trick' or sleight of hand. Rakitin reduces Zosima's prostration to stagecraft.

Вот теперь и заговорят все святоши в городе и по губернии разнесут: «Что, дескать, сей сон означает?»  
Now all the sanctimonious folk in town will start chattering and carry it about the province: 'What, you know, does this vision signify?'
> Inceptive prefix «за-» in perfective future: «заговорят» is perfective future; the prefix «за-» here means 'start to' — 'they'll all start chattering.' Subject «все святоши» follows the verb, throwing the new information forward.
> «святоша» — a sanctimonious hypocrite: Derived from «святой» (holy) but firmly pejorative: a pious poseur, a 'holy Joe.' Rakitin tars the whole town's devout with the same brush.
> «дескать» — reported-speech marker: A bookish-colloquial particle flagging that the words are someone else's, with a tinge of scorn — 'as they say', 'so they claim.' It lets Rakitin voice the gossipers while mocking them.

По-моему, старик действительно прозорлив: уголовщину пронюхал.  
If you ask me, the old man really is far-sighted: he's sniffed out a crime.
> Short-form predicate adjective: «прозорлив» is the short (predicative) form of «прозорливый» — bookish and stative, asserting an inherent quality: 'the old man is genuinely far-sighted.' The short form can only predicate, never modify.
> «прозорливый» — spiritually far-seeing: More than ordinary keen-sightedness: «прозорливость» is the gift of spiritual insight attributed to holy elders, the power to read souls and foresee. Rakitin uses the loaded word with a sneer, recasting it as merely sniffing out scandal.
> «пронюхать» — to sniff out: «пронюхать» (from «нюхать», to smell) literally 'to sniff out', used figuratively and coarsely for ferreting out a secret. «уголовщина» is slangy for 'criminal business, a felony.' The animal verb deflates the elder's holy insight.

Смердит у вас.  
There's a stench about your lot."
> Impersonal verb + «у вас»: «Смердит» is an impersonal, subjectless verb ('it stinks'), and «у вас» ('at your place / among your lot') localizes it with «у» + genitive. There is no nominative — the construction simply asserts a state.
> «смердеть» — to reek (Biblical echo): An old, harsh word for a foul stench, weightier than ordinary «вонять». It carries a Scriptural ring (Lazarus 'already stinketh', John 11:39) and shares its root with the name Smerdyakov — a buried thread of corruption Rakitin's word brushes against.

— Какую уголовщину?  
"What crime?"
> Accusative of «какой» + feminine noun: «Какую уголовщину?» is feminine accusative singular — «какую» agrees with «уголовщину», echoing the object of an understood 'you mean.' The adjectival interrogative takes the case its noun would.

Ракитину видимо хотелось что-то высказать.  
Rakitin was plainly itching to come out with something.
> Dative subject with «хотелось»: Classic impersonal: the experiencer «Ракитину» stands in the dative and the reflexive «хотелось» is neuter-impersonal — 'Rakitin felt like saying something.' This dative-want frame stages desire as something that happens to a person.
> Indefinite «что-то» (specific-unknown): «что-то» with the clitic «-то» means a specific but unnamed something — Rakitin has a definite thing in mind he hasn't yet voiced — as opposed to «что-нибудь» ('anything at all').

— В вашей семейке она будет, эта уголовщина.  
"It'll be in your nice little family, this crime.
> Topic-comment dislocation: The prepositional phrase «в вашей семейке» is fronted as the topic, the verb «будет» supplies the comment, and «эта уголовщина» is tacked on at the end as an afterthought-appositive to the pronoun «она». Word order, not grammar, choreographs the menace.
> Diminutive «семейка» — 'nice little family': «семейка», the diminutive of «семья», here is sarcastic rather than affectionate — 'your charming little family.' The suffix curdles into contempt, a recurring tonal weapon of Rakitin's.

Случится она между твоими братцами и твоим богатеньким батюшкой.  
It'll happen between your dear brothers and your rich little papa.
> «между» + instrumental: «между» ('between, among') governs the instrumental: «братцами» and «батюшкой» both carry instrumental endings. «Случится» is the perfective future of the reflexive «случиться» (to happen), foretelling a single event.
> Diminutives «батюшка», «богатенький»: «батюшка» (dear papa) and «богатенький» (nice and rich) are both diminutive-expressive, here mock-cooing — 'your rich little daddy.' Rakitin coats the dangerous Fyodor Pavlovich in syrupy contempt.

Вот отец Зосима и стукнулся лбом на всякий будущий случай.  
And so Father Zosima cracked his forehead against the floor, just in case of what's to come.
> Reflexive «-ся» + instrumental of means: «стукнулся» again takes «-ся» (banged himself) with «лбом» in the instrumental as the means. «на всякий случай» is the set phrase 'just in case', here expanded ironically with «будущий» — 'against any future event.'

Потом что случится: «Ах, ведь это старец святой предрек, напророчествовал», — хотя какое бы в том пророчество, что он лбом стукнулся?  
Then, when something happens: 'Ah, you know, the holy elder foretold it, he prophesied it' — though what sort of prophecy is there in his banging his forehead on the floor?
> Rhetorical «бы» + archaic «в том»: An elliptical rhetorical question — 'what sort of prophecy could there be in that?' — where «бы» lends the hypothetical, dismissive force. «в том» uses the bookish demonstrative «тот» in the prepositional, 'in that.'
> Solemn doublet «предречь / напророчествовать»: Two lofty verbs for 'foretold / prophesied': «предрёк» is the elevated, near-Slavonic «предречь», «напророчествовал» the perfective of «пророчествовать». Rakitin piles the sacred vocabulary high precisely to mock the credulous who would use it.
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to supposed shared knowledge — 'why, after all, the holy elder foretold it.' Rakitin ventriloquizes the gullible gossips, and «ведь» captures their knowing, self-assured tone.

Нет, это, дескать, эмблема была, аллегория, и черт знает что!  
No, they'll say, it was an emblem, an allegory, and the devil knows what else!
> Reported «дескать»; overt past copula «была»: «дескать» again flags imagined speech. «эмблема была» inverts subject and the past «была» for emphasis ('it was an emblem'); in the past Russian does use a copula, gendered to agree with «эмблема».
> «чёрт знает что» — 'the devil knows what': A fixed exclamation of exasperated dismissal — 'God knows what nonsense.' The casual blasphemy is pointed coming amid mockery of the monks.

Расславят, запомнят: преступление, дескать, предугадал, преступника отметил.  
They'll trumpet it, they'll remember it: he foresaw the crime, they'll say, he marked out the criminal.
> Object-first order + animate accusative: Both clauses front the object before the verb for rhetorical drumbeat. «преступника» shows animate accusative borrowing the genitive form (vs. inanimate «преступление», whose accusative = nominative) — the case quietly marks the criminal as a person.

У юродивых и всё так: на кабак крестится, а в храм камнями мечет.  
It's always so with the holy fools: he crosses himself at the tavern and hurls stones at the church.
> «у» + genitive plural for 'with/among': «У юродивых» uses «у» + genitive plural to mean 'with holy fools, in their case' — the same possessive «у» that elsewhere expresses 'having.' «всё так» = 'it's always like that.'
> Reflexive «креститься»; contrastive «а»: «крестится» is reflexive ('crosses himself'), a self-directed ritual act. «а» pivots to the antithesis — crossing oneself at the tavern but stoning the church — with «камнями» in the instrumental of means. The balanced antithesis is the whole rhetorical point.

Так и твой старец: праведника палкой вон, а убийце в ноги поклон.  
And so it is with your elder: he drives the righteous man out with a stick, but bows to the ground before a murderer."
> Verbless antithesis across the cases: A taut, verbless parallel: animate accusative «праведника» (the righteous man, driven out) against dative «убийце» (to the murderer, bowed); «палкой» is instrumental of means. The omitted verbs and case-only contrast give the line its epigrammatic snap.
> «праведник» — the righteous one: A «праведник» is a righteous, godly man, often with the religious weight of a 'just man' or near-saint. Set against «убийца» (murderer), it makes Rakitin's charge of inverted values cut deep.

— Какое преступление?  
"What crime?
> Neuter «какое» agreeing: «Какое» is neuter to agree with the neuter «преступление» — the adjectival interrogative matches its noun in gender, number, and case (here nominative).

Какому убийце?  
What murderer?
> Dative «какому убийце»: Alyosha echoes Rakitin's case: «какому убийце» is dative, picking up «в ноги поклон убийце» — 'to what murderer?' The interrogative «какому» agrees with the dative «убийце».

Что ты? — Алеша стал как вкопанный, остановился и Ракитин.  
What do you mean?" Alyosha stood rooted to the spot, and Rakitin stopped as well.
> «как вкопанный» — rooted to the spot: A fixed simile, literally 'as if dug in', for someone frozen stock-still. «вкопанный» is a past passive participle ('dug in') used adjectivally in this idiom.
> Verb-first order with additive «и»: Here «и» is the additive adverb 'too / also', and the verb «остановился» precedes its subject «Ракитин» — 'Rakitin stopped as well.' The inversion mirrors and balances Alyosha's freezing in the prior clause.

— Какому?  
"What murderer?

Быдто не знаешь?  
As though you didn't know!
> «быдто» — colloquial «будто»: A slurred, substandard spelling of «будто» ('as if, as though'), rendering Rakitin's careless speech. «Быдто не знаешь?» = 'as though you didn't know!' — a sneering rhetorical jab.

Бьюсь об заклад, что ты сам уж об этом думал.  
I'll wager you've thought about it yourself already.
> «биться об заклад» — to bet: A set idiom, somewhat archaic-colloquial, for 'I'll wager / I bet.' «заклад» is an old word for a stake or pledge; the phrase has the flavour of confident, gambling certainty.
> Intensifier «сам» + particle «уж»: «сам» ('yourself') intensifies «ты», and «уж» (a clipped «уже», 'already') adds insistent emphasis — 'you yourself have already thought about it.' «об этом» is «о» + prepositional, 'about this.'

Кстати, это любопытно: слушай, Алеша, ты всегда правду говоришь, хотя всегда между двух стульев садишься: думал ты об этом или не думал, отвечай?  
By the way, this is interesting: listen, Alyosha, you always tell the truth, even though you always seat yourself between two stools — did you think about it or not, answer me?"
> Imperfective of habit + concessive «хотя»: Both verbs are imperfective present of habit — «говоришь», «садишься» (reflexive) — for what Alyosha 'always' does. «хотя» ('although') opens a concessive clause; «между двух стульев» (gen.) is the idiom 'between two stools.'
> Disjunctive 'whether...or not' + imperative: A 'X or not-X' alternative question — «думал... или не думал» — framing a yes/no demand, capped by the bare imperative «отвечай» ('answer!'). The repeated verb with «или... не» is Russian's emphatic way to corner an answer.

— Думал, — тихо ответил Алеша.  
"I did," Alyosha answered quietly.
> Adverb–verb–subject order in a speech tag: A typical narrative inversion: adverb «тихо» then perfective «ответил» then subject «Алеша» — 'Alyosha answered quietly.' The single perfective verb marks one completed reply against the dialogue.

Даже Ракитин смутился.  
Even Rakitin was disconcerted.
> Focusing particle «даже» + reflexive: «даже» ('even') puts the surprise on Rakitin himself. «смутился» is reflexive ('became flustered'), a -ся verb of inward change of state — the cynic, for once, is thrown.

— Что ты?  
"What's this?

Да неужто и ты уж думал? — вскричал он.  
Can it be that you, too, have already thought of it?" he cried.
> «неужто» — incredulous «неужели»: A colloquial, slightly old-fashioned variant of «неужели» — 'can it really be?', 'you don't say!' It registers Rakitin's genuine astonishment that Alyosha admits it.
> Stacked emphatic particles: A pile-up of spoken particles: «Да» (and), «неужто» (incredulity), «и» (even/too on «ты»), «уж» (already) — together 'You don't mean to say even you have already thought of it?!' Such particle clusters are the lifeblood of Dostoevsky's dialogue.

— Я... я не то чтобы думал, — пробормотал Алеша, — а вот как ты сейчас стал про это так странно говорить, то мне и показалось, что я про это сам думал.  
"I... it isn't that I exactly thought it," Alyosha mumbled, "but just now, when you suddenly began talking about it so strangely, it seemed to me that I had been thinking it myself."
> The hedging frame «не то чтобы»: «не то чтобы...» means 'it's not exactly that...', a qualifying construction that half-denies. Alyosha gropes for precision — not that he 'thought' it outright — and the «чтобы» here is part of the fixed phrase, not a purpose clause.
> Dative subject «мне показалось»: Impersonal again: «мне показалось» — 'it seemed to me' — with the experiencer «мне» in the dative and no nominative subject. The «и» adds 'and so', linking cause to effect; «что»-clause reports the seeming.
> «пробормотать» — to mumble: The perfective of «бормотать» (to mutter); the «про-» prefix bounds the action as 'to get out a mumble.' The speech verb paints Alyosha's flustered, halting reply.

— Видишь (и как ты это ясно выразил), видишь?  
"You see (and how clearly you put it), you see?
> Imperfective present «видишь»: «видишь» ('you see') is 2nd-person singular present of the imperfective «видеть» — second conjugation (-ишь). Repeated as a triumphant rhetorical bracket around the parenthesis, with subject «ты» dropped.
> Exclamatory «как» + perfective past: «как... ясно выразил» is an exclamation of degree — 'how clearly you put it!' «выразил» is perfective past (a single, achieved formulation), the prefix «вы-» marking completion.

Сегодня, глядя на папашу и на братца Митеньку, о преступлении подумал?  
Today, looking at your papa and at your dear brother Mitenka, you thought of a crime?
> Imperfective gerund «глядя»: «глядя» is the present (imperfective) gerund («деепричастие») of «глядеть» — 'while looking', an attendant action sharing the main subject 'you.' It compresses a 'as you looked...' clause into one adverbial word, a hallmark of literary narration.
> A ladder of diminutives: «папаша» (familiar 'pa'), «братец» (mock-affectionate 'little brother'), and «Митенька» (the tender diminutive ladder Дмитрий → Митя → Митенька) all drip with Rakitin's needling intimacy. The names are themselves characterisation, sweet on the surface and barbed beneath.

Стало быть, не ошибаюсь же я?  
So I'm not mistaken, am I?"
> «стало быть» + insistent «же»: «Стало быть» is a fixed inferential 'so then, consequently.' «не ошибаюсь» is reflexive imperfective present ('I'm not mistaken'), and «же» presses the question home — 'so I'm not wrong, am I?'

