# The Brothers Karamazov, The Scandalous Scene

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c8. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b2-c8.json.


Когда Миусов и Иван Федорович входили уже к игумену, то в Петре Александровиче, как в искренно порядочном и деликатном человеке, быстро произошел один деликатный в своем роде процесс, ему стало стыдно сердиться.  
As Miusov and Ivan Fyodorovich were already entering the Father Superior's quarters, there took place within Pyotr Alexandrovich, as in a genuinely decent and refined man, a refined little process of its own kind: he grew ashamed of being angry.
> Imperfective for the unfolding background: «входили» is imperfective past — they were in the act of entering when the inner event broke in. The imperfective sets the standing scene against which the perfective «произошел … процесс» (a single completed shift) then happens.
> «в» + prepositional for location of an event: The process took place «в Петре Александровиче» — «в» governs the prepositional to locate where, inside whom, it happened. The parenthetical «как в … человеке» repeats the same case to characterize him.
> Dative experiencer of shame: A textbook impersonal: no nominative subject, the person affected in the dative «ему» plus the neuter predicative «стыдно». Literally "to-him it-became shameful to be-angry" — exactly the inner-life construction Dostoevsky leans on.

Он почувствовал про себя, что дрянного Федора Павловича, в сущности, должен бы был он до того не уважать, что не следовало бы ему терять свое хладнокровие в келье старца и так самому потеряться, как оно вышло.  
He felt, privately, that he ought really to have held the wretched Fyodor Pavlovich in such contempt that he should never have lost his composure in the elder's cell and let himself go as he had.
> Conditional «бы» — what ought to have been: «бы» joined to the past «был» makes the whole clause irrealis: "he really ought to have despised…" The doubled «должен бы был» piles modal and conditional to mark an unfulfilled obligation, and «бы» leans on the first stressed word rather than the verb.
> Impersonal «следовало бы» + dative: Another subjectless, conditional construction: invariable neuter «следовало» ("it was fitting") with «бы» and the dative «ему» — "he should not have lost." The dative names the one bound by the propriety.
> «дрянной» — trashy, contemptible: From the noun «дрянь» (rubbish, trash), «дрянной» is dismissive and colloquial: "the trashy, good-for-nothing Fyodor Pavlovich." It carries Miusov's snobbish disdain in a single epithet.

«По крайней мере монахи-то уж тут не виноваты ни в чем, — решил он вдруг на крыльце игумена, — а если и тут порядочный народ (этот отец Николай игумен тоже, кажется, из дворян), то почему же не быть с ними милым, любезным и вежливым?.. Спорить не буду, буду даже поддакивать, завлеку любезностью и… и…. наконец, докажу им, что я не компания этому Эзопу, этому шуту, этому пьеро́ и попался впросак точно так же, как и они все…»  
"The monks, at any rate, are not to blame for any of it," he decided all at once on the Superior's steps, "and if here too the people are decent — this Father Nikolai, the Superior, seems to be of the gentry as well — then why not be pleasant with them, gracious and polite?.. I won't argue, I'll even agree with everything, I'll win them over with courtesy and… and… in the end I'll prove to them that I am no associate of that Aesop, that buffoon, that Pierrot, and that I was taken in just as much as the rest of them were…"
> Topic-marking «-то» and negative concord: The clitic «-то» on «монахи» flags the monks as the known topic being singled out: "the monks, at least…" Then «не … ни в чем» shows obligatory negative concord — both «не» and «ни» negating together for one English negative.
> Instrumental predicate after «быть»: After the infinitive «быть» the predicate adjectives go in the instrumental — «милым, любезным, вежливым» — "to be pleasant, gracious, polite." The insistent particle «же» colors the rhetorical question ("why on earth not…?").
> Compound imperfective future with «буду»: Both clauses build the future analytically: «буду» plus imperfective infinitive («спорить», «поддакивать»), naming ongoing intended behavior. Russian fronts «спорить не буду» for emphasis — "argue I will not."
> «поддакивать» — to say yes to everything: A vivid verb formed on «да» (yes) with prefix «под-»: to keep chiming "yes, yes," to agree obsequiously with whatever is said. Miusov plans calculated flattery.
> Idiom «попасть впросак» — to be caught out: A fixed idiom meaning to land in an awkward fix, to be made a fool of. The opaque «впросак» survives only here; originally a «просак» was a rope-twisting machine one could get dangerously caught in.

Спорные же порубки в лесу и эту ловлю рыбы (где всё это — он и сам не знал) он решил им уступить окончательно, раз навсегда, сегодня же, тем более что всё это очень немногого стоило, и все свои иски против монастыря прекратить.  
The disputed timber-felling in the forest and that fishing right — where exactly they lay he himself did not know — he resolved to yield to them outright, once and for all, this very day, all the more since the whole thing was worth very little, and to drop all his suits against the monastery.
> Fronted object + topic-marking word order: The objects «порубки … и … ловлю» are hoisted to the front as the topic, with «он решил им уступить» (resolved to yield them) trailing as comment — free Russian order put to rhetorical use. The particle «же» softly marks a turn to a new point.
> Perfective infinitive of resolve: «уступить» and «прекратить» are perfective infinitives — single, decisive, completed acts of giving-up and dropping. They suit the finality of «раз навсегда» (once for all). The clitic «же» on «сегодня» insists: "this very day."
> «порубки» — timber-cuttings, the disputed felling: From «рубить» (to chop/fell), «порубка» is the cutting of timber — here the contested logging rights on monastery land that Miusov has been litigating. A concrete legal-economic grievance behind the high spiritual scene.

Все эти благие намерения еще более укрепились, когда они вступили в столовую отца игумена.  
All these good intentions grew stronger still when they entered the Father Superior's dining room.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «укрепились» (from «укрепиться») uses «-сь» to make the verb intransitive: the intentions "strengthened themselves," i.e. grew stronger of their own accord — a change-of-state middle, no external agent named.
> Perfective «вступили» + «в» of motion: Perfective «вступили» marks the single completed act of entering, and «в столовую» takes the accusative because «в» here expresses motion into. Contrast the prepositional «в столовой» (location) elsewhere in the chapter.

Столовой у того, впрочем, не было, потому что было у него всего по-настоящему две комнаты во всем помещении, правда гораздо обширнейшие и удобнейшие, чем у старца.  
He had, however, no dining room as such, for in his whole lodging there were really only two rooms — far more spacious and comfortable, it is true, than the elder's.
> Genitive of negation in a non-existence clause: "He had no dining room" is built on «не было» plus genitive: «столовой … не было». With negated existence the thing absent stands obligatorily in the genitive, and the verb is fixed neuter «было». The genitive «столовой» is also fronted for emphasis.
> Bookish superlative in «-ейший»: «обширнейшие, удобнейшие» use the literary suffixed superlative/elative «-ейш-» ("most spacious, most comfortable"), here intensified by «гораздо … чем» into a comparative sense. The synthetic form is markedly bookish, the narrator's register.
> «у» + genitive for possession: Russian expresses "X has" with «у» + genitive: «у того … было … две комнаты» ("at him there were two rooms"), echoed by «чем у старца» ("than at the elder's"). The demonstrative «того» refers back to the Superior.

Но убранство комнат также не отличалось особым комфортом: мебель была кожаная, красного дерева, старой моды двадцатых годов; даже полы были некрашеные; зато всё блистало чистотой, на окнах было много дорогих цветов; но главную роскошь в эту минуту, естественно, составлял роскошно сервированный стол, хотя, впрочем, и тут говоря относительно: скатерть была чистая, посуда блестящая; превосходно выпеченный хлеб трех сортов, две бутылки вина, две бутылки великолепного монастырского меду и большой стеклянный кувшин с монастырским квасом, славившимся в околотке.  
But the furnishing of the rooms was not distinguished by any particular comfort either: the furniture was of leather, mahogany, in the old fashion of the eighteen-twenties; even the floors were unpainted; yet everything shone with cleanliness, and there were many costly flowers in the windows. The chief luxury at that moment, naturally, was the lavishly laid table — though here too, relatively speaking: the cloth was clean, the dishes gleaming; there was excellently baked bread of three kinds, two bottles of wine, two bottles of magnificent monastery mead, and a great glass pitcher of the monastery kvass that was famous in the district.
> Genitive of material — «красного дерева»: "Of mahogany" is the bare genitive «красного дерева» (lit. "of red wood"), a possessive/descriptive genitive naming what the furniture is made of — no preposition needed.
> Instrumental of means after «блистать»: «блистало чистотой» — "shone with cleanliness": the instrumental «чистотой» names that by which it shone. Note also «блестящая», a present active participle of «блестеть» used adjectivally for the gleaming dishes.
> Past active participle «славившимся»: «славившимся» is the past active participle of «славиться» (to be famed), agreeing with «квасом» in instrumental — "the kvass that was famous." It compresses a «который»-clause into one bookish modifier, retaining its own reflexive «-ся».
> Mead and kvass — monastery drink: «мёд» here is honey-mead, and «квас» a mildly fermented bread drink, both traditional and non-distilled, fitting a monastery. Note «меду» — the old partitive genitive in «-у» ("some mead"), a 19th-century survival beside modern «мёда».
> «околоток» — the neighborhood, the district round about: An old word for the surrounding locality or precinct — "famous in the district round about." Slightly archaic and rural in flavor by Dostoevsky's day.

Водки не было вовсе.  
Of vodka there was none at all.
> Genitive of negation, fronted for force: A miniature of the construction: «водки … не было» — the absent «водка» in the genitive with neuter «не было», and the genitive thrust to the front so the whole tiny sentence lands on the absence. "Of vodka there was none at all."

Ракитин повествовал потом, что обед приготовлен был на этот раз из пяти блюд: была уха со стерлядью и с пирожками с рыбой; затем разварная рыба, как-то отменно и особенно приготовленная; затем котлеты из красной рыбы, мороженое и компот и, наконец, киселек вроде бланманже.  
Rakitin recounted afterward that the dinner had been prepared on this occasion in five courses: there was sterlet soup with fish patties; then boiled fish, somehow prepared in a choice and special way; then cutlets of red fish, ice cream and a fruit compote, and finally a kissel of the blancmange sort.
> Short passive participle — the periphrastic passive: «приготовлен был» joins the short-form past passive participle «приготовлен» (from perfective «приготовить») to «был» to state a result: "the dinner had been prepared." The «рыба» in this sentence is modified attributively by the long-form participle «приготовленная» — a different category from the short predicate form.
> Genitive plural after a numeral over five: «пять» and higher govern the genitive plural: «пяти блюд» ("of five courses"), with «блюд» the zero-ending genitive plural of «блюдо». Here «из» also requires the genitive, so the count and the preposition agree.
> «уха», «стерлядь», «киселёк» — the Russian table: «уха» is a clear fish soup; «стерлядь» the prized sterlet sturgeon; «кисель» (diminutive «киселёк») a thickened fruit jelly likened here to «бланманже» (French blancmange). The menu's plenty quietly mocks the "humble" monastic ideal.