— Да подожди, подожди, — тревожно прервал Алеша, — из чего ты-то всё это видишь?..  
"But wait, wait," Alyosha broke in uneasily, "what is it that lets you see all this?..
> Repeated perfective imperative: «подожди» is the perfective imperative of «подождать» (to wait a bit); the «по-» gives a delimited 'wait a moment.' Doubling it conveys Alyosha's agitated urgency to halt Rakitin.
> «из чего» (gen.) + topic clitic «-то»: «из чего» — «из» + genitive — asks 'from what / out of what do you see all this?' The clitic «-то» on «ты» topicalizes Rakitin pointedly: 'you, of all people.'

Почему это тебя так занимает, вот первое дело?  
Why does it interest you so much — that's the first thing?"
> Accusative experiencer with «занимать»: Here the thing interests the person: «тебя» (accusative) is the object of «занимает» ('occupies, interests you'), with «это» the nominative subject — 'why does this interest you so?' A different framing of inner life from the dative-experiencer pattern.

— Два вопроса раздельные, но естественные.  
"Two separate questions, but natural ones.
> Genitive singular after «два»: After «два» the noun takes the genitive singular — «вопроса» — though the modifying adjectives «раздельные, но естественные» stand in nominative plural, agreeing with the plural sense of the whole phrase. A classic numeral-agreement quirk.

Отвечу на каждый порознь.  
I'll answer each in turn.
> Perfective future «отвечу»: «Отвечу» is perfective future ('I will answer'), conjugated with present-type endings but pointing forward to a completed act. Subject «я» is dropped; «на каждый» = «на» + accusative, 'to each one.'

Почему вижу?  
Why do I see it?
> Subject-dropped present: A bare question — 'Why do I see [it]?' — with «я» dropped, the 1st-singular ending of «вижу» (2nd conjugation -жу) doing the work alone. Russian readily omits the pronoun once the ending is unambiguous.

Ничего я бы тут не видел, если бы Дмитрия Федоровича, брата твоего, вдруг сегодня не понял всего как есть, разом и вдруг, всего как он есть.  
I'd have seen nothing here, if I hadn't suddenly understood your brother Dmitri Fyodorovich today, the whole of him exactly as he is, all at once and in a flash, the whole of him just as he is.
> A full counterfactual conditional: A textbook past-counterfactual: both clauses pair a past-tense verb with «бы» — «я бы не видел» (main) and «если бы... не понял» (the «если бы» protasis). The mobile «бы» leans on «ничего» in the main clause. 'I'd have seen nothing, if I hadn't understood...'
> Animate accusative + appositive: «Дмитрия Фёдоровича» (the object of «не понял») is animate masculine accusative, identical to the genitive; «брата твоего» is an appositive in the same case. Inverted «брата твоего» (noun before possessive) gives a faintly bookish weight.

По какой-то одной черте так и захватил его разом всего.  
By some single trait I seized hold of him entire, all at once.
> «по» + dative; indefinite «какой-то»: «по» governs the dative — «по... черте» ('by some single trait'). «какой-то» (with «-то») marks a specific but unidentified trait. «захватил» is perfective past ('seized'), «его... всего» the animate accusative object, 'the whole of him.'

У этих честнейших, но любострастных людей есть черта, которую не переходи.  
These thoroughly honest but voluptuous men have a line that must not be crossed.
> Relative «который» + warning imperative: «которую» is feminine accusative, agreeing in gender/number with «черта» but taking the case its own clause needs (object of «переходи»). The imperative «не переходи» ('don't cross') used generically as a gnomic 'one mustn't cross' — a vivid 2nd-person-for-anyone.
> «любострастный» — lustful: A bookish, slightly archaic adjective for 'voluptuous, given to carnal passion', compounding «любо-» (love) with «страсть» (passion). It belongs to the elevated-moralizing register, foreshadowing «сладострастник» below.

Не то — не то он и папеньку ножом пырнет.  
Otherwise — otherwise he'll even put a knife into his papa.
> «не то» + perfective future; instrumental of means: «не то» is the conditional connective 'otherwise / or else.' «пырнёт» is vivid perfective future ('he'll stab'), «ножом» the instrumental of the weapon, and «и» before «папеньку» means 'even his own papa.' The repeated «не то» heightens the menace.
> Diminutive «папенька»: A tender-old-fashioned diminutive of 'papa' (animate accusative «папеньку»), here freighted with Rakitin's sarcasm — the loving word makes the imagined parricide more grotesque.

А папенька пьяный и невоздержный беспутник, никогда и ни в чем меры не понимал — не удержатся оба, и бух оба в канаву...  
And the papa is a drunken, unbridled debauchee who never in anything knew any measure — the two of them won't hold back, and into the ditch they'll both go, plop..."
> Negative concord with «ни»: Multiple negatives reinforce one meaning: «никогда» (never), «ни в чём» (in nothing), and the verbal «не понимал» — three negators, one sense, 'never knew measure in anything.' «меры» is genitive of negation under «не понимал».
> Onomatopoeic «бух» — 'plop': «бух» is an interjectional verb-substitute mimicking a heavy fall or splash, like English 'plop / thud'; used in place of a finite verb for vivid, abrupt effect — 'and into the ditch, the pair of them, plop.' «беспутник» nearby is 'a dissolute fellow, a profligate.'

— Нет, Миша, нет, если только это, так ты меня ободрил.  
"No, Misha, no; if that's all it is, then you've reassured me.
> Real (indicative) conditional with «если»: A real conditional — plain «если» (no «бы»), so indicative, not counterfactual: 'if that's all it is.' «так» introduces the consequence; «ободрил» is perfective past, 'you've reassured me' (a completed effect).

До того не дойдет.  
It won't come to that."
> «до» + genitive; impersonal feel: «до того» is «до» + genitive demonstrative — 'to that point.' «не дойдёт» is perfective future of the prefixed motion verb «дойти» used figuratively, 'it won't reach / come to that.' Subject is the vague 'it', left unexpressed.

— А чего ты весь трясешься?  
"Then why are you trembling all over?
> Reflexive «трястись»; «весь» as adverbial: «трясёшься» is the reflexive «трястись» (to tremble, shake), a -ся verb of bodily state. «весь» ('whole, all over') agrees with «ты» as an emphatic predicate-modifier — 'why are you all a-tremble?' Opening «А» pivots the topic accusingly.

Знаешь ты штуку?  
Do you know the thing of it?
> «штука» — 'the thing of it': Literally 'a piece/item', but colloquially 'the trick, the point, the catch.' «Знаешь ты штуку?» = 'Do you know the thing of it?' — Rakitin promising a clinching insight.

Пусть он и честный человек, Митенька-то (он глуп, но честен); но он — сладострастник.  
Granted he's an honest man, Mitenka (he's stupid, but honest); but he's — a sensualist.
> Concessive «пусть» + «и»: «Пусть... и» is the concessive 'granted that, let it be that' — 'granted he's an honest man.' «честный человек» is a bare nominative predicate (zero copula in the present). The concession sets up the «но» reversal.
> «сладострастник» — a sensualist: From «сладострастие» ('voluptuousness', literally 'sweet-passion'), a key Karamazov word: a man enslaved to sensual pleasure. Dostoevsky makes «сладострастие» a defining family trait, and Rakitin pins it on Dmitri as 'his entire inner essence.'
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «глуп» and «честен» are short (predicative) adjective forms of «глупый» and «честный» — bookish, stating qualities crisply: 'he's stupid but honest.' The «-то» on «Митенька» topicalizes him knowingly.

Вот его определение и вся внутренняя суть.  
There's the whole definition of him, and his entire inner essence."
> Frozen possessive «его»; zero copula: «его» ('his') is the invariable third-person possessive, never declining, here modifying «определение». The whole sentence is verbless — a nominative naming-statement with no copula in the present: 'There's the whole definition of him.'

Это отец ему передал свое подлое сладострастие.  
It was the father who handed down to him that vile sensuality.
> Fronted «это» as a cleft: «Это» here is not the demonstrative pronoun but an emphatic particle fronting the whole clause, equivalent to an English cleft: «it was the father who…». The real subject «отец» follows, and «ему» (dative) is the indirect object — to him.
> «сладострастие» — voluptuousness: A bookish compound of «сладкий» (sweet) and «страсть» (passion): lustful sensuality, voluptuousness. It is the keyword of the whole Karamazov chapter, recurring as the family vice.

Ведь я только на тебя, Алеша, дивлюсь: как это ты девственник?  
You know, Alyosha, you're the one thing I marvel at: how is it that you're a virgin?
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» opens the sentence as an appeal to shared knowledge — 'you know', 'after all'. Rakitin uses it constantly here to draw Alyosha into complicity, a hallmark of his insinuating, conversational manner.
> Reflexive «дивиться» — to marvel: «Дивлюсь» is the 1sg of «дивиться», a -ся verb meaning 'to marvel at, wonder at', governing «на» + accusative «на тебя» ('to marvel at'); the form «тебя» is accusative, not dative (which would be «тебе»). The reflexive -сь here marks an inner, intransitive reaction rather than a true reflexive.
> «девственник» — a virgin (male): The masculine form of 'virgin' (feminine «девственница»), from «дева» (maiden). Rakitin throws it at Alyosha half-mockingly, and it becomes a refrain through the passage.

Ведь и ты Карамазов!  
You're a Karamazov too, after all!
> Zero copula in the present: There is no verb 'to be': «ты Карамазов» simply juxtaposes subject and nominative predicate noun, the normal Russian way of saying 'you are a Karamazov' in the present. The particle «и» here means 'also, too'.

Ведь в вашем семействе сладострастие до воспаления доведено.  
In your family, you know, sensuality is worked up to the point of fever.
> Short passive participle «доведено»: «Доведено» is the short (predicative) neuter form of the past passive participle «доведённый» (from «довести», to bring/carry to a point), agreeing with the neuter «сладострастие». It states a resultant condition: 'has been brought to the point of inflammation'.
> «до» + genitive of extent: The preposition «до» governs the genitive «воспаления» and marks the limit reached — 'up to inflammation', i.e. worked up to a feverish pitch.

Ну вот эти три сладострастника друг за другом теперь и следят... с ножами за сапогом.  
Well, so these three sensualists are watching one another now... with knives tucked in their boots.
> Reciprocal «друг за другом» and «следить за»: «Друг за другом» (literally 'friend after friend') is the fixed reciprocal phrase 'one after another / one another'; only the second «друг» declines for the governing preposition. «Следить за» + instrumental means 'to keep watch on', so the three watch each other.
> «сладострастник» — a sensualist: The agent noun from «сладострастие»: a man given over to lust, a voluptuary. Here «три сладострастника» — «сладострастника» is the genitive singular governed by «три» (numerals 2–4 take the genitive singular), labelling the three rivalrous Karamazov men; the nominative plural «сладострастники» does not appear.
> «нож за сапогом» — a knife in the boot: Literally 'with knives behind the boot' — the proverbial image of a peasant or brigand carrying a hidden knife tucked into the boot-top, ready for murder. It paints the Karamazov rivalry as lethal.

Состукнулись трое лбами, а ты, пожалуй, четвертый.  
The three of them have already locked horns, and you, very likely, make a fourth.
> «столкнуться лбами» — to butt heads: «Состукнулись» (colloquial for «столкнулись», 'collided') with «лбами» (instrumental plural of «лоб», forehead) gives the idiom 'knocked their foreheads together', i.e. came to blows, locked horns. The instrumental «лбами» names the body part used.
> Contrastive «а» and hedging «пожалуй»: «А» pivots gently to a new subject — 'and you, for your part'. «Пожалуй» is a modal hedge, 'perhaps, very likely, I daresay', softening the claim that Alyosha makes a fourth.

— Ты про эту женщину ошибаешься.  
— You're mistaken about that woman.
> «про» + accusative — 'about': «Про» governs the accusative «эту женщину» and means 'about, concerning', a slightly more colloquial equivalent of «о» + prepositional. «Ошибаешься» is the reflexive «ошибаться», to be mistaken.

Дмитрий ее презирает, — как-то вздрагивая, проговорил Алеша.  
Dmitri despises her, — Alyosha said, with a kind of shudder.
> Imperfective gerund «вздрагивая»: «Вздрагивая» is the present (imperfective) деепричастие of «вздрагивать», 'to shudder, give a start', describing the manner attending Alyosha's speech — 'speaking with a kind of shudder'. It shares his subject and runs simultaneously with «проговорил».
> «как-то» — somehow, in a kind of way: The indefinite adverb «как-то», interrogative «как» plus the -то clitic, softens the description: 'somehow, in a sort of way'. It lends Dostoevsky's narration its hesitant, groping precision.

— Грушеньку-то?  
— Grushenka, you mean?
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» attached to «Грушеньку» (accusative) is the emphatic topic clitic, not the indefinite one: it picks up and stresses a just-mentioned referent — 'Grushenka, you mean?'. It is a staple of colloquial reply.

Нет, брат, не презирает.  
No, brother, he does not despise her.
> Negated present «не презирает»: «Не презирает» negates the imperfective present 'he despises' with «не» placed directly before the verb — the basic Russian negator. The repetition across these lines (презирает / не презирает) drives Rakitin's argument.

Уж когда невесту свою въявь на нее променял, то не презирает.  
Once a man openly throws over his own betrothed for her, he doesn't despise her.
> Correlative «когда… то»: The subordinating «когда» ('once, when') is answered by the resumptive «то» ('then') opening the main clause — a common 19th-century correlative frame. «Уж» reinforces it: 'once a man has actually gone so far as to…'.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «Свою» (reflexive possessive, accusative feminine) means 'his own', referring back to the clause's subject, the man who throws over his betrothed. Using «его» instead would point to someone else's.
> «въявь» — openly, in plain sight: A bookish, archaic adverb (from «явь», waking reality) meaning 'openly, manifestly, before everyone's eyes'. It heightens the scandal of the betrayal.

Тут... тут, брат, нечто, чего ты теперь не поймешь.  
There's... there's something here, brother, that you can't grasp yet.
> «нечто» with genitive-of-negation relative: «Нечто» is the indefinite 'something'; the relative pronoun «чего» stands in the genitive because its verb «не поймёшь» is negated — the genitive of negation reaching into the relative clause. «Поймёшь» is a perfective future, 'you won't (manage to) grasp'.