Всё это пронюхал Ракитин, не утерпев и нарочно заглянув на игуменскую кухню, с которою тоже имел свои связи.  
Rakitin had nosed all this out, unable to restrain himself and deliberately peeping into the Superior's kitchen, with which he too had his connections.
> Perfective past gerunds — «деепричастие»: Two perfective past gerunds in «-в»: «утерпев» (having failed to restrain himself) and «заглянув» (having peeped in) name prior/attendant actions sharing Rakitin's subject. The chain of «деепричастия» is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's narrative texture.
> Archaic relative ending «-ою»: «с которою» is the instrumental of the relative «который», with the bookish/archaic feminine ending «-ою» for modern «-ой». The reflexive possessive «свои» points the connections back to Rakitin himself.
> «пронюхать» — to sniff out, nose out: Literally built on «нюхать» (to sniff), «пронюхать» means to ferret out information by instinct, like a dog catching a scent. The word characterizes Rakitin as a sly gatherer of gossip.

Он везде имел связи и везде добывал языка.  
He had connections everywhere and got hold of information everywhere.
> Anaphoric «везде» and imperfective habit: The repeated «везде … везде» frames habit, and the imperfectives «имел … добывал» render it as ongoing, characteristic behavior rather than single events — the iterative-descriptive use of the imperfective.
> «добывать языка» — to get a source, a tongue: A military/idiomatic turn: «язык» ("tongue") is captured-prisoner slang for an informant, and «добыть языка» means to procure intelligence. The genitive «языка» reflects the partitive/object-of-acquisition usage. Rakitin always managed to "get hold of a tongue," i.e. inside information.

Сердце он имел весьма беспокойное и завистливое.  
His was a most restless and envious heart.
> Fronted object for characterizing weight: Standard order would be «Он имел весьма беспокойное сердце»; fronting «сердце» topicalizes it and throws the new, damning adjectives to the end — "his heart, now: a most restless and envious one." «весьма» is a bookish "very."

Значительные свои способности он совершенно в себе сознавал, но нервно преувеличивал их в своем самомнении.  
He was perfectly aware in himself of his considerable abilities, but in his vanity he nervously exaggerated them.
> Reflexive «себя» vs reflexive possessive «свои»: Two reflexives point back to the subject: «свои» (his own abilities) and «в себе» (within himself). «себя» is the full reflexive pronoun in the prepositional «о себе»/«в себе», distinct from the «-ся» clitic — a precise self-reference matching the theme of self-knowledge.
> «самомнение» — self-conceit: A transparent compound, «сам» (self) + «мнение» (opinion): an inflated opinion of oneself, vanity, conceit. The narrator names precisely the flaw Rakitin cannot see in himself.

Он знал наверно, что будет в своем роде деятелем, но Алешу, который был к нему очень привязан, мучило то, что его друг Ракитин бесчестен и решительно не сознает того сам, напротив, зная про себя, что он не украдет денег со стола, окончательно считал себя человеком высшей честности.  
He knew for certain that he would be a man of action of his own kind, but Alyosha, who was very much attached to him, was tormented by the fact that his friend Rakitin was dishonorable and was utterly unconscious of it himself — on the contrary, knowing that he would not steal money off a table, he reckoned himself once and for all a man of the highest integrity.
> Instrumental predicate in the future: After future «будет», the predicate noun «деятелем» takes the instrumental — "he would be a man of action." The instrumental frames the role as one assumed in time, the regular pattern with «быть» in past and future.
> Impersonal «мучило то, что…»: Subjectless «мучило» (neuter) takes the accusative experiencer «Алешу» and a «то, что…» clause as what tormented him — "it tormented Alyosha that…" The correlative «то» anchors the «что»-clause; «бесчестен» is a short-form predicate adjective.
> Present gerund «зная» + genitive of negation: «зная» is the imperfective present gerund ("knowing," simultaneous, same subject). Inside, the negated future «не украдет денег» puts the object in the genitive — "would not steal money" — the genitive of negation softening it to "any money at all."
> «считать кого instrumental» — reckon someone to be: «считать» takes a reflexive object «себя» plus an instrumental predicate «человеком»: "reckoned himself (to be) a man of the highest integrity." The instrumental-of-predicate pattern extends beyond «быть» to verbs of considering.

Тут уж не только Алеша, но и никто бы не мог ничего сделать.  
Here not only Alyosha but no one at all could have done anything.
> Negative concord under the conditional: Three negatives, one meaning: «никто … не … ничего» (nobody … not … nothing) all cooperate, the obligatory Russian concord. The «бы» with past «мог» makes it counterfactual — "no one could have done anything."

Ракитин, как лицо мелкое, приглашен быть к обеду не мог, зато были приглашены отец Иосиф и отец Паисий и с ними еще один иеромонах.  
Rakitin, as a person of small consequence, could not be invited to the dinner, but Father Iosif and Father Paisy had been invited, and with them one more hieromonk.
> Short passive participle, active vs done-to: «приглашен … не мог» — short passive participle «приглашен» ("invited") in a negated modal: he "could not be invited." The plural «были приглашены» states the fathers' having-been-invited. The contrastive «зато» ("but on the other hand") pivots between the two.
> «лицо мелкое» — a person of small consequence: «лицо» here means "a person" (not "face"), and «мелкое» (petty, minor, small-fry) ranks him socially low. Inverted order «лицо мелкое» gives it a faintly bureaucratic, sizing-up tone.

Они уже ожидали в столовой игумена, когда вступили Петр Александрович, Калганов и Иван Федорович.  
They were already waiting in the Superior's dining room when Pyotr Alexandrovich, Kalganov, and Ivan Fyodorovich came in.
> Imperfective state against perfective entrance: «ожидали» (imperfective) gives the standing situation — they were already waiting — and «вступили» (perfective) the punctual event of the others coming in. The classic background-vs-foreground aspect pairing.