Тут влюбится человек в какую-нибудь красоту, в тело женское, или даже только в часть одну тела женского (это сладострастник может понять), то и отдаст за нее собственных детей, продаст отца и мать, Россию и отечество; будучи честен, пойдет и украдет; будучи кроток — зарежет, будучи верен — изменит.  
When a man falls in love with some beauty, with a woman's body, or even with no more than a single part of a woman's body (a sensualist can understand this), then he'll give up his own children for her sake, he'll sell his father and mother, sell Russia and his fatherland; an honest man, he'll go and steal; a meek man, he'll cut a throat; a faithful man, he'll betray.
> Concessive gerund «будучи» + short adjective: «Будучи» is the gerund of «быть» ('being'), here concessive — 'though he be honest'. It governs the short-form predicate adjective «честен» (and parallel «кроток», «верен»), the bookish predicative form favoured for such absolute states.
> Chain of perfective futures: The whole apodosis is a cascade of perfective verbs conjugated as simple futures — «отдаст, продаст, украдёт, зарежет, изменит» — each naming one decisive completed act. The rhythm of single perfectives makes the catastrophe feel headlong and inevitable.
> «какой-нибудь» — some (any) beauty: «Какую-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite, 'some… or other, any', built with the -нибудь clitic, marking the object of infatuation as arbitrary and interchangeable — the point Rakitin presses.

Певец женских ножек, Пушкин, ножки в стихах воспевал; другие не воспевают, а смотреть на ножки не могут без судорог.  
The singer of women's feet, Pushkin, sang those little feet in verse; others don't sing them, but they can't so much as look at a pair of feet without a shudder going through them.
> Diminutive «ножки»: «Ножки» is the affectionate diminutive of «ноги» (feet/legs), formed with -к-. The caressing suffix is precisely the point: it makes the feet objects of tender, fetishistic regard — Pushkin's, and the sensualist's.
> «воспевать» — to sing in praise: An elevated, poetic verb, «воспевать/воспеть», 'to celebrate in verse, hymn'. The prefix «вос-» (Church-Slavonic «воз-») gives it a solemn, literary ring, fitting for a comment on Pushkin's art.

Но ведь не одни ножки...  
But it isn't only the feet, you know...
> «не одни» — not only: «Не одни» (negated «один» in the plural) means 'not only / not just the feet'. Combined with «ведь», it presses the shared insinuation a step further. The plural «одни» agrees with plural «ножки».

Тут, брат, презрение не помогает, хотя бы он и презирал Грушеньку.  
Here, brother, contempt is no help, even if he did despise Grushenka.
> Concessive «хотя бы» + бы-conditional: «Хотя бы… и презирал» is a concessive hypothetical: 'even if he did despise her'. The past-form verb «презирал» with the particle «бы» builds the irrealis, and «и» reinforces the concession.

И презирает, да оторваться не может.  
He despises her and yet he can't tear himself away.
> Adversative «да» and reflexive «оторваться»: «Да» here is the colloquial adversative 'and yet, but'. «Оторваться» is the reflexive perfective of «оторвать» (to tear off), middle in sense — 'to tear oneself away'; with «не может» it conveys the helpless pull of desire.

— Я это понимаю, — вдруг брякнул Алеша  
— I understand that, — Alyosha blurted out suddenly.
> «брякнуть» — to blurt out: An expressive perfective, «брякнуть», originally 'to clang/clatter', then 'to come out with something abruptly and tactlessly'. The sound-word colours Alyosha's confession as involuntary; Rakitin will seize on it for several lines.

— Быдто?  
— Do you, now?
> «Быдто?» — Really? Is that so?: A colloquial, slurred form of «будто» ('as if, supposedly'), used alone as a sceptical retort: 'Oh, you do, do you? Really?'. Dostoevsky spells the relaxed pronunciation to catch Rakitin's mocking tone.

И впрямь, стало быть, ты это понимаешь, коли так с первого слова брякнул, что понимаешь, — с злорадством проговорил Ракитин.  
And so it seems you really do understand it, if you blurted out at the very first word that you understand, — Rakitin said with malicious relish.
> Conditional «коли»: «Коли» is a folksy, archaic conjunction for «если» ('if, since'), introducing the condition: 'if you blurted it out at the very first word'. Such homely conjunctions flavour Rakitin's speech.
> «злорадство» — malicious glee: «Злорадство» (from «зло», evil, + «радость», joy) is Schadenfreude — pleasure at another's discomfort. The instrumental «с злорадством» names the manner of Rakitin's speech, exposing his unkindness.
> «впрямь» and «стало быть»: «Впрямь» is a colloquial adverb 'really, indeed, truly'; «стало быть» is a parenthetical 'so then, consequently, it follows'. Both are conversational discourse markers that lend Rakitin's reasoning its needling, deductive air.

— Ты это нечаянно брякнул, это вырвалось.  
— You blurted that out without meaning to; it slipped from you.
> Reflexive «вырваться» — it escaped: «Вырвалось» is the reflexive perfective past of «вырваться», 'to break/burst free'; impersonal and middle in sense — 'it slipped out, escaped you'. The -ся removes any agent, casting the confession as something that happened to Alyosha.

Тем драгоценнее признание: стало быть, тебе уж знакомая тема, об этом уж думал, о сладострастье-то.  
All the more precious the confession: so it's a subject already familiar to you, you've thought about this before — about sensuality, that is.
> «тем + comparative» correlative: «Тем драгоценнее» uses the instrumental «тем» with the predicative comparative «драгоценнее» (from «драгоценный», precious) — 'all the more precious'. The construction implies a suppressed «чем»-clause: the more involuntary, the more telling.
> Afterthought topic «-то»: The clitic «-то» tacked onto «сладострастье» marks it as the now-foregrounded topic, dropped in as a pointed afterthought — 'about sensuality, that is'. It is the emphatic, not the indefinite, «-то».

Ах ты, девственник!  
Ah, you virgin!
> Exclamatory address «Ах ты»: «Ах ты» is an exclamatory vocative frame — 'Ah, you…!' — that pairs the interjection «ах» with the nominative «ты» used in direct address. It carries affection or mock-reproach, here the latter.

Ты, Алешка, тихоня, ты святой, я согласен, но ты тихоня, и черт знает о чем ты уж не думал, черт знает что тебе уж известно!  
You, Alyoshka, you're a quiet one, you're a saint, I grant it, but you're a quiet one, and the devil knows what you haven't already thought about, the devil knows what you already know!
> «Алёшка» — the rougher diminutive: «Алёшка», with the -к- suffix, is a blunter, more familiar (even slightly disparaging) form of «Алёша» than the tender «Алёшенька». Rakitin's choice of name marks his offhand, needling intimacy.
> «тихоня» — a quiet sly one: «Тихоня» (from «тихий», quiet) is a common-gender noun for someone meek and still on the surface — often with the insinuation that depths lurk beneath the calm. Rakitin means exactly that double edge.
> «чёрт знает» + indefinite + double negation: «Чёрт знает что/о чём» ('the devil knows what') functions as an indefinite expression. With «не думал» it forms a rhetorical negation — 'there's no telling what you haven't already thought about' — the negative concord typical of «не».

Девственник, а уж такую глубину прошел, — я тебя давно наблюдаю.  
A virgin, and yet you've already passed through such depths — I've been watching you a long while.
> Perfective «прошёл» — passed through: «Прошёл» (perfective past of «пройти») presents the experience as a single completed traversal — 'you've already passed through such depths'. The directional prefix «про-» ('through') turns the motion verb into an ordinary perfective.
> Imperfective present of ongoing action: «Наблюдаю» is the imperfective present, and with «давно» ('for a long time now') it means a process still going on — 'I have been watching you a long while'. Russian uses the plain present where English needs a perfect-progressive.

Ты сам Карамазов, ты Карамазов вполне — стало быть, значит же что-нибудь порода и подбор.  
You're a Karamazov yourself, a Karamazov through and through — which means that breeding and the mixing of blood count for something.
> Insistent «же» + indefinite «что-нибудь»: «Же» here insists and concludes — 'it does mean something, then'. «Что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite 'something or other', leaving the precise import vague while affirming there is one.
> «порода» and «подбор» — breed and selection: «Порода» means 'breed, pedigree, stock' (as of animals); «подбор» is 'selection, matching' (as in «естественный подбор», natural selection). Rakitin's pseudo-scientific jargon mocks the Karamazov 'blood' in Darwinian terms then in vogue.

По отцу сладострастник, по матери юродивый.  
On your father's side a sensualist, on your mother's a holy fool.
> «по» + dative of respect: «По отцу», «по матери» use «по» + dative to mean 'on the father's / mother's side, as regards lineage'. The construction sorts a person's inherited traits along the two bloodlines.

Чего дрожишь?  
Why are you trembling?
> Colloquial «чего» for «почему»: «Чего» — strictly the genitive of «что» — is used colloquially for «почему» ('why?') in casual speech: 'What are you trembling for?'. «Дрожишь» is the imperfective present of «дрожать», to tremble.

Аль правду говорю?  
Am I telling the truth?
> «аль» — folk 'or is it?': «Аль» is a folksy, archaic contraction of «али»/«или» ('or'), opening a question with a peasant ring: 'Or am I telling the truth?'. It marks Rakitin's deliberately down-to-earth, baiting register.

Знаешь что: Грушенька просила меня: «Приведи ты его (тебя то есть), я с него ряску стащу».  
Listen to this: Grushenka begged me, "Bring him to me (you, that is), and I'll strip the cassock right off him."
> Imperative «приведи» + perfective future «стащу»: «Приведи» is the perfective imperative of «привести» ('bring him'); «стащу» is the perfective future of «стащить» ('I'll drag/strip off'). The pairing — a command and its intended result — drives Grushenka's quoted demand.
> «ряска» — the little cassock: «Ряска» is the diminutive of «ряса», the long black cassock of an Orthodox monk or novice. The affectionate-belittling diminutive in Grushenka's mouth makes stripping the cassock a teasing, sexual conquest of the would-be monk Alyosha.

Да ведь как просила-то: приведи да приведи!  
And how she begged: bring him, bring him!
> Reduplicated imperative «приведи да приведи»: Repeating the imperative joined by «да» («приведи да приведи») is a colloquial intensifier conveying insistent, nagging repetition — 'bring him, bring him!'. The «-то» on «просила-то» again topicalizes the verb.

Подумал только: чем ты это ей так любопытен?  
I just wondered: what is it about you that makes her so curious?
> Instrumental «чем» + short adjective «любопытен»: «Чем» (instrumental of «что») asks 'by what / in what respect', and «любопытен» is the short predicative form of «любопытный» — here 'intriguing, interesting to her'. «Ей» is the dative experiencer, the one to whom Alyosha is curious.

Знаешь, необычайная и она женщина тоже!  
You know, she's an extraordinary woman herself, too!
> Marked word order for emphasis: The adjective «необычайная» ('extraordinary') is fronted before the subject «она… женщина», throwing the rhetorical weight onto her exceptional quality. «И… тоже» ('also, too') adds her to the gallery of remarkable people.

— Кланяйся, скажи, что не приду, — криво усмехнулся Алеша. — Договаривай, Михаил, о чем зачал, я тебе потом мою мысль скажу.  
— Give her my respects and tell her I won't come, — Alyosha said with a wry smile. — Finish what you began, Mikhail, and I'll tell you my own thought afterward.
> Paired imperatives «кланяйся, скажи»: «Кланяйся» (imperfective imperative of «кланяться», to bow/send greetings — 'give my respects') and «скажи» (perfective imperative of «сказать») chain two commands. The imperfective imperative for the courtesy, perfective for the single report, is idiomatic.
> «зачать» — to begin (archaic): «Зачал» here is a folksy/archaic perfective for «начал» ('began'), echoing «договаривай» ('finish saying'). Alyosha matches Rakitin's homely register: 'finish what you started'.

— Чего тут договаривать, всё ясно.  
— What's there to finish, it's all plain enough.
> «Чего» + infinitive of dismissal: «Чего тут договаривать» — colloquial «чего» ('what for') plus a bare infinitive — is a dismissive rhetorical question: 'what's there to finish?'. The infinitive without subject conveys the pointlessness of the act.

Всё это, брат, старая музыка.  
It's all an old tune, brother.
> «старая музыка» — the same old tune: Literally 'old music', a colloquial idiom for a tiresomely familiar story — 'the same old song'. Rakitin waves off the whole tangle as predictable.

Если уж и ты сладострастника в себе заключаешь, то что же брат твой Иван, единоутробный?  
If even you carry a sensualist within you, then what about your brother Ivan, your own mother's son?
> «если… то» conditional with «уж» and «же»: «Если уж и ты… то что же» frames a conditional: 'if even you…, then what about…'. «Уж» and «и» intensify the protasis, while «же» in «что же» sharpens the rhetorical question about Ivan.
> «единоутробный» — born of the same womb: A formal term (from «единый» + «утроба», womb) for a sibling sharing the same mother but not necessarily the same father. It precisely marks Ivan as Alyosha's full maternal brother, central to Rakitin's bloodline analysis.

Ведь и он Карамазов.  
He's a Karamazov too, after all.
> «Ведь» + zero copula, refrain: The line echoes s123 almost verbatim — «ведь» appealing to shared knowledge, «и» meaning 'also', and no copula before the nominative predicate «Карамазов». The repetition makes 'a Karamazov too' a drumbeat refrain.

В этом весь ваш карамазовский вопрос заключается: сладострастники, стяжатели и юродивые!  
Therein lies the whole of your Karamazov question: sensualists, money-grubbers, and holy fools!
> Reflexive «заключаться в» — to consist in: «Заключается» is the reflexive «заключаться в» + prepositional, 'to consist in, lie in'. Fronting «в этом» ('in this') before the subject «вопрос» gives the pronouncement its weighty, summarizing cadence.
> «стяжатель» — a money-grubber: «Стяжатель» (from «стяжать», to acquire/amass) is a censorious word for a grasping accumulator of wealth, with a moral-religious edge: the «стяжатели» were historically opposed to the «нестяжатели», monks who renounced property. It names the second Karamazov vice.

Брат твой Иван теперь богословские статейки пока в шутку по какому-то глупейшему неизвестному расчету печатает, будучи сам атеистом, и в подлости этой сам сознается — брат твой этот, Иван.  
Your brother Ivan is publishing little theological articles just now, as a joke, by some idiotic, undisclosed calculation, though he's an atheist himself, and he admits the baseness of it himself — this brother of yours, Ivan.
> Gerund «будучи» + predicate instrumental: «Будучи… атеистом» is the gerund of «быть» governing the predicate noun «атеистом» in the instrumental — the case that follows «быть» for a role or state: 'being an atheist himself'. The gerund makes it a concessive backdrop to his publishing.
> «статейки» — little articles (dismissive): «Статейки» is the diminutive plural of «статья» (article), here carrying a belittling, contemptuous tone rather than mere smallness — 'paltry little pieces'. Likewise «глупейшему» is the superlative of «глупый», 'most idiotic'.