Дожидался еще в сторонке и помещик Максимов.  
The landowner Maximov was also waiting, off to one side.
> Verb-first order to introduce a new figure: Russian fronts the verb «Дожидался» and trails the subject «помещик Максимов», a presentational order that introduces a fresh, lesser character as new information — the comment-first rhythm cases make possible.
> Diminutive «сторонка» — off to one side: The diminutive of «сторона», «сторонка» with «в … -ке» means "a little off to the side." The suffix adds a touch of the diffident, marginal posture suiting the hanger-on Maximov.

Отец игумен, чтобы встретить гостей, выступил вперед на средину комнаты.  
The Father Superior, in order to greet his guests, stepped forward to the middle of the room.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы» plus the infinitive «встретить» states purpose — "in order to greet." With a single shared subject «чтобы» takes the bare infinitive (not the past-form irrealis used when subjects differ). «выступил» is the perfective step forward.

Это был высокий, худощавый, но всё еще сильный старик, черноволосый, с сильною проседью, с длинным постным и важным лицом.  
He was a tall, lean, but still vigorous old man, dark-haired, heavily streaked with gray, with a long, austere, and dignified face.
> Stacked agreeing adjectives + instrumental of feature: A portrait built of long-form adjectives all agreeing with «старик» in masculine nominative, capped by the «с» + instrumental phrase «с длинным … лицом» ("with a long … face") — the regular way Russian appends a distinguishing feature.
> «постный» — Lenten, austere: Literally "of the fast" (from «пост», the Orthodox fast), «постный» describes a face that is meager, austere, sanctimoniously grave. The religious word doubles as a sly characterization of the Superior's stern, fasting mien.

Он раскланялся с гостями молча, но те на этот раз подошли под благословение.  
He bowed to the guests in silence, but this time they came up to receive his blessing.
> Reciprocal «-ся» + «с» instrumental: «раскланялся» carries «-ся» with reciprocal/middle force (exchanged bows), and «с гостями» (instrumental after «с») names those with whom — the standard "to bow with/to the guests."

Миусов рискнул было даже поцеловать ручку, но игумен вовремя как-то отдернул, и поцелуй не состоялся.  
Miusov even ventured to kiss his hand, but the Superior somehow drew it back in time, and the kiss did not come off.
> The «было» of the interrupted attempt: The particle «было» after a perfective marks an action begun or about to happen but then thwarted: «рискнул было … поцеловать» — "ventured to kiss (but it didn't come off)." A distinctive 19th-century device of the frustrated attempt.
> Diminutive «ручка» — the little hand: «ручка», diminutive of «рука», softens "hand" with a note of deference (or, for the narrator, faint mockery) toward the obsequious hand-kiss Miusov attempts. Russian diminutives carry tone, not size, here.

Зато Иван Федорович и Калганов благословились на этот раз вполне, то есть с самым простодушным и простонародным чмоком в руку.  
Ivan Fyodorovich and Kalganov, by contrast, received the blessing in full this time — that is, with the most simple-hearted and common smack of the lips upon the hand.
> Middle «-ся»: to receive a blessing: «благословились» turns «благословить» (to bless someone) into a middle with «-сь»: they "got themselves blessed," i.e. received the blessing. The «-ся» here shifts the action onto the subject as recipient.
> «чмок» — a smacking kiss: «чмок» is an onomatopoeic word for the audible smack of a kiss. Paired with «простодушный» (simple-hearted) and «простонародный» (of the common folk), it paints the blessing-kiss as artless and a touch comically hearty.

— Мы должны сильно извиниться, ваше высокопреподобие, — начал Петр Александрович, с любезностью осклабляясь, но всё же важным и почтительным тоном, — извиниться, что являемся одни без приглашенного вами сопутника нашего, Федора Павловича; он принужден был от вашей трапезы уклониться, и не без причины.  
"We must apologize most earnestly, Your Reverence," began Pyotr Alexandrovich, smiling graciously, but in a tone that was nonetheless dignified and respectful, "apologize for appearing alone, without our companion Fyodor Pavlovich, whom you invited; he has been forced to excuse himself from your table, and not without cause.
> Present gerund of attendant manner: «осклабляясь» is an imperfective present gerund ("grinning/smiling"), describing how Pyotr Alexandrovich began to speak — simultaneous attendant action sharing his subject, set off as adverbial circumstance.
> Past passive participle as attribute + instrumental agent: «приглашенного вами» is the past passive participle «приглашенный» (invited) declined to agree with «сопутника», with the agent «вами» in the instrumental — "the companion invited by you." A compact passive-relative folded into a noun phrase.
> «осклабиться» — to grin, bare the teeth: A faintly unflattering verb for smiling that suggests a forced or toothy grin rather than warmth — the narrator's wry undercutting of Miusov's "gracious" performance.

В келье у преподобного отца Зосимы, увлекшись своею несчастною родственною распрей с сыном, он произнес несколько слов совершенно некстати… словом сказать, совершенно неприличных… о чем, как кажется (он взглянул на иеромонахов), вашему высокопреподобию уже и известно.  
In the cell of the reverend Father Zosima, carried away by his unhappy family quarrel with his son, he uttered several words altogether out of place… in a word, altogether improper… of which, it seems" — he glanced at the hieromonks — "Your Reverence is already aware.
> Perfective gerund «увлекшись» + instrumental: «увлекшись» ("having been carried away") is a perfective past gerund of the «-ся» verb «увлечься», governing the instrumental «распрей» (carried away by the quarrel). Note the archaic instrumental endings «-ою» on «своею несчастною родственною».
> Dative + «известно» — impersonal of knowing: "Is known to Your Reverence": the dative «высокопреподобию» names the one who knows, with the neuter predicative «известно». The experiencer-in-the-dative pattern, here in formal register.