Кроме того, от братца Мити невесту себе отбивает, ну и этой цели, кажется, что достигнет.  
On top of that, he's cutting his brother Mitya out of his betrothed, and it seems he'll attain that end too.
> Reflexive dative «себе» of benefit: «Себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun «себя», marking the action as done for the subject's own benefit — 'cutting the betrothed out for himself'. «Отбивает» (imperfective) is the metaphorical 'to win away, steal (a sweetheart)'.
> Diminutives «братец» and «Митя»: «Братец» is the diminutive of «брат» (here faintly ironic, 'dear brother'), and «Мити» is the genitive of «Митя», the diminutive of Dmitri. Rakitin's steady use of such pet-forms gives his gossip its cosy, mocking warmth.

Да еще как: с согласия самого Митеньки, потому что Митенька сам ему невесту свою уступает, чтобы только отвязаться от нее да уйти поскорей к Грушеньке.  
And how he'll do it: with Mitenka's own consent, because Mitenka himself is giving up his betrothed to him, just to be rid of her and slip away the sooner to Grushenka.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы» introduces a purpose clause with bare infinitives «отвязаться… да уйти» (same subject as the main clause) — 'just to be rid of her and slip away'. «Чтобы» is «что» fused with the irrealis «бы».
> Perfective motion «уйти» + «поскорей»: «Уйти» (perfective, prefix «у-» 'away') is 'to leave, get away'; «поскорей» is a colloquial comparative adverb, 'the sooner, as fast as possible'. Together: to slip off to Grushenka all the quicker.

И всё это при всем своем благородстве и бескорыстии, заметь себе это.  
And all of this with the fullest nobility and disinterestedness, mark that.
> «при» + prepositional, concessive: «При всём своём благородстве» uses «при» + prepositional in a concessive sense — 'for all his nobility, with all his disinterestedness'. «Заметь себе» is an imperative with reflexive «себе», 'mark it (for yourself)'.

Вот эти-то люди самые роковые и есть!  
These are exactly the people who are the most fatal of all!
> Emphatic «-то» and «и есть»: The clitic «-то» on «эти» and the emphatic «и есть» ('are precisely / are the very ones') together pin the assertion down: 'these are exactly the most fatal people'. «Есть» as an explicit present copula is itself emphatic in modern Russian.

Черт вас разберет после этого: сам подлость свою сознает и сам в подлость лезет!  
The devil himself can't make you out after that: a man recognizes his own baseness and climbs into the baseness anyway!
> Idiomatic «чёрт разберёт» + perfective future: «Чёрт вас разберёт» (literally 'the devil will sort you out') is a set expression for 'there's no making you out / who can figure you?'. «Разберёт» is the perfective future used for a generalized impossibility.
> Intensifier «сам» + reflexive «свою»: «Сам» ('himself, of his own accord') intensifies the subject, and «свою» is the reflexive possessive pointing back to it — 'recognizes his own baseness himself'. The doubled reflexivity stresses the self-aware perversity.

Слушай дальше: Митеньке теперь пересекает дорогу старикашка отец.  
Listen further: the old man, the father, is now blocking Mitenka's road.
> «старикашка» — wretched old man: «Старикашка» is the pejorative diminutive of «старик» (old man), formed with the contemptuous -ашк- suffix — 'wretched old codger'. Rakitin's disdain for old Fyodor Karamazov sits right in the word's shape.
> Imperfective present «пересекает»: «Пересекает дорогу» (imperfective present, 'is crossing/blocking the road') idiomatically means 'standing in someone's way'. The present tense renders the rivalry as a live, ongoing obstacle.

Ведь тот по Грушеньке с ума вдруг сошел, ведь у него слюна бежит, когда на нее глядит только.  
For he's gone suddenly mad over Grushenka; the saliva runs in his mouth merely when he looks at her.
> «по» + dative of cause; idiom «сойти с ума»: «По Грушеньке… с ума сошёл» — «сойти с ума» ('to go mad') with «по» + dative naming the object of the madness: 'gone mad over Grushenka'. «Вдруг» ('suddenly') marks the abrupt onset, «сошёл» the completed perfective.
> «слюна бежит» — mouth waters: Literally 'the saliva runs', a vivid colloquial image of physical craving. Applied to old Fyodor gazing at Grushenka, it reduces his lust to a grossly animal drool.

Ведь это он только из-за нее одной в келье сейчас скандал такой сделал, за то только, что Миусов ее беспутною тварью назвать осмелился.  
It was for her sake alone, you know, and no one else's, that he made that scene in the cell just now, only because Miusov dared to call her a dissolute creature.
> Causal «за то, что»: «За то… что» is a causal frame, 'for the reason that, just because'. «Осмелился» (reflexive perfective of «осмелиться», to dare) takes the infinitive «назвать»: 'because Miusov dared to call her…'.
> «беспутная тварь» — dissolute creature: «Беспутная» (from «беспутный», 'dissolute, profligate' — literally 'pathless') with «тварь» ('creature, wretch', a contemptuous term for a person) is a harsh insult. The instrumental «тварью» is the complement of «назвать» ('to call X a Y').

Влюбился хуже кошки.  
He's fallen in love worse than a tomcat.
> Comparative «хуже» + genitive of comparison: «Хуже» is the suppletive comparative of «плохой» ('worse'), and «кошки» is the genitive of comparison after it — 'worse than a tomcat'. Russian can mark the standard of comparison with a bare genitive instead of «чем».

Прежде она ему тут только по делишкам каким-то темным да кабачным на жалованье прислуживала, а теперь вдруг догадался и разглядел, остервенился, с предложениями лезет, не с честными конечно.  
Before this she only served him for wages in some shady, tavern dealings, but now he's suddenly woken up and taken a good look, lost his head, and comes pressing his offers — not honorable ones, of course.
> Perfective chain + present «лезет»: A run of perfective pasts — «догадался, разглядел, остервенился» — gives the sudden, completed turn of events, before the imperfective present «лезет» ('keeps pushing in') opens onto his ongoing pestering. Aspect choreographs the shift from event to habit.
> «остервениться» — to go into a frenzy: «Остервениться» (from «стерво/стерва», 'carrion'; the 'bestial' flavour is acquired, not an etymological tie to «зверь») means 'to fly into a savage, frenzied rage or passion', losing all restraint. It paints Fyodor's awakened lust as bestial.
> «делишки» and «кабачный»: «Делишки» is the belittling diminutive of «дела» ('shady little affairs'), and «кабачный» is the adjective from «кабак» (a low tavern, pot-house). Together they sketch the seedy, tavern-world dealings in which Grushenka first served Fyodor.

Ну и столкнутся же они, папенька с сыночком, на этой дорожке.  
Well, and so they'll collide, papa and his little son, on that very road.
> Reflexive «столкнуться» + insistent «же»: «Столкнутся» is the reciprocal-reflexive perfective future of «столкнуться» ('to collide, come into conflict'); the particle «же» adds gleeful certainty — 'and collide they certainly will'. «Ну и…» frames the gleeful prediction.
> Mock-tender «папенька» and «сыночек»: «Папенька» (dear papa) and «сыночек» (dear little son) are affectionate diminutives, used here with heavy irony for the lust-rivals Fyodor and Dmitri. The cosy words sharpen the grotesque image of father and son fighting over the same woman.

А Грушенька ни тому, ни другому; пока еще виляет да обоих дразнит, высматривает, который выгоднее, потому хоть у папаши можно много денег тяпнуть, да ведь зато он не женится, а пожалуй, так под конец ожидовеет и запрет кошель.  
And Grushenka leans to neither one nor the other; for now she dodges and teases the two of them, sizing up which is the better catch, for there's a great deal of money to be squeezed out of the papa, only he won't marry her, and quite likely in the end he'll turn miser, tighten up like a Jew, and lock his purse.
> Double «ни… ни» with dative: «Ни тому, ни другому» is the negative-concord pairing «ни… ни» ('neither… nor') in the dative — she leans (inclines) to neither one. The elliptical clause omits the verb, the dative alone carrying 'to neither'.
> «вилять», «дразнить», «тяпнуть»: «Виляет» ('wags, dodges, prevaricates'), «дразнит» ('teases'), and the slangy perfective «тяпнуть» ('to grab, snatch, filch') paint Grushenka as a shrewd, mercenary flirt. «Тяпнуть» recurs as Rakitin's pet word for grabbing money.
> «ожидоветь» — the anti-Semitic slur: «Ожидоветь» means 'to turn miserly', built on the slur «жид» (a derogatory word for a Jew) and trading on the period's anti-Semitic stereotype of avarice; «запереть кошель» is 'to lock up the purse'. The phrase records Rakitin's casual prejudice, not the narrator's endorsement.

В таком случае и Митенька свою цену имеет; денег у него нет, но зато способен жениться.  
In that case Mitenka has his own value too; he has no money, but he is capable of marrying her.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «Денег… нет» puts «деньги» (money) in the genitive «денег» as the absent subject of «нет» — the obligatory genitive after «нет / не было». «У него» locates the lack: 'he has no money'.
> Compensatory «зато» + short adjective: «Зато» ('but on the other hand, to make up for it') pivots to a compensating advantage. «Способен» is the short predicative form of «способный» ('capable'), governing the infinitive «жениться» ('to marry', of a man).

Да-с, способен жениться!  
Yes, sir, capable of marrying her!

Бросить невесту, несравненную красоту, Катерину Ивановну, богатую, дворянку и полковничью дочь, и жениться на Грушеньке, бывшей содержанке старого купчишки, развратного мужика и городского головы Самсонова.  
Of throwing over his betrothed, that incomparable beauty, Katerina Ivanovna, rich, a noblewoman and a colonel's daughter, and marrying Grushenka, the former kept mistress of an old shopkeeper, the dissolute peasant and town mayor Samsonov.
> Bare infinitives as nominal heads: The whole sentence hangs on two perfective infinitives, «бросить» ('to throw over') and «жениться» ('to marry'), used substantively to name the hypothetical deed without a finite verb — a compressed, list-like syntax typical of Rakitin's tallying.
> Apposition agreeing in the accusative: «Богатую», «дворянку», «полковничью дочь» all stand in the accusative, in apposition to «Катерину Ивановну» (the object of «бросить»): rich, a noblewoman, a colonel's daughter. The matching case threads the appositives back to her.
> «купчишка» — a contemptible little merchant: The pejorative diminutive of «купец» (merchant), with the belittling -ишк- suffix: 'a shabby little tradesman'. It strips Samsonov of dignity and underscores the squalor Mitya would marry into.

Из всего сего действительно может столкновение произойти уголовное.  
Out of all of this a criminal collision really could arise.
> Archaic demonstrative «сего»: «Сего» is the genitive of «сей» ('this'), the bookish, archaic demonstrative for «этот/этого». Rakitin slips into elevated, almost legalese diction — fitting before the word «уголовное» — for ironic gravity: 'out of all of this'.
> «уголовное столкновение» — a criminal clash: «Уголовный» means 'criminal' in the legal sense (cf. «уголовный кодекс», criminal code); «столкновение» is a collision or clash. Rakitin foretells, with chilling lightness, the criminal catastrophe the novel will deliver.

А этого брат твой Иван и ждет, тут он и в малине: и Катерину Ивановну приобретет, по которой сохнет, да и шестьдесят ее тысяч приданого тяпнет.  
And that is just what your brother Ivan is waiting for; that's where he sits pretty: he'll win Katerina Ivanovna, the one he's pining for, and pocket her sixty thousand of dowry into the bargain.
> Relative «которой» in its own case: «По которой сохнет» — the relative «которой» is feminine to agree with its antecedent «Катерину Ивановну» but takes the prepositional governed by «по сохнуть по…» ('to pine for'). «Сохнет» (lit. 'dries up') idiomatically means 'wastes away with longing'.
> «в малине» — sitting pretty: «Малина» is literally 'raspberry'; the slang «(быть) в малине» means to be in clover, in a cushy, enviable spot. Rakitin pictures Ivan poised to profit from everyone's ruin.

Маленькому-то человечку и голышу, как он, это и весьма прельстительно для начала.  
For a little man, a pauper like him, that's a very tempting thing to start with.
> Dative experiencer + topic «-то»: The datives «маленькому человечку» and «голышу» name the one for whom the prospect is «прельстительно» ('tempting') — a dative-experiencer construction with no nominative subject. The «-то» on «маленькому» topicalizes the type of man.
> «человечек» and «голыш»: «Человечку» is the diminutive of «человек», 'a little man, a nobody'; «голыш» (from «голый», naked/bare) is a penniless wretch, a have-nothing. Both belittle Ivan's social standing.

И ведь заметь себе: не только Митю не обидит, но даже по гроб одолжит.  
And mark this, too: not only will he do Mitya no wrong, he'll actually put him in his debt to the grave.
> «не только… но даже» correlative: The paired «не только… но даже» ('not only… but even') escalates: he won't merely avoid wronging Mitya, he'll positively oblige him. Both verbs «обидит» and «одолжит» are perfective futures predicting completed outcomes.
> «по гроб» — to the grave: «По гроб» (literally 'up to the coffin') means 'to the end of one's life, for ever'; «одолжить» here is 'to oblige, put under obligation'. Ivan will make Mitya beholden to him for life.

Ведь я наверно знаю, что Митенька сам и вслух, на прошлой неделе еще, кричал в трактире пьяный, с цыганками, что недостоин невесты своей Катеньки, а брат Иван — так вот тот достоин.  
For I know it for certain, that just last week Mitenka himself shouted aloud, drunk, in the tavern with the gypsy girls, that he was unworthy of his betrothed Katenka, but brother Ivan — now there's a man who is worthy of her.
> Reported «что» + short adjective «достоин»: «Что» introduces the reported content of Mitya's shout. «Недостоин»/«достоин» are short predicative forms of «достойный» ('worthy'), governing the genitive «невесты своей» — 'unworthy of his betrothed'. The contrastive «а… так вот тот» pivots to Ivan.
> Diminutives «Митенька» and «Катенька»: «Митенька» (tender form of Dmitri) and «Катенька» (of Katerina) use the affectionate -еньк- suffix. In Rakitin's narration the cosy pet-names rub ironically against the sordid tavern scene he describes.