А потому, сам сознавая себя виновным и искренно раскаиваясь, почувствовал стыд и, не могши преодолеть его, просил нас, меня и сына своего, Ивана Федоровича, заявить пред вами всё свое искреннее сожаление, сокрушение и покаяние…. Одним словом, он надеется и хочет вознаградить всё потом, а теперь, испрашивая вашего благословения, просит вас забыть о случившемся…  
And so, acknowledging himself to be at fault and sincerely repenting, he felt shame, and being unable to overcome it, he asked us — me and his son, Ivan Fyodorovich — to declare before you his whole sincere regret, contrition, and penitence… In a word, he hopes and means to make amends for everything later, and for now, begging your blessing, he asks you to forget what occurred…"
> Paired gerunds + instrumental predicate «виновным»: Two imperfective gerunds «сознавая … раскаиваясь» stack the attendant states (acknowledging, repenting); inside, «сознавая себя виновным» uses reflexive «себя» plus instrumental predicate «виновным» — "acknowledging himself (to be) guilty."
> Archaic gerund «не могши»: «могши» is the literary past gerund of «мочь» ("being unable"), a form felt as bookish/archaic even in the 19th century — modern Russian avoids it. Its use heightens the formal, almost ecclesiastical pitch of Miusov's set speech.

Миусов умолк.  
Miusov fell silent.
> Perfective «умолк» — the punctual fall to silence: «умолк» (from «умолкнуть») is perfective: the single, completed act of falling silent, sealing the tirade. The prefix «у-» gives the sense of ceasing/dying away into silence.

Произнеся последние слова своей тирады, он остался собою совершенно доволен, до того, что и следов недавнего раздражения не осталось в душе его.  
Having pronounced the last words of his tirade, he was left thoroughly pleased with himself, so much so that not a trace of his recent irritation remained in his soul.
> Perfective gerund «произнеся» — prior action: «произнеся» is the perfective past gerund of «произнести» ("having pronounced"), the completed action that precedes and frames the main clause — having finished his tirade, he then felt pleased. Same subject throughout, as the gerund requires.
> Instrumental «собою» after «доволен»: «доволен» (short adjective, "satisfied") governs the instrumental of cause: «собою» — "satisfied with himself." «собою» is the archaic-flavored instrumental of the reflexive «себя», beside modern «собой».
> Genitive of negation with «не осталось»: "Not a trace remained": negated «не осталось» (neuter) takes its subject in the genitive — «следов … не осталось» — the absence-construction. «следов» is genitive plural, fronted with «и» ("not even a trace") for emphasis.

Он вполне и искренно любил опять человечество.  
He once again fully and sincerely loved mankind.
> Imperfective «любил» for a restored state: «любил» is imperfective — love as a continuing state, not an event — and «опять» (again) marks the return of that condition. The narrator's faint irony rides on the imperfective's smooth, settled feel.

Игумен, с важностью выслушав его, слегка наклонил голову и произнес в ответ:  
The Superior, having heard him out with dignity, inclined his head slightly and answered:
> Perfective gerund + «с» of manner: «выслушав» is the perfective past gerund of «выслушать» ("having heard out"), the completed prior action; «с важностью» ("with dignity") is a «с» + instrumental phrase of manner. The chain leads into the perfective main verbs «наклонил … произнес».

— Чувствительно сожалею об отлучившемся.  
"I am keenly sorry for the absent one.
> Past active participle nominalized — «об отлучившемся»: «отлучившемся» is the past active participle of «отлучиться» (to absent oneself), used as a noun in the prepositional after «о»: "about the one who has absented himself." A bookish, elevated way to name the missing Fyodor Pavlovich.
> «чувствительно» — keenly, feelingly: Here «чувствительно» means not "sensitively" but "keenly, to a felt degree" — an elevated, slightly old-fashioned adverb of intensity fitting the Superior's measured, dignified diction.

Может быть, за трапезой нашею он полюбил бы нас, равно как и мы его.  
Perhaps, at our table, he would have come to love us, and we him.
> Conditional «бы» + inceptive «полюбил»: «полюбил бы» is the past-form-plus-«бы» conditional: "he would have come to love us." The perfective prefix «по-» on «любить» is inceptive — to begin to love. Note archaic «нашею» (instrumental) for «нашей».
> Gapped comparison «как и мы его»: The verb is elided in the second limb: «мы его (полюбили бы)» — "and we (would have come to love) him." «равно как и» is a bookish "just as also," balancing the mutual love the Superior wishes for.

Милости просим, господа, откушать.  
You are kindly welcome, gentlemen, to partake."
> «милости просим» and «откушать» — courteous welcome: «милости просим» is a set, slightly old-world formula of hospitable invitation ("you are kindly welcome"), and «откушать» an archaic, ceremonious verb for "to partake/dine." Together they give the Superior's welcome a warm, traditional Russian grace.

Он стал перед образом и начал вслух молитву.  
He stood before the icon and began the grace aloud.
> Inceptive perfectives «стал … начал»: Both verbs are perfective and inceptive: «стал» (took his stand) and «начал» (began) mark the punctual onset of the grace. «перед образом» uses «перед» + instrumental for position before the icon.

Все почтительно преклонили головы, а помещик Максимов даже особенно выставился вперед, сложив перед собой ладошками руки от особого благоговения.  
All bowed their heads reverently, and the landowner Maximov even thrust himself particularly forward, his hands pressed palm to palm before him out of special devotion.
> Perfective gerund + instrumental of manner: «сложив» (perfective gerund, "having folded") describes the prior gesture; «ладошками» is the instrumental — "with the palms" — naming how the hands were pressed together. The reflexive «перед собой» (before himself) points back to Maximov.
> Diminutive «ладошки» — little palms: «ладошка», diminutive of «ладонь» (palm), lends Maximov's pious gesture a childlike, faintly absurd tenderness — the suffix doing characterizing work, as so often in Dostoevsky.