А сама Катерина Ивановна уж, конечно, такого обворожителя, как Иван Федорович, под конец не отвергнет; ведь она уж и теперь между двумя ими колеблется.  
And Katerina Ivanovna herself, of course, will not in the end reject such a charmer as Ivan Fyodorovich; why, even now she's wavering between the two of them.
> Perfective future: «she won't reject»: «Отвергнет» is the perfective verb «отвергнуть» conjugated like a present, which yields future meaning — a single, decisive future act of rejection. The preceding «не... под конец» frames it as something that, in the end, will not happen.
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'why, after all, you know' — coaxing the listener to grant a point already half-conceded. It gives Rakitin's gossip its insinuating, conspiratorial texture.
> «обворожитель» — a charmer, an enchanter: Built on «ворожить» (to cast spells, divine), «обворожитель» literally casts a 'charm' over its victim. The word carries a faintly mocking, theatrical edge — Rakitin sneers at Ivan's seductive spell over the household.
> Instrumental after «между»: «Между» governs the instrumental here — «двумя ими», 'between the two of them' — and «колеблется» is a reflexive «-ся» verb meaning 'wavers, vacillates'. The middle reflexive turns the verb intransitive, picturing her own inner oscillation.

И чем только этот Иван прельстил вас всех, что вы все пред ним благоговеете?  
And what is it about this Ivan that has so bewitched the whole lot of you, that you all stand before him in awe?
> Instrumental of means: «with what did he bewitch»: «Чем» is the instrumental of «что» — 'by what means' — governed by «прельстил» (perfective, 'enchanted, bewitched'). The case asks literally 'with what did this Ivan ensnare you', a question of instrument rather than object.
> Bookish «пред» + the verb «благоговеть»: «Пред» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед» (before), governing the instrumental «ним». «Благоговеете» ('you stand in awe, revere') is a Church-Slavonic-flavoured verb — solemn diction Rakitin wields sarcastically.

А он над вами же смеется: в малине, дескать, сижу и на ваш счет лакомствую.  
And he's laughing at you all the while: here I sit pretty, he says, feasting at your expense.
> «смеяться над» + insistent «же»: «Смеяться» exists only in the «-ся» form and governs its object with «над» + instrumental ('laughs at you'). The particle «же» here insists — 'and all the while he is laughing at you' — sharpening the irony.
> «дескать» — reportative 'he says': «Дескать» is a colloquial reportative particle marking that the following words are quoted, often skeptically, from someone else's mouth: 'he says, as it were'. It frames Ivan's imagined boast in a mocking, second-hand voice.
> «сидеть в малине» — sitting pretty: Literally 'I sit in the raspberries', «в малине» is an idiom for living in clover, cushily provided for. «Лакомствую» (from «лакомство», a delicacy) means to feast on dainties — Ivan pictured battening on the household's comforts.

— Почему ты всё это знаешь?  
— How do you know all this?
> Familiar «ты» and the present «знаешь»: Alyosha addresses Rakitin with the intimate «ты», the verb «знаешь» (2nd-person present) carrying person and number in its ending, so no pronoun would even be needed — «ты» here adds a note of pointed challenge.

Почему так утвердительно говоришь? — резко и нахмурившись спросил вдруг Алеша.  
Why do you speak so positively? — Alyosha asked suddenly, sharply and with a frown.
> Past gerund «нахмурившись» — having frowned: «Нахмурившись» is a perfective past «деепричастие» from «нахмуриться» (to knit one's brows): 'having frowned / with a frown'. The gerund shares Alyosha's subject and pins the manner of his asking to a single completed gesture.
> Verb-first word order in dialogue tags: Dostoevsky inverts the natural order — verb «спросил», then adverb «вдруг», then subject «Алеша» — a standard narrative rhythm for reporting clauses that throws weight onto the suddenness of the act before naming the speaker.

— А почему ты теперь спрашиваешь и моего ответа вперед боишься?  
— And why are you asking now, and dreading my answer in advance?
> Genitive object of «бояться»: «Бояться» (to fear) governs the genitive, so 'my answer' becomes «моего ответа». The reflexive «-ся» verb takes its complement in the genitive of the thing feared — here Alyosha's dreaded reply.
> «вперёд» — beforehand, in advance: Beyond its literal 'forward', «вперёд» here means 'in advance, ahead of time': dreading the answer before it is even given. The riposte turns Alyosha's question back on him with sly logic.

Значит, сам соглашаешься, что я правду сказал.  
It means you agree yourself that I've told the truth.
> Intensifier «сам» — 'you yourself agree': «Сам» intensifies the dropped subject 'you', insisting that Alyosha by his very question concedes the point. The reflexive «соглашаешься» ('you agree') is a «-ся» verb of mutual/middle sense.
> Reporting «что» + perfective «сказал»: «Что» introduces a subordinate clause of reported fact ('that I told the truth'), and «сказал» is the perfective past — a single completed act of telling, against which the truth now stands. «Правду» is the accusative object.

— Ты Ивана не любишь.  
— You don't like Ivan.
> Animate accusative under negation: «Ивана» is the animate masculine accusative (which borrows the genitive form) — the object of «не любишь». Note that here, with a specific named person, Russian keeps the accusative rather than shifting to a genitive of negation.

Иван не польстится на деньги.  
Ivan won't be tempted by money.
> «польститься на» — to be tempted by: «Польститься» (perfective «-ся» verb) means to be lured or tempted, and governs its bait with «на» + accusative («на деньги»). The perfective future «не польстится» asserts a firm 'he will not be tempted'.

— Быдто?  
— Oh, won't he?
> «Быдто?» — 'Oh, is that so?': A colloquial, slightly slurred form of «будто» (as if / supposedly), thrown out as a one-word skeptical retort: 'You think so? As if!' The eye-dialect spelling marks Rakitin's coarse, sardonic speech.

А красота Катерины Ивановны?  
And the beauty of Katerina Ivanovna?
> Genitive of possession in a verbless line: «Катерины Ивановны» is the genitive ('the beauty of Katerina Ivanovna'), both name and patronymic declining together. The clause has no verb at all — a bare nominal exclamation thrown in as a counter-argument.

Не одни же тут деньги, хотя и шестьдесят тысяч вещь прельстительная.  
It isn't only the money here, though sixty thousand is a tempting thing too.
> Negation + «же»: 'it isn't only the money': «Не одни... деньги» negates exclusivity ('not money alone'), with «одни» the plural of «один» agreeing with «деньги», a plurale tantum. The particle «же» adds insistent emphasis, 'it isn't just the money, after all'.
> Concessive «хотя и» — 'though even': «Хотя» ('although') with reinforcing «и» concedes a point in passing: 'though sixty thousand is indeed a tempting thing'. «Прельстительная» is a short-ish bookish adjective from the same root «прельстить» seen above.

— Иван выше смотрит.  
— Ivan looks higher than that.
> Comparative adverb «выше»: «Выше» is the comparative of «высоко» ('higher'), used here figuratively: Ivan 'aims higher'. Russian comparative adverbs and predicative adjectives share this invariable -е/-ее form.

Иван и на тысячи не польстится.  
Ivan won't be tempted even by the thousands.
> Concessive «и»: 'not even by thousands': Here «и» before «на тысячи» means 'even' — 'he won't be tempted even by the thousands'. «Тысячи» stands in the accusative plural after «на», governed again by «польститься на».

Иван не денег, не спокойствия ищет.  
Ivan is seeking neither money nor peace of mind.
> Genitive after «искать» and double negation: «Искать» (to seek) governs the genitive of an abstract or non-specific object, so 'money' and 'peace' appear as «денег» and «спокойствия». The paired «не... не» negates each in turn — 'seeks neither money nor peace'.

Он мучения, может быть, ищет.  
Perhaps he's seeking torment.
> Genitive of the sought object: «Мучения» ('torment, suffering') stands in the genitive after «искать», continuing the pattern: Ivan paradoxically 'seeks torment'. The fronting of «мучения» before the verb throws the news-weight onto what, of all things, he seeks.
> Parenthetical «может быть»: «Может быть» ('perhaps, maybe') is a frozen parenthetical, set off in the flow of the sentence, hedging Alyosha's intuition about his brother's inner torment.

— Это еще что за сон?  
— And what sort of dream is this, now?
> «что за» — 'what sort of': The idiom «что за» (literally 'what for') means 'what kind of', taking a nominative noun («сон», dream): 'what sort of dream is this?'. The added «ещё» injects scornful impatience.

Ах вы... дворяне!  
Ah, you... noblemen!

— Эх, Миша, душа его бурная.  
— Ah, Misha, his soul is a stormy one.
> «Эх» and the familiar «Миша»: «Эх» is a sighing interjection of rueful feeling. «Миша» is the affectionate short form of Mikhail (Rakitin's first name) — Alyosha softens toward him just as he names the soul of another, Ivan, as «бурная».
> Zero copula: 'his soul is stormy': There is no verb 'to be': in the present, Russian simply juxtaposes subject «душа его» and predicate adjective «бурная» ('stormy'). The long-form nominative adjective here states a settled quality of the soul.

Ум его в плену.  
His mind is in captivity.
> Prepositional «в плену» — 'in captivity': «В плену» is the prepositional of «плен» (captivity), one of those masculine nouns taking a stressed locative -у́ after «в». The verbless clause states a state: his mind is held captive.

В нем мысль великая и неразрешенная.  
There's a great and unresolved idea in him.
> Existential «в нём» + fronted predicate: An existential frame — 'in him [there is] a great and unresolved idea' — with no verb. «Неразрешённая» is a past passive participle ('unresolved') used attributively, agreeing with feminine «мысль».

Он из тех, которым не надобно миллионов, а надобно мысль разрешить.  
He's one of those who need not millions, but to resolve an idea.
> Correlative «тех, которым» + dative impersonal: «Из тех, которым...» is the correlative 'one of those to whom...', with «который» in the dative («которым») as the experiencer of the impersonal «не надобно» ('there is no need'). Under that negated need, «миллионов» appears in the genitive.
> «надобно» — archaic 'is needed': «Надобно» is a bookish, slightly archaic variant of «нужно/надо» ('it is necessary'), lending Alyosha's sentence a grave, almost scriptural cadence as he defines his brother's nature.

— Литературное воровство, Алешка.  
— Literary theft, Alyoshka.
> «Алёшка» — the rough diminutive: Where Alyosha says «Миша» warmly, Rakitin spits «Алёшка»: the -ка suffix on a name is dismissive, even contemptuous, not tender. The naming itself marks the sudden cooling of the exchange.

Ты старца своего перефразировал.  
You're paraphrasing your elder.
> Reflexive possessive «своего»: «Своего» ('your own') refers back to the subject 'you', so «старца своего» is 'your own elder' — using «твоего» would be possible but «свой» is the idiomatic, subject-bound choice. «Старца» is the animate genitive/accusative.

Эк ведь Иван вам загадку задал! — с явною злобой крикнул Ракитин.  
What a riddle Ivan has set you all! — Rakitin cried out with evident spite.
> Exclamatory «Эк» + «ведь» + dative «вам»: «Эк» is an exclamatory particle of astonished disdain ('my, what a...'), reinforced by appealing «ведь». «Вам» is the dative — the people 'to whom' the riddle was set — and «задал» is perfective ('set, posed').
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «С явною злобой» ('with evident spite') uses «явною», the older literary feminine instrumental in -ою (modern -ой). Such full endings are a hallmark of 19th-century narrative prose.

Он даже в лице изменился, и губы его перекосились. — Да и загадка-то глупая, отгадывать нечего.  
His very face changed, and his lips twisted. — And the riddle's a stupid one at that; there's nothing to puzzle out.
> Reflexive «изменился» — he changed: «Измениться» (reflexive «-ся») is the intransitive 'to change, alter', so «в лице изменился» is 'he changed in the face'. The «-ся» turns the verb back on the subject, picturing the change happening to Rakitin himself.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «загадка-то» highlights the known topic — 'the riddle, that is' — with a dismissive shrug: 'and the riddle itself is a stupid one'. This topic-marking «-то» is distinct from the indefinite «кто-то».
> «нечего» + infinitive: 'nothing to puzzle out': The negative «нечего» ('there is nothing to') with an infinitive forms an impersonal construction of absence: 'there's nothing to puzzle out'. Its dative subject is left unexpressed but understood as 'for one'.

Пошевели мозгами — поймешь.  
Use your brains a little — you'll understand it.
> Imperative + perfective future result: «Пошевели» is the imperative ('give a stir, work'), and «мозгами» the instrumental of means ('with your brains'). The bare perfective future «поймёшь» ('you'll understand') states the consequence — a conditional 'do this, and you'll get it' without any 'if'.

Статья его смешна и нелепа.  
His article is ridiculous and absurd.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «Смешна» and «нелепа» are short feminine adjectives ('[is] ridiculous and absurd'), agreeing with «статья». The short form can only predicate, and lends a crisp, categorical verdict to Rakitin's dismissal of Ivan's article.

А слышал давеча его глупую теорию: «Нет бессмертия души, так нет и добродетели, значит, всё позволено».  
Did you hear his stupid theory just now: "There is no immortality of the soul, so there is no virtue either, which means everything is lawful".
> Existential «нет» + genitive: «Нет» ('there is not') forces its subject into the genitive: «бессмертия души» ('of the immortality of the soul'). This genitive of negated existence is the backbone of Ivan's whole syllogism — 'no immortality, so no virtue'.
> «давеча» — a short while ago: «Давеча» is a homely, slightly archaic adverb meaning 'just now, a little while back', common in 19th-century speech. It grounds the quoted theory in something heard moments earlier.

(А братец-то Митенька, кстати, помнишь, как крикнул: «Запомню!»)  
(And brother Mitenka, by the way, remember how he cried out: "I will remember!")
> Diminutives: «братец» and «Митенька»: «Братец» is an affectionate-ironic diminutive of «брат» (dear brother), and «Митенька» the tender form of Dmitri (Mitya). Coupled with the topic-marking «-то», the line drips with mock-fondness as Rakitin recalls Mitya's outburst.
> Perfective «крикнул» — a single cry: «Крикнул» is the perfective past of «кричать/крикнуть», naming one sharp completed act: 'he cried out'. The -ну- suffix marks exactly this momentary, semelfactive sense.

Соблазнительная теория подлецам...  
A theory seductive to scoundrels...
> Dative of the person to whom it appeals: «Подлецам» is the dative plural of «подлец» (scoundrel): a theory 'seductive to scoundrels'. The dative marks those to whom the seduction is directed, leaving the clause verbless and aphoristic.