И вот тут-то Федор Павлович и выкинул свое последнее колено.  
And it was just here that Fyodor Pavlovich played his last trick.
> Emphatic «тут-то … и» — the very moment: The clitic «-то» on «тут» and the emphatic «и» before the verb together spotlight the instant: "and it was just here that he…" A common Russian framing device that builds anticipation for the punchline action «выкинул».
> Idiom «выкинуть колено» — to pull a stunt: «выкинуть колено» (lit. "to throw out a knee/figure," from a dance-step) is an idiom for performing some outrageous, unexpected antic. "He pulled his last trick" — exactly the buffoon's flourish the narrator has been promising.

Надо заметить, что он действительно хотел было уехать и действительно почувствовал невозможность, после своего позорного поведения в келье старца, идти как ни в чем не бывало к игумену на обед.  
It must be noted that he really had meant to drive off, and really had felt the impossibility, after his shameful conduct in the elder's cell, of going to dine with the Superior as though nothing had happened.
> «хотел было» — the abandoned intention: Again the «было» of the thwarted plan, here on «хотел … уехать»: he "had been going to drive off" but the impulse came to nothing. The repeated «действительно» ("really") insists on the sincerity of an intention that won't survive.
> Idiom + negative concord «как ни в чем не бывало»: A fixed phrase, "as if nothing had happened," literally "as though nothing had been": «ни в чем не бывало» again shows the «ни … не» concord, with the archaic «бывало». «идти» (unidirectional imperfective) names the single trajectory of going to dinner.

Не то чтоб он стыдился себя так уж очень и обвинял; может быть, даже совсем напротив; но всё же он чувствовал, что обедать-то уж неприлично.  
It was not that he was so very ashamed of himself or blamed himself; perhaps it was quite the opposite; but all the same he felt that to sit down to dinner would be improper.
> «не то чтоб(ы)» — "it's not that…": «не то чтоб(ы)» is a concessive hedge introducing a qualified denial: "it wasn't that he was so very ashamed…" Built from «чтобы», it takes the past-form verb «стыдился» under the negation, marking the irrealis flavor.
> Topic «-то» + impersonal predicate «неприлично»: The clitic «-то» highlights «обедать» as the point at issue ("as for dining…"), and «неприлично» is an impersonal neuter predicate, "it would be improper." «уж» adds an insistent shading.

Но только было подали к крыльцу гостиницы его дребезжащую коляску, как он, уже влезая в нее, вдруг приостановился.  
Yet no sooner had his rattling carriage been brought up to the porch of the inn than, just as he was already climbing into it, he suddenly stopped short.
> "No sooner… than" with «только… как»: The «только… как» frame means "no sooner had X than Y." The «было» on «подали» again marks an action just accomplished and then overtaken — the carriage had just been brought up when he stopped short («приостановился», perfective).
> Present gerund of simultaneity «влезая»: «влезая» is the imperfective present gerund ("climbing in"), an action in progress simultaneous with the main verb — he was in the very act of getting in when he stopped. «в нее» takes the accusative for motion into the carriage.
> «дребезжащий» — rattling; «коляска» — carriage: «дребезжащую» is the present active participle of «дребезжать» (to rattle, jangle), agreeing with «коляску» — a «коляска» being a light open carriage. The rattling vehicle is a small comic emblem of the old buffoon's shabby grandeur.

Ему вспомнились его же собственные слова у старца: «Мне всё так и кажется, когда я вхожу куда-нибудь, что я подлее всех и что меня все за шута принимают, — так вот давай же я и в самом деле сыграю шута, потому что вы все до единого глупее и подлее меня».  
He recalled his own words, spoken at the elder's: "It always seems to me, whenever I walk in somewhere, that I am baser than everyone and that they all take me for a buffoon — so let me, then, actually play the buffoon, for you are every one of you stupider and baser than I am."
> Reflexive «-ся» of involuntary memory + dative: «вспомнились» (with «-сь») makes remembering happen to the experiencer rather than be done by him: the words "came back to him," dative «ему», subject «слова». The emphatic «же» on «его собственные» stresses "his very own" words.
> Multidirectional «вхожу» + indefinite «-нибудь»: «вхожу» (imperfective, multidirectional «ходить»-type) gives the habitual "whenever I walk in," and «куда-нибудь» uses «-нибудь» for an unspecified "anywhere at all." The pairing renders a recurring, non-specific situation.
> Hortative «давай» + comparatives of genitive: «давай … сыграю» is the first-person exhortation "let me play," «давай» plus the perfective future; «же» insists. The comparatives «глупее, подлее» take the standard of comparison in the genitive «меня» — "stupider and baser than I."
> «подлый» and «шут» — the buffoon's creed: «подлый» means base, mean, vile (a key Karamazov word for moral lowness), and «шут» the buffoon/jester. "They take me for a buffoon" — «за шута принимают», with «за» + accusative for "as." These two words encode Fyodor Pavlovich's defiant self-abasement.

Ему захотелось всем отомстить за собственные пакости.  
He felt a longing to take revenge on everyone for his own foul tricks.
> Dative desire «ему захотелось» + dative object: «захотелось» is the impersonal reflexive of sudden wanting: dative experiencer «ему», neuter verb — "a longing came over him." Then «отомстить всем» takes a dative «всем» (to take revenge on everyone), the case «мстить»/«отомстить» governs.
> «пакость» — a dirty trick, a piece of nastiness: «пакость» is a mean, dirty deed or vileness done to another. The irony is acute: he wants to avenge himself on others for his own «пакости» — a key word the chapter returns to in s42 and s48.