Я ругаюсь, это глупо... не подлецам, а школьным фанфаронам с «неразрешимою глубиной мыслей».  
I'm losing my temper, this is stupid... not to scoundrels, but to schoolboy braggarts with their "unfathomable depth of thought".
> Reflexive «ругаться» — to curse, rail: «Ругаюсь» is the «-ся» verb 'I'm cursing / losing my temper, railing', here a momentary self-correction. The reflexive gives the verb its intransitive 'flying into abuse' sense without an object.
> «фанфарон» — a braggart: «Фанфарон» (from French fanfaron) is a strutting boaster or blowhard. «Школьным фанфаронам» — 'schoolboy braggarts' — is Rakitin's withering label for Ivan's clever-clever posturing.
> Archaic instrumental «-ою»: «С неразрешимою глубиной мыслей» ('with their unfathomable depth of thought') again uses the bookish feminine instrumental in -ою. The mock-quotation marks signal Rakitin sneering at a pretentious cliché.

Хвастунишка, а суть-то вся: «С одной стороны, нельзя не признаться, а с другой — нельзя не сознаться!»  
A little show-off, and the whole gist of it comes to: "On the one hand, one cannot but admit, and on the other — one cannot but confess!"
> «хвастунишка» — pitiful little braggart: The pejorative diminutive suffix -ишк- shrinks «хвастун» (boaster) into «хвастунишка», a contemptible little show-off. The suffix carries scorn, not size — a small, despicable bragging.
> Double negative «нельзя не» — 'one cannot but': «Нельзя не признаться» pairs the impersonal «нельзя» ('it is impossible') with «не» on the infinitive to mean 'one cannot but admit'. Rakitin parodies the mealy-mouthed both-sidesism of «с одной стороны... с другой».

Вся его теория — подлость!  
His whole theory is baseness!
> Zero copula with a dash: The dash stands in for the absent 'is': «вся его теория — подлость» ('his whole theory [is] baseness'). Both nouns sit in the nominative, the dash marking the predicative equation in the present tense.
> «подлость» — baseness, a vile thing: «Подлость» names a moral category dear to Dostoevsky's lexicon: vileness, a low and dishonourable act. Built from «подлый» (base), it brands Ivan's whole theory as not merely wrong but morally squalid.

Человечество само в себе силу найдет, чтобы жить для добродетели, даже и не веря в бессмертие души!  
Humanity will find the strength within itself to live for virtue, even without believing in the immortality of the soul!
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы жить для добродетели» expresses purpose — 'in order to live for virtue'. When the subject is the same, «чтобы» takes a plain infinitive rather than the past-form irrealis. «Найдёт» is the perfective future, 'will find'.
> Present gerund «не веря» — 'without believing': «Веря» is the imperfective present «деепричастие» of «верить», negated: 'not believing, without believing'. The gerund expresses a simultaneous circumstance sharing the subject 'humanity' — virtuous even while not believing.

В любви к свободе, к равенству, братству найдет...  
It will find it in the love of freedom, of equality, of brotherhood...
> «любовь к» + dative: «Любовь к» ('love of/toward') governs the dative — «к свободе, к равенству, братству». The whole phrase sits in the prepositional «в любви» ('in the love'), naming where humanity will find its strength.

Ракитин разгорячился, почти не мог сдержать себя.  
Rakitin had grown heated, and could scarcely contain himself.
> Reflexive inceptive «разгорячился»: «Разгорячиться» is a perfective «-ся» verb, 'to grow heated, work oneself up'. The prefix раз- adds the inceptive sense of flaring into a state, and «-ся» turns it inward on the subject.
> Reflexive pronoun «себя»: «Сдержать себя» ('to contain oneself') uses the full reflexive pronoun «себя» as object — distinct from the verbal clitic «-ся». «Себя» has no nominative and points back to the subject Rakitin.

Но вдруг, как бы вспомнив что-то, остановился.  
But suddenly, as if remembering something, he stopped.
> «как бы» + past gerund «вспомнив»: «Как бы вспомнив» — 'as if having remembered' — pairs the hedging «как бы» ('as it were') with the perfective past gerund «вспомнив», a completed prior act. «Что-то» is the indefinite 'something' (a specific but unnamed thing).
> Reflexive «остановиться» — to stop: «Остановился» (perfective «-ся») is the intransitive 'he stopped, came to a halt' — the «-ся» making the stopping happen to the subject himself, against the transitive «остановить» ('to stop something').

— Ну довольно, — еще кривее улыбнулся он, чем прежде. — Чего ты смеешься?  
— Well, enough, — he said, smiling more wryly than before. — Why are you laughing?
> Comparative «кривее» — more crookedly: «Кривее» is the comparative of the adverb «криво» ('crookedly'), so «ещё кривее улыбнулся» is 'he smiled still more wryly'. «Чем прежде» ('than before') supplies the standard of comparison.
> Genitive «чего» with «смеяться»: Colloquially «смеяться» can take «чего» (genitive of «что») meaning 'what are you laughing at / why are you laughing'. The reflexive «-ся» verb plus this oblique interrogative gives the question its blunt, spoken feel.

Думаешь, что я пошляк?  
Do you think I'm a vulgar lout?
> «пошляк» — a vulgarian: «Пошляк» (from «пошлый», banal, vulgar) names a peculiarly Russian type: not merely crude but smugly, complacently trivial. It is one of the culture's sharpest insults, and Rakitin dreads being seen as one.

— Нет, я и не думал думать, что ты пошляк.  
— No, it never even entered my mind to think you a vulgar lout.
> Negated «не думал думать»: The figura etymologica «не думал думать» ('I didn't [even] think to think') stacks the verb on itself for emphasis: it never crossed his mind. «Что ты пошляк» reports the supposed thought with «что».

Ты умен, но... оставь, это я сдуру усмехнулся.  
You're clever, but... never mind, that was a foolish smile of mine.
> Imperative «оставь» — 'let it be': «Оставь» is the singular imperative of «оставить» ('to leave'), used idiomatically as 'never mind, drop it'. Stem-final consonant plus stressed ending gives the -и-less -ь imperative form.
> Reflexive «усмехнулся» + adverb «сдуру»: «Усмехнуться» (perfective «-ся») is 'to give a smile/smirk', a single act. «Сдуру» is a fused adverb ('out of foolishness, foolishly'), built from «с» + the genitive of «дурь» — Alyosha excusing his own smile.

Я понимаю, что ты можешь разгорячиться, Миша.  
I understand that you can get heated, Misha.
> Reporting «что» + reflexive infinitive: «Что» introduces the object clause after «понимаю» ('I understand that...'), with «разгорячиться» the perfective reflexive infinitive 'to get heated'. The «-ся» keeps the heating turned on the subject himself.

По твоему увлечению я догадался, что ты сам неравнодушен к Катерине Ивановне, я, брат, это давно подозревал, а потому и не любишь брата Ивана.  
From your warmth I guessed that you're not indifferent to Katerina Ivanovna yourself; I've suspected it a long time, brother, and that's why you don't like our brother Ivan.
> «по» + dative: 'from / by': «По твоему увлечению» ('from your warmth/enthusiasm') uses «по» + dative in its evidential sense, 'judging by'. «Догадался» (perfective reflexive past) means 'I guessed, surmised'.
> Short adjective + «к» + dative: «Неравнодушен» is the short masculine form of «неравнодушный» ('not indifferent'), a predicate adjective, and it governs its object with «к» + dative — 'not indifferent to Katerina Ivanovna'.
> Resultative «а потому» — 'and that's why': «А потому» ('and therefore, and that's why') draws the consequence, with the contrastive «а» softening the join and «и» ('precisely') sharpening it: 'and that is just why you don't like brother Ivan'.

Ты к нему ревнуешь?  
Are you jealous of him?
> «ревновать к» + dative: «Ревновать» (to be jealous) governs the person one is jealous of with «к» + dative — «к нему», 'jealous of him'. The third-person pronoun takes the prepositional н- prefix («нему»).

— И к ее денежкам тоже ревную?  
— And jealous of her money too?
> «денежки» — the dear little money: «Денежки» is the affectionate-ironic diminutive of «деньги» (money), the -еньк- suffix here oozing sarcasm: 'her precious little cash'. Rakitin bitterly anticipates the insult before Alyosha can voice it.

Прибавляй, что ли?  
Go on, add that, why don't you?
> Imperfective imperative «прибавляй»: «Прибавляй» is the imperfective imperative ('go on adding, keep adding'), inviting repeated or continued action — here a goading 'go on, pile it on'. The imperfective imperative often carries this 'get on with it' tone.
> «что ли» — tag of weary challenge: «Что ли» is a colloquial tag particle softening or challenging a statement, here roughly 'why don't you, then?'. It lends the dare a grudging, conversational shrug.

— Нет, я ничего о деньгах не прибавлю, я не стану тебя обижать.  
— No, I'll add nothing about money; I won't insult you.
> Negative concord with «ничего»: «Ничего... не прибавлю» shows negative concord: the «ни»-word «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») requires «не» on the verb too — 'I'll add nothing'. The genitive form fits the negated object.
> «стать» + infinitive as future: «Не стану... обижать» uses «стать» ('to begin/come to') plus an imperfective infinitive as a near-future of intention: 'I won't [go and] insult you'. «Тебя» is the accusative object.

— Верю, потому что ты сказал, но черт вас возьми опять-таки с твоим братом Иваном!  
— I believe it, because you said so, but the devil take you all the same, you and your brother Ivan!
> Causal «потому что»: «Потому что» ('because') opens a subordinate clause of cause, set off by a comma: 'I believe it because you said so'. «Сказал» is the perfective past, the single act of saying that grounds the belief.
> «чёрт возьми» — devil take it: «Чёрт вас возьми» ('the devil take you') is a stock imprecation; «опять-таки» ('all the same, once again') adds exasperation. Such mild oaths pepper Rakitin's speech, marking his earthy, irreligious register.

Не поймете вы никто, что его и без Катерины Ивановны можно весьма не любить.  
Not one of you will grasp that a man can heartily dislike him quite apart from Katerina Ivanovna.
> Negative concord: «не поймёте... никто»: «Никто» ('no one') again triggers «не» on the verb — 'none of you will grasp'. The fronted negated verb «не поймёте» plus apposed «вы никто» throws emphatic weight onto the failure to understand.
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «Можно... не любить» is the impersonal 'one can dislike', with «его» (animate accusative) the object. «Весьма» ('quite, heartily') is a bookish intensifier; «без Катерины Ивановны» ('apart from K.I.') uses «без» + genitive.

И за что я его стану любить, черт возьми!  
And why on earth should I like him, devil take it!
> «за что» — 'for what reason': «За что» ('for what, why on earth') is «за» + accusative «что», asking the grounds. «Стану любить» again is «стать» + infinitive as future of intention: 'why should I [come to] love him'.

Ведь удостоивает же он меня сам ругать.  
After all, he condescends to abuse me himself.
> Double charge: «ведь... же»: Rakitin loads the sentence with both «ведь» ('after all') and insistent «же», dripping sarcasm: 'after all, he does deign...'. «Удостоивает... ругать» means 'condescends to abuse', the verb «удостоить» ironically elevating the insult to an honour.

Почему же я его не имею права ругать?  
Why then haven't I the right to abuse him?
> Genitive after negated «иметь»: «Не имею права» ('I haven't the right') puts «право» into the genitive «права» under negation. «Почему же» fronts the indignant 'why then', with «же» sharpening the rhetorical thrust.

— Я никогда не слыхал, чтоб он хоть что-нибудь сказал о тебе, хорошего или дурного; он совсем о тебе не говорит.  
— I've never heard him say so much as a single word about you, good or bad; he doesn't speak of you at all.
> «чтобы» + past form after a negated verb: After the negated «никогда не слыхал» ('never heard'), the clause takes «чтоб[ы]» plus the past-form «сказал» — the irrealis pattern Russian uses for unattested or denied content: 'never heard that he said'.
> Non-specific «что-нибудь»: «Что-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'anything at all', reinforced by «хоть» ('even so much as'): 'never heard him say so much as anything'. The «-нибудь» series is the 'any' member against specific «что-то».
> «слыхал» — colloquial 'heard': «Слыхал» is the iterative/colloquial past of «слышать» ('to hear'), with a homely, conversational flavour ('I've never heard'), slightly more vernacular than the plain «слышал».

— А я так слышал, что третьего дня у Катерины Ивановны он отделывал меня на чем свет стоит — вот до чего интересовался вашим покорным слугой.  
— Well, I heard that the day before yesterday, at Katerina Ivanovna's, he tore me to shreds — that's how interested he was in your humble servant.
> «третьего дня» — the day before yesterday: A fixed genitive-of-time phrase, literally 'of the third day', meaning 'the day before yesterday'. Such bare genitives of time are a feature of older and literary Russian.
> «на чём свет стоит» — for all he was worth: The idiom «ругать на чём свет стоит» (literally 'on what the world stands') means to abuse someone roundly, ferociously — to tear them to shreds. «Отделывал» here is the imperfective 'was working me over'.
> «ваш покорный слуга» — your humble servant: «Ваш покорный слуга» is the formulaic 'your humble servant', a third-person self-reference used ironically here ('me'). In the instrumental «вашим покорным слугой» after «интересовался» (which governs the instrumental), it drips self-mocking sarcasm.

И кто, брат, кого после этого ревнует — не знаю!  
And just who, brother, is jealous of whom after that — I'm sure I don't know!
> Twin interrogatives «кто... кого»: «Кто» (nominative, the jealous one) and «кого» (animate accusative, the object of jealousy) stand together: 'who is jealous of whom'. The clash of cases lets Rakitin pointedly reverse the question Alyosha put to him.

Изволил выразить мысль, что если я-де не соглашусь на карьеру архимандрита в весьма недалеком будущем и не решусь постричься, то непременно уеду в Петербург и примкну к толстому журналу, непременно к отделению критики, буду писать лет десяток и в конце концов переведу журнал на себя.  
He was good enough to express the opinion that if I won't agree to a career as an archimandrite in the very near future and won't bring myself to take the tonsure, then I'll certainly be off to Petersburg to attach myself to some fat journal, certainly to the criticism section, write for a decade or so, and in the end take the journal over for myself.
> «изволил» — was so good as to: «Изволить» ('to deign, be pleased to') is a courtly, archaic verb here used with heavy sarcasm: Ivan 'was good enough to express the opinion'. The dropped subject and the deferential verb mock Ivan's lordly condescension.
> Real conditional «если... то»: «Если... то» frames a real (not hypothetical) condition: 'if I won't agree..., then I'll certainly...'. Both verbs are perfective futures («соглашусь, уеду, примкну»), chaining the imagined career step by step.
> «-де» — reportative clitic: «-де» is an archaic reportative particle (kin to «дескать»), marking the words as quoted from Ivan's mouth: 'if I, says he, won't agree'. It threads Rakitin's bitter ventriloquism through the whole tirade.