Вспомнил он вдруг теперь кстати, как когда-то, еще прежде, спросили его раз: «За что вы такого-то так ненавидите?» И он ответил тогда, в припадке своего шутовского бесстыдства: «А вот за что: он, правда, мне ничего не сделал, но зато я сделал ему одну бессовестнейшую пакость, и только что сделал, тотчас же за то и возненавидел его».  
He now recalled, suddenly and to the point, how once, long before, someone had asked him: "Why do you hate so-and-so so much?" And he had answered then, in a fit of his buffoonish shamelessness: "Here is why: he, it's true, has done nothing to me, but I once played a most unconscionable trick on him, and the moment I had done it, that very instant I came to hate him for it."
> Indefinite-personal plural «спросили»: «спросили» with no stated subject is the indefinite-personal construction: a 3rd-plural verb meaning "someone/people asked" ("he was asked"). Russian routinely drops the agent this way where English needs a passive or "they."
> Inceptive perfective «возненавидел»: «возненавидел» (prefix «воз-» on «ненавидеть») is an inceptive perfective: the punctual onset of hatred, "came to hate." Paired with «только что сделал … тотчас же», it nails the paradoxical instant in which the wrong breeds the loathing.
> «за что» and the placeholder «такой-то»: «за что» asks "for what reason, on what grounds" (motive), distinct from «почему». «такого-то» is the placeholder "so-and-so" (accusative animate), built with the «-то» clitic to stand in for an unnamed person.
> Superlative «бессовестнейший» — most unconscionable: «бессовестный» (without conscience, «без» + «совесть») in the bookish superlative «-ейш-»: "a most conscienceless dirty trick." The piling of moral self-accusation is delivered with Fyodor Pavlovich's relishing «шутовское бесстыдство» (buffoonish shamelessness).

Припомнив это теперь, он тихо и злобно усмехнулся в минутном раздумье.  
Recalling this now, he gave a quiet, malicious laugh in a moment's reflection.
> Perfective gerund «припомнив» framing the laugh: «припомнив» (perfective past gerund of «припомнить», "having recalled") sets the prior mental act; the perfective «усмехнулся» (gave a single smirk) is the resulting deed. The «-ся» on «усмехнуться» is the verb's inherent reflexive form.

Глаза его сверкнули, и даже губы затряслись.  
His eyes flashed, and even his lips quivered.
> Semelfactive «сверкнули» and inceptive «затряслись»: «сверкнули» (suffix «-ну-») is semelfactive — a single flash of the eyes; «затряслись» (prefix «за-» + «-ся») is inceptive — the lips "began to quiver." Two flavors of the perfective catch a momentary, involuntary stir of malice.

«А коль начал, так и кончить», — решил он вдруг.  
"Since I've begun, I may as well finish," he suddenly decided.
> Folksy conditional «коль» + elided modality: «коль» (also «коли») is a colloquial, somewhat archaic "if": "if I've begun, then to finish too." The infinitive «кончить» stands for an implied "I must/may as well finish" — terse, proverb-like spoken syntax. «так и» reinforces the consequence.

Сокровеннейшее ощущение его в этот миг можно было бы выразить такими словами: «Ведь уж теперь себя не реабилитируешь, так давай-ка я им еще наплюю до бесстыдства: не стыжусь, дескать, вас, да и только!»  
His innermost sensation at that instant might have been put into these words: "There's no rehabilitating myself now, so let me spit on them all the more shamelessly: I'm not ashamed of you, that's all there is to it!"
> Impersonal «можно … бы» + instrumental of means: «можно было бы» is the impersonal conditional of possibility ("might have been possible to express"), with «бы» making it hypothetical. «такими словами» is the instrumental of means — "by such words."
> Generalizing «ты» + hortative «давай-ка»: «не реабилитируешь» is a 2nd-singular used generically ("one can't rehabilitate oneself"), with reflexive «себя». Then «давай-ка я … наплюю» is the hortative "come now, let me…," the softening particle «-ка» giving a coaxing, self-egging tone.
> «дескать» and «да и только» — reported defiance: «дескать» is a reportative particle flagging quoted/assumed speech ("as if to say"), and «да и только» a dismissive idiom, "and that's that." «Сокровеннейшее» ("innermost," bookish superlative) frames this as his secret credo of shamelessness. «наплевать» (to spit on) is crude contempt.

Кучеру он велел подождать, а сам скорыми шагами воротился в монастырь и прямо к игумену.  
He told the coachman to wait, and with rapid strides returned to the monastery and went straight to the Superior.
> Dative addressee of «велеть»: «велеть» (to order) takes a dative of the person commanded and an infinitive: «кучеру … велел подождать» — "ordered the coachman to wait." The dative «кучеру» is fronted, topicalizing the coachman.
> Instrumental of manner + perfective return: «скорыми шагами» (instrumental, "with rapid strides") expresses manner of motion. «воротился» is a slightly archaic/colloquial perfective of returning (beside «возвратился»), with «-ся», and «в монастырь» takes the accusative of motion-toward.