Затем буду опять его издавать и непременно в либеральном и атеистическом направлении, с социалистическим оттенком, с маленьким даже лоском социализма, но держа ухо востро, то есть, в сущности, держа нашим и вашим и отводя глаза дуракам.  
Then I'll go on publishing it, and certainly in a liberal and atheistic direction, with a socialist tinge, even with a little gloss of socialism, but keeping my ear to the ground — that is, in essence, playing both sides and throwing dust in the eyes of fools.
> Present gerund «держа» + idiom: «Держа» is the imperfective present «деепричастие» of «держать» ('holding, keeping'), a simultaneous circumstance. «Держать ухо востро» ('to keep one's ear sharp') is the idiom 'to stay on one's guard'.
> «и нашим и вашим» — playing both sides: The idiom «(служить) и нашим и вашим» — literally 'to ours and to yours' — means to serve both parties at once, to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. «Отводя глаза» ('averting eyes') completes the picture: throwing dust in fools' eyes.

Конец карьеры моей, по толкованию твоего братца, в том, что оттенок социализма не помешает мне откладывать на текущий счет подписные денежки и пускать их при случае в оборот, под руководством какого-нибудь жидишки, до тех пор, пока не выстрою капитальный дом в Петербурге, с тем чтобы перевесть в него и редакцию, а в остальные этажи напустить жильцов.  
The end of my career, according to your dear brother's interpretation, is that the tinge of socialism won't keep me from setting aside the subscription money in a current account and putting it into circulation, when the chance offers, under the management of some little Jew, until I've built myself a fine block of flats in Petersburg, with the idea of moving the editorial office into it as well and letting out the remaining floors to tenants.
> «по» + dative; mocking diminutive «братца»: «По толкованию» ('according to the interpretation') is «по» + dative in its 'according to' sense. «Твоего братца» is the sneering diminutive of «брат» in the genitive — 'your dear little brother's' reading of Rakitin's future.
> «пока не» + perfective future: 'until': «Пока не выстрою» means 'until I build', where «пока не» ('until') takes a perfective future — the не is grammatical, not a real negation: the action goes on up to that completed point.
> «жидишка» — a slur, in pejorative diminutive: «Жид» is an ethnic slur for a Jew, and the suffix -ишк- adds belittling contempt ('some wretched little Jew'). The word is bigoted; we keep it because it characterizes Rakitin's casual antisemitism and the period's prejudice, not the narrator's view.
> Subscription money put 'into circulation': «Подписные денежки» are subscribers' fees (again the sarcastic diminutive «денежки»); «пускать в оборот» means to put money into circulation, to invest or lend it out at interest. The phrase pins Rakitin's imagined hypocrisy: a socialist editor quietly speculating.

Даже место дому назначил: у Нового Каменного моста через Неву, который проектируется, говорят, в Петербурге, с Литейной на Выборгскую...  
He even fixed on the site for the house: by the New Stone Bridge over the Neva, which they say is being planned in Petersburg, running from the Liteiny side over to the Vyborg side...
> Relative «который» + passive «-ся»: «Который проектируется» ('which is being planned') joins a relative clause; «проектируется» is the imperfective passive in «-ся» — 'is [being] projected'. «Который» agrees in gender with «мост» but takes nominative as its clause's subject.
> Dative «дому» — site 'for the house': «Назначить место дому» assigns a site 'to/for the house', with «дому» in the dative as the beneficiary. The fronted «даже место» ('even the site') throws the emphasis onto how absurdly far Ivan's imagined scheme went.

— Ах, Миша, ведь это, пожалуй, как есть всё и сбудется, до последнего даже слова! — вскричал вдруг Алеша, не удержавшись и весело усмехаясь.  
"Ah, Misha, you know it may all turn out exactly as you say, down to the very last word!" Alyosha cried out suddenly, unable to hold back, grinning merrily.
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to what the hearer already half-knows — 'you know', 'after all'. Here it softens Alyosha's sudden delight into shared confidence: the prediction really might come true. English carries it only through tone.
> Perfective future «сбудется»: «Сбудется» (from perfective «сбыться», to come true) is conjugated like a present but means the future — a single completed outcome. Set against the imperfective «есть всё», it frames the whole prophecy as something that will fully come to pass.
> Paired gerunds: prior and simultaneous: Two деепричастия colour Alyosha's outburst at once: the perfective past «не удержавшись» ('having failed to hold back') names what happened just before, while the imperfective present «усмехаясь» ('grinning') runs alongside the main verb «вскричал». Both share its subject.

— И вы в сарказмы пускаетесь, Алексей Федорович.  
"So now you're taking to sarcasm too, Alexei Fyodorovich."
> Reflexive «пускаться» + «в» + accusative: The -ся verb «пускаться/пуститься во что-то» means to launch into, take to (a pursuit). With «в» governing the accusative plural «сарказмы», Rakitin charges Alyosha with embarking on sarcasm. The plural of an abstract noun adds a faintly mocking, bookish ring.
> Name + patronymic as cool address: Rakitin addresses Alyosha by full first name and patronymic «Алексей Фёдорович» — the respectful, distancing register, pointed here because the two are familiars who normally use «ты». The formality signals wounded stiffness.

— Нет, нет, я шучу, извини.  
"No, no, I'm only joking, forgive me."
> Singular familiar imperative «извини»: «Извини» is the perfective imperative of «извинить», in the bare singular form with no «-те» — Alyosha speaks to Rakitin as an intimate «ты», precisely the warmth Rakitin has just refused him.

У меня совсем другое на уме.  
"I have something else entirely on my mind."
> Idiom «на уме» — on one's mind: «У меня на уме» literally 'on the mind' (prepositional «уме» after «на») is the set idiom for what someone is privately thinking or scheming about. «Совсем другое» — 'something else entirely' — marks a deliberate change of subject.

Позволь, однако: кто бы тебе мог такие подробности сообщить, и от кого бы ты мог о них слышать.  
"But wait, all the same: who could have told you such details, and from whom could you have heard about them?"
> Conditional «бы» for a guarded wondering: The particle «бы» with the past-form «мог» turns a flat question into a hypothetical musing — 'who could possibly have...'. «Бы» leans on «кто», the first stressed word, rather than on the verb. The same structure repeats in «от кого бы ты мог... слышать».
> «Позволь» — let me, allow me: «Позволь» is the singular imperative of perfective «позволить» ('permit'), used idiomatically to pause a conversation — 'wait, let me think'. «Однако» here is the adversative 'all the same, however', staging Alyosha's second thoughts.

Ты не мог ведь быть у Катерины Ивановны лично, когда он про тебя говорил?  
"You couldn't have been with Katerina Ivanovna in person, after all, while he was talking about you?"
> Negated possibility with «ведь»: «Не мог быть» negates the modal «мочь» plus infinitive — 'you couldn't have been'. The wedged-in «ведь» appeals to shared logic ('after all, surely'), turning the line into a half-rhetorical check rather than a real question.
> «У» + genitive for 'at someone's': «У Катерины Ивановны» — the preposition «у» governs the genitive to mean 'at/with' a person, i.e. at her place. The personal name and patronymic both decline: «Катерина Ивановна» → «Катерины Ивановны».

— Меня не было, зато был Дмитрий Федорович, и я слышал это своими ушами от Дмитрия же Федоровича то есть, если хочешь, он не мне говорил, а я подслушал разумеется поневоле, потому что у Грушеньки в ее спальне сидел и выйти не мог всё время, пока Дмитрий Федорович в следующей комнате находился.  
"I wasn't there, but Dmitri Fyodorovich was, and I heard it with my own ears from Dmitri Fyodorovich himself — that is, if you must know, he wasn't speaking to me; I overheard it, against my will of course, because I was sitting in Grushenka's bedroom and couldn't come out the whole time Dmitri Fyodorovich was in the next room."
> Genitive of negation in a negated existential: 'I wasn't there' is «меня не было» — the absent subject stands obligatorily in the genitive «меня» with the neuter «не было». Russian denies existence by withholding the nominative entirely, a pattern foreign to English.
> Emphatic «же» — from Dmitri himself: Here «же» is the insistent particle wedged into the name: 'from Dmitri Fyodorovich himself, of all people'. It underscores that the source was Dmitri's own mouth, sharpening the awkwardness of the admission.
> Perfective «подслушал» — caught by overhearing: «Подслушать» (perfective) means to overhear/eavesdrop as a single completed act; the prefix «под-» carries a sense of doing something stealthily, from under. The perfective past pins it as one event, not a habit.
> «Поневоле» — against one's will: «Поневоле» is an adverb meaning 'willy-nilly, unavoidably, against one's will' — built on «неволя» (un-freedom, captivity). Alyosha pleads that the eavesdropping was forced on him by circumstance.
> «Грушенька» — a tender diminutive: «Грушенька» is the affectionate-diminutive of «Аграфена/Груша», with the endearing suffix «-еньк-». The name carries warmth and a touch of the intimate even in passing, contrasting with the brutal «публичная девка» Rakitin will hurl later.

— Ах да, я и забыл, ведь она тебе родственница...  
"Ah yes, I'd forgotten — she's a relation of yours, isn't she..."
> Zero copula with a dative of relation: No verb 'to be' appears in the present: «она тебе родственница» — literally 'she [is] to-you a relation'. The dative «тебе» marks the person to whom she is kin, and the nominative «родственница» is the bare predicate the zero copula leaves uninflected.

— Родственница?  
"A relation?"

Это Грушенька-то мне родственница? — вскричал вдруг Ракитин, весь покраснев  
"Grushenka — a relation of mine?" Rakitin cried out suddenly, flushing all over.
> The topic-clitic «-то» in incredulity: The hyphenated «-то» pins «Грушенька» as the astonished topic — 'Grushenka, of all people, a relation to ME?' This is the emphatic topic-marking «-то», distinct from the indefinite «кто-то». Word order fronts the named topic before the comment «родственница».
> Perfective gerund «покраснев»: «Покраснев» is the perfective past деепричастие of «покраснеть» (to redden) — 'having flushed', the change of colour completing just as he cries out. «Весь» ('all over') intensifies it. The narration packs Rakitin's reaction into one adverbial phrase.

— Да ты с ума спятил, что ли?  
"Have you gone out of your mind, or what?"
> «Спятить» — to go off one's head: «С ума спятил» is rough colloquial for 'gone crazy, lost it' — «спятить» on its own already means to go mad, with «с ума» ('off one's mind') reinforcing it. The blunt register marks Rakitin's flash of genuine rage.
> Tag particle «что ли»: «Что ли» is a colloquial sentence-tag expressing doubting surprise — 'or what?, eh?'. It contains the interrogative «ли» fused into an idiom, lending the question a jabbing, confrontational tone.

Мозги не в порядке  
"Your brains are out of order."
> «Не в порядке» — out of order: «Не в порядке» literally 'not in order' is the idiom for something being amiss or malfunctioning; applied to «мозги» ('brains', plural) it is a dismissive 'you're not right in the head'. The verbless construction is curt and dialogue-blunt.

— А что?  
"Why, what is it?"
> The hinge-particle «а»: «А что?» — 'why?, what is it?' — opens with the mild contrastive «а», a topic-shifting 'and/but' with no real opposition. It is Alyosha gently pressing back, an untranslatable conversational pivot.

Разве не родственница?  
"She isn't a relation, then?"
> «Разве» for surprised doubt: «Разве» introduces a question coloured by surprise or disbelief — 'is she really not a relation, then?'. Paired with the negation «не», it expresses Alyosha's puzzled retreat from his earlier assumption.

Я так слышал...  
"That's how I heard it..."
> Imperfective «слышал» — heard it as report: «Слышал» is the imperfective past — Alyosha reports a piece of received hearsay as a general fact ('that's what I heard'), not a single pointed event. The trailing «...» leaves the claim hanging, half-retracted.

— Где ты мог это слышать?  
"Where could you have heard such a thing?"
> Modal «мог» + imperfective infinitive: «Мог слышать» pairs the past of «мочь» with the imperfective infinitive «слышать» — 'could have heard'. The imperfective frames the hearing as an open, repeatable possibility ('where might you have been hearing such a thing'), suiting an incredulous demand.

Нет, вы, господа Карамазовы, каких-то великих и древних дворян из себя корчите, тогда как отец твой бегал шутом по чужим столам да при милости на кухне числился.  
"No, you gentlemen Karamazovs put on airs as if you were some great and ancient nobility, when in fact your father went running about as a buffoon at other men's tables and was kept on in the kitchen out of charity."
> Idiom «корчить из себя» with reflexive «себя»: «Корчить из себя» (literally 'to contort out of oneself') means to pose as, put on airs of being. The reflexive pronoun «себя» — which has no nominative — points back to the subject «вы». The whole jab: 'you make yourselves out to be grand old nobility'.
> Concessive «тогда как» — whereas: «Тогда как» is a bookish subordinating conjunction meaning 'whereas, while in fact', setting the pretension against the squalid reality of the elder Karamazov's past. It opens a sharp adversative clause.
> «Шут» and sponging at other men's tables: «Шут» is a fool/buffoon; «бегал шутом» uses the instrumental of role ('ran around AS a buffoon'). «По чужим столам» evokes a sponger going from one rich household's dinner table to another — the disgrace Rakitin throws at the Karamazov name.

Положим, я только поповский сын и тля пред вами, дворянами, но не оскорбляйте же меня так весело и беспутно.  
"Granted, I'm only a priest's son and a mere louse before you noblemen — but don't insult me so gaily and so wantonly."
> Concessive «положим» — granted, suppose: «Положим» is the first-person plural imperative of «положить» used as a fixed concessive particle: 'let's grant, suppose, say'. It opens Rakitin's grudging admission before the sharp «но» that follows.
> «Тля» — a louse, a nothing: «Тля» literally an aphid/plant-louse, used figuratively for a contemptible nonentity. Rakitin bitterly casts himself as «тля пред вами, дворянами» — an insect before the noblemen — in caustic, self-lacerating self-abasement.
> Archaic «пред» + instrumental: «Пред» is the elevated/old variant of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «вами». The clipped form lends a deliberately bookish, almost biblical solemnity to the louse-before-the-mighty image.
> Negated imperative with insistent «же»: «Не оскорбляйте» is the negated imperfective imperative ('don't insult'), and «же» drives it home as an urgent appeal — 'do not, then, insult me so'. The «-те» marks plural/distancing address, matching the formal «вы».

У меня тоже честь есть, Алексей Федорович.  
"I have my honor too, Alexei Fyodorovich."
> Possession with «у» + genitive and «есть»: Russian 'I have honour too' is «у меня есть честь» — literally 'by me there is honour', with «у» governing genitive «меня» and existential «есть». The retained «есть» (often dropped) here insists on the bare fact of possession: he too has honour.

Я Грушеньке не могу быть родней, публичной девке, прошу понять-с!  
"I cannot be kin to Grushenka, a public woman — understand that, if you please, sir!"
> Instrumental of the predicate «родней»: After «быть» the predicate noun goes in the instrumental: «быть роднёй» ('to be kin'). The infinitive construction frames kinship as an assumed role, the case Russian reserves for predicates of «быть»/«стать» outside the present.
> «Публичная девка» — a public woman: «Публичная девка» is a harsh period euphemism for a prostitute (literally 'public girl'). In apposition to «Грушеньке» (dative) it is the crude charge Rakitin flings; «девка» itself is already coarse for a woman of low standing.
> The servile particle «-с»: The clitic «-с» appended to «понять» is the abbreviated «сударь/сударыня» ('sir/madam'), a deferential — and here sarcastically obsequious — tic of 19th-century speech. Rakitin's «прошу понять-с» mocks even as it bristles.

Ракитин был в сильном раздражении.  
Rakitin was in a state of violent irritation.
> «Быть в» + prepositional for a state: «Был в сильном раздражении» — 'was in a state of strong irritation' — uses «в» + prepositional to name an emotional condition, with the adjective «сильном» agreeing with «раздражении» in the prepositional. A common Russian way to render an inner state as a place one is 'in'.

— Извини меня ради бога, я никак не мог предполагать, и притом какая она публичная?  
"Forgive me, for God's sake, I could never have supposed it — and besides, how is she a public woman?"
> «Ради» + genitive — for the sake of: «Ради бога» ('for God's sake') uses the preposition «ради» governing the genitive «бога». A formulaic plea for pardon — note the lowercase «бога» here marks the worn-down idiom rather than direct invocation.
> Negative concord with «никак»: «Никак не мог» piles the ни-adverb «никак» ('in no way') onto the negated verb — 'I could in no way have supposed'. Russian requires this double negation (negative concord): the ни-word never cancels the «не», it intensifies it.

Разве она... такая? — покраснел вдруг Алеша. — Повторяю тебе, я так слышал, что родственница.  
"Is she really... that sort?" Alyosha suddenly flushed. "I tell you again, that's how I heard it — that she was a relation."
> «Разве» + «такая» — really that sort?: «Разве» again frames a startled, reluctant question; «такая» ('such, that kind') is the demonstrative euphemism Alyosha shrinks from spelling out. The ellipsis stages his embarrassment, mirrored by «покраснел» (he flushed).
> Reporting «что» — heard that...: «Слышал, что родственница» uses the subordinating «что» ('that') to report a fact at second hand. Russian sets the clause off with a comma; the predicate «родственница» again stands as a bare nominative with zero copula.

Ты к ней часто ходишь и сам мне говорил, что ты с нею связей любви не имеешь...  
"You go to see her often, and you told me yourself that you have no ties of love with her..."
> Multidirectional «ходить» for habit: «Ходишь» is the multidirectional motion verb «ходить» — going there repeatedly, by habit — not the one-trip «идти». With «часто» ('often') it captures Rakitin's regular visits. «К ней» ('to her') uses «к» + dative for motion toward a person.
> Genitive of negation: «связей не имеешь»: Under the negated «не имеешь» the object shifts to the genitive: «связей любви» ('ties of love'), genitive plural. Negating «иметь» regularly pulls its object out of the accusative into the genitive — a classic genitive-of-negation.

Вот я никогда не думал, что уж ты-то ее так презираешь!  
"There, I never imagined that you of all people despised her so!"
> «Уж» + «ты-то»: you of all people: The particle «уж» intensifies, and the clitic «-то» on «ты» singles out the topic emphatically — 'that YOU, of all people'. Together they voice Alyosha's surprised reproach that Rakitin specifically should despise her.
> Negative concord with «никогда»: «Никогда не думал» — 'never thought' — again shows obligatory double negation: the ни-adverb «никогда» co-occurs with «не», one negation expressed twice as Russian grammar demands.

Да неужели она достойна того?  
"And does she really deserve it?"
> «Неужели» — surely not?: «Неужели» is the particle of incredulous astonishment — 'is it really possible that...?'. Here Alyosha wonders whether Grushenka truly deserves («достойна») such contempt. The short adjective «достойна» (+ genitive «того») predicates the state.

— Если я ее посещаю, то на то могу иметь свои причины, ну и довольно с тебя.  
"If I visit her, then I may have my own reasons for it, and that's enough for you."
> «Если..., то...» correlative: The conditional «если» ('if') is answered by the resumptive «то» ('then') — a tidy correlative pairing. «На то» ('for that') points back with «на» + accusative neuter «то», meaning 'for it'. The imperfective «посещаю» states a habitual fact.
> Reflexive possessive «свои»: «Свои причины» ('my own reasons') uses the reflexive possessive «свой», which points back to the clause's subject «я». Russian prefers «свой» over «мои» here precisely because the reasons belong to the speaker-subject.
> «Довольно с тебя» — that's enough for you: «Довольно с тебя» (literally 'enough off you', «с» + genitive «тебя») is the idiom 'that'll do for you, mind your own business' — a brusque shut-down of further questions.

А насчет родства, так скорей твой братец али даже сам батюшка навяжет ее тебе, а не мне, в родню.  
"As for kinship, it's far more likely that your dear brother, or even your papa himself, will foist her on you as a relation than on me."
> Perfective future «навяжет»: «Навяжет» is the perfective future of «навязать» ('to foist, force on') — a single completed action seen ahead in time. «Скорей» ('sooner, more likely') sets up the comparison: more likely they than I will saddle you with her as kin.
> Diminutive «братец» — dear/precious brother: «Братец» is the diminutive of «брат» with the «-ец» suffix; in Rakitin's mouth it is sarcastic rather than tender — 'your precious brother'. «Батюшка» likewise is an affectionate-respectful 'dear father/papa' turned mocking here.
> Folksy «али» for «или»: «Али» is a colloquial, rustic variant of «или» ('or'). Sprinkled through Rakitin's speech here (and in the lines that follow), it lends his diction a homely, lower-register, half-mocking coloring.

Ну вот и дошли.  
"Well, here we are, we've arrived."
> Prefixed perfective of motion «дойти»: «Дошли» is the perfective past of «дойти» ('to reach on foot, arrive'), the prefix «до-» giving the sense of reaching a goal. Like «прийти», a directional prefix converts the motion verb into an ordinary perfective — 'we've arrived'.

Ступай-ка на кухню лучше.  
"You'd do better to take yourself off to the kitchen."
> Imperative «ступай» softened by «-ка»: «Ступай» is the singular imperative of «ступать» ('go, get along'), a slightly old/folksy 'off you go'. The clitic «-ка» softens or coaxes the command — 'do go along now'. A dig: he sends Alyosha back to the kitchen like a servant.

Ай! что тут такое, что это?  
"Hey! What's going on here, what is this?"
> «Что такое» — what's the matter: «Что тут такое?» ('what's going on here?') is the set interrogative «что такое» with «тут» ('here') inserted. The neuter demonstrative «такое' substantivises into 'what sort of thing', voicing sudden alarm.

Аль опоздали?  
"Are we too late?"
> Folk-particle «аль» — or, can it be that: «Аль» (also «али») is a colloquial, dialectal contraction meaning 'or / surely not', opening an anxious guessing question. It recurs through Rakitin's excited patter at the gate, marking his earthy, popular speech.
> Perfective «опоздать» — to be late: «Опоздали» is the perfective past of «опоздать» ('to be/come late'), a single completed result — 'we've missed it'. The bare verb with dropped pronoun ('we') relies on the «-ли» ending to mark plural past.

Да не могли же они так скоро отобедать?  
"Surely they couldn't have finished dinner so soon?"
> Stacked particles «да... же»: «Да» opens with an exclamatory 'why, surely', and «же» insists — 'surely they couldn't have...'. The cluster of particles around the negated «не могли» conveys Rakitin's incredulous reasoning aloud, a texture English renders only by intonation.
> «Отобедать» — to finish dining: «Отобедать» (perfective) is 'to dine, to have finished dinner' — the prefix «от-» marking completion of the meal. A slightly formal, period word for getting through the дворянский dinner with the Father Superior.

Аль тут опять что Карамазовы напрокудили?  
"Or have the Karamazovs been up to some mischief here again?"
> «Напрокудить» — to get up to mischief: «Напрокудить» is a rare, dialectal/colloquial verb for kicking up trouble, playing a nasty prank, making a mess of things. Its earthy flavour fits Rakitin's gleeful suspicion that the Karamazovs have caused yet another disgrace.

Наверно так.  
"That must be it."

Вот и батюшка твой, и Иван Федорович за ним.  
"There's your papa, and Ivan Fyodorovich after him."
> «За» + instrumental — after, behind him: «За ним» ('after/behind him') uses «за» governing the instrumental «ним» to mark following motion. With the verb 'comes' elided, the bare phrase paints Ivan trailing his father out — vivid, telegraphic reportage.

Это они от игумена вырвались.  
"They've torn themselves away from the Father Superior."
> Reflexive «вырваться» + «от» + genitive: «Вырвались» (perfective -ся verb «вырваться», 'to tear oneself free') with «от игумена» ('from the Father Superior', «от» + genitive) suggests an abrupt, almost violent escape from the dinner — exactly the scandal the gossip senses.

Вот отец Исидор с крыльца кричит им что-то вослед.  
"There's Father Isidor shouting something after them from the porch."
> Archaic «вослед» — after, in pursuit: «Вослед» ('after, in the wake of') is the elevated/old variant of «вслед», governing the dative «им». The bookish form lends a faint solemnity to the image of Father Isidor calling after the departing party.

Да и батюшка твой кричит и руками махает, верно бранится.  
"And your papa is shouting too, and waving his arms — he's surely cursing."
> Instrumental of means «руками»: «Махает руками» ('waves his arms') puts the body part in the instrumental «руками» — the means by which the action is performed. «Махает» is a colloquial present beside the standard «машет», fitting the breathless live narration.
> Reflexive «браниться» — to curse, rail: «Бранится» is a -ся verb meaning to swear, scold, rail (from «бранить», to abuse). The reflexive here is the middle/intransitive use — he is in a state of cursing — common with verbs of quarrelling and emotion.

Ба, да вон и Миусов в коляске уехал, видишь едет.  
"Bah, and there goes Miusov driving off in his carriage — see, he's leaving."
> Prefixed perfective «уехать» — to drive off: «Уехал» is the perfective past of «уехать» ('to depart by vehicle'), the prefix «у-» marking motion away. «В коляске» ('in a carriage', «в» + prepositional) names the conveyance — Miusov leaving in his open carriage.
> Interjection «ба!» — well, look here!: «Ба!» is an exclamation of surprised recognition — 'ah!, well now!, look at that!'. It punctuates Rakitin's running commentary as each figure bursts from the monastery into view.

Вот и Максимов-помещик бежит — да тут скандал; значит, не было обеда!  
"And there's Maximov the landowner running — yes, there's a scandal here; it means there was no dinner!"
> Genitive of negation: «не было обеда»: 'There was no dinner' is «не было обеда» — the negated existential «не было» (neuter) forces its subject into the genitive «обеда». Russian denies that the dinner existed by withholding the nominative, the genitive-of-negation at work.

Уж не прибили ли они игумена?  
"Surely they haven't gone and beaten the Father Superior?"
> «Уж не... ли?» — surely they haven't?: The frame «уж не... ли?» builds a question of anxious suspicion — 'surely they haven't gone and...?'. The interrogative «ли» follows the focused negated verb «не прибили», while «уж» adds the worried 'surely'. A favourite Dostoevskian turn.
> Perfective «прибить» — to beat, thrash: «Прибили» is the perfective past of «прибить» ('to beat up, give a thrashing'), a single completed act. The animate object «игумена» takes the genitive-like accusative (он → его pattern) marking it as a living being.

Али их, пожалуй, прибили?  
"Or has someone, perhaps, beaten them?"
> Indefinite agent in «их прибили»: With no stated subject, «их прибили» ('they were beaten' / 'someone beat them') uses a third-plural verb to express an unnamed agent — a common Russian impersonal turn. The accusative «их» is the object; «пожалуй» softens to 'perhaps'.

Вот бы стоило!..  
"It would have served them right!.."
> Wishful «бы» without a clause: «Вот бы стоило!» — 'it would have served them right!' — is the irrealis particle «бы» with the neuter past «стоило» ('would have been worth it'), no subject, expressing a relishing wish. «Бы» here leans on the opening «вот».

Ракитин восклицал не напрасно.  
Rakitin had not been exclaiming for nothing.
> Imperfective «восклицал» for repeated outcry: «Восклицал» is the imperfective past — Rakitin had been exclaiming, repeatedly and as a process, not in one shout. «Не напрасно» ('not in vain') confirms in narratorial voice that his excited guesses were justified.

Скандал действительно произошел, неслыханный и неожиданный.  
A scandal had indeed occurred, one unheard-of and wholly unexpected.
> Past passive participle «неслыханный»: «Неслыханный» ('unheard-of') is a past passive participle of «слышать» with the negative «не-», long-form, agreeing with masculine «скандал». Used adjectivally, it pairs with «неожиданный' ('unexpected') to stress how extraordinary the scandal was.
> Perfective «произойти» — to occur: «Произошёл» is the perfective past of «произойти» ('to take place, happen'), marking the scandal as a single accomplished event that moves the narrative forward — against the imperfective background of Rakitin's exclaiming just before.

Всё произошло «по вдохновению».  
It had all happened "by inspiration."
> «По» + dative — according to inspiration: «По вдохновению» ('by/according to inspiration') uses «по» with the dative «вдохновению». The narrator's scare quotes «...» mark it as a borrowed phrase — events unfolded 'on inspiration', i.e. on a sudden, unpremeditated impulse.
> Neuter «всё» as subject with perfective: «Всё произошло» ('it all happened') takes the neuter pronoun «всё» ('everything') as subject, agreeing with the neuter perfective past «произошло». A summarising sentence that gathers the whole scandal into one completed whole.
---

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.