Он еще не знал хорошо, что сделает, но знал, что уже не владеет собою и — чуть толчок — мигом дойдет теперь до последнего предела какой-нибудь мерзости, — впрочем, только мерзости, а отнюдь не какого-нибудь преступления или такой выходки, за которую может суд наказать.  
He did not yet rightly know what he would do, but he knew that he was no longer master of himself and that, at the slightest push, he would now be carried in an instant to the very last extreme of some vileness — though merely vileness, mind, and by no means any crime or any escapade for which a court might punish him.
> Instrumental governed by «владеть»: «владеть» (to command, master) governs the instrumental: «не владеет собою» — "is not master of himself," with «собою» the archaic-flavored instrumental of «себя». The present tense in a past narrative gives vivid immediacy.
> Indefinite «какой-нибудь» + chain of genitives: «какой-нибудь» (non-specific "some… or other") modifies «мерзости», all in a genitive chain «до … предела … мерзости» governed by «до» — "to the last extreme of some vileness." The vagueness underlines that even he doesn't know what he'll do.
> Emphatic «отнюдь не» + relative «за которую»: «отнюдь не» is an emphatic "by no means." The relative «за которую» ("for which") agrees in gender/number with «выходку» but takes accusative from its own clause — the case-flexibility of «который». Note the colloquial «чуть толчок» ("at the slightest push").
> «мерзость» and «выходка» — vileness vs escapade: «мерзость» is something loathsome, an abomination; «выходка» an outrageous prank or escapade. The careful distinction — vileness yes, but no «преступление» (crime) a «суд» (court) could punish — measures exactly how far the buffoon will go.

В последнем случае он всегда умел себя сдерживать и даже сам себе дивился насчет этого в иных случаях.  
In the latter case he always knew how to hold himself back, and in certain instances even marveled at himself for it.
> Imperfective habit «умел … сдерживать»: «умел … сдерживать» (both imperfective) with «всегда» renders a settled, habitual capacity — "he always knew how to restrain himself." Reflexive «себя» is the object; the imperfective infinitive suits the recurring ability.
> «дивиться» + dative; intensifier «сам»: «дивиться» (to marvel) governs the dative «себе» — "marveled at himself." The intensifier «сам» («сам себе») underscores the self-reflexive wonder, and «насчет этого» ("on this score") is a colloquial "about it."

Он показался в столовой игумена ровно в тот миг, когда кончилась молитва и все двинулись к столу.  
He appeared in the Superior's dining room at the very instant the grace ended and everyone was moving toward the table.
> Correlative «в тот миг, когда…»: «в тот миг, когда…» pairs the demonstrative «тот» with the temporal «когда» to pinpoint the instant — "at the very moment when." «кончилась» (perfective «-ся») marks the grace's completed ending, perfectly timed to his entrance.

Остановившись на пороге, оглядел компанию и засмеялся длинным, наглым, злым смешком, всем отважно глядя в глаза.  
Pausing on the threshold, he surveyed the company and broke into a long, insolent, spiteful little laugh, looking everyone boldly in the eye.
> Gerunds front and back of the action: The sentence is framed by gerunds: perfective «остановившись» (having paused) before, imperfective «глядя» (looking) trailing as simultaneous manner. Between them the perfective main verbs «оглядел … засмеялся» carry the events. A dense «деепричастие» chain typical of the narrator.
> Diminutive «смешок» + harsh epithets: «смешок» is the diminutive of «смех» — a short, snickering little laugh — here yoked to «длинным, наглым, злым» (long, insolent, spiteful). The affectionate-sized suffix turned nasty makes the laugh creep, the diminutive carrying menace not charm.

— А они-то думали, я уехал, а я вот он! — вскричал он на всю залу.  
"They thought I'd driven off, and here I am!" he cried for the whole hall to hear.
> Topic-«-то», contrastive «а», deictic «вот он»: «они-то» flags "they, for their part" with the topic clitic; the two «а»'s are mild contrastive hinges ("and/but"); «я вот он!» is the colloquial deixis "and here I am!" — «вот» pointing at himself. Pure spoken Karamazov bravado.
> «на всю залу» — for the whole hall: «на всю залу» idiomatically means "so the whole room could hear," «на» + accusative measuring the reach of the shout. Note «зала» (older feminine) for the hall, beside the modern masculine «зал» (the neuter «зало» was a separate archaic variant).

Одно мгновение все смотрели на него в упор и молчали, и вдруг все почувствовали, что выйдет сейчас что-нибудь отвратительное, нелепое, с несомненным скандалом.  
For a single moment everyone stared at him point-blank and said nothing, and all at once they all felt that something abominable, absurd, an unmistakable scandal, was about to break out.
> Perfective future + indefinite «что-нибудь»: «выйдет» (perfective future of «выйти») foretells a single coming event — "something will come of it." «что-нибудь» (non-specific "something or other") with neuter agreement on the stacked adjectives lets the dread stay shapeless until it breaks.
> Imperfective held moment vs the «вдруг» turn: «смотрели … молчали» (imperfectives) hold the frozen, durative instant of staring and silence; «вдруг … почувствовали» (perfective) snaps it. The aspectual switch dramatizes the held breath before the scandal.

Петр Александрович из самого благодушного настроения перешел немедленно в самое свирепое.  
Pyotr Alexandrovich passed instantly from the most genial of moods into the most ferocious.
> Superlative «самый» framing the swing of mood: The periphrastic superlative «самый» declines with its adjective at both poles — «из самого благодушного … в самое свирепое» — and the «из … в» (genitive… accusative) maps the abrupt passage from one extreme to the other.

Всё, что угасло было в его сердце и затихло, разом воскресло и поднялось. — Нет, вынести этого я не могу! — вскричал он, — совсем не могу и… никак не могу!  
Everything that had died down and gone quiet in his heart rose up and came back to life all at once. "No, this I cannot endure!" he cried, "I simply cannot, and… I absolutely cannot!"
> Pluperfect «было» + correlative «всё, что»: «угасло было» uses «было» on a perfective to mark a state reached earlier and now reversed (a pluperfect feel) — what had died down now «воскресло». The correlative «всё, что…» ("everything that…") packs the subject into a relative clause.
> Genitive of negation + emphatic fronting: «этого … не могу (вынести)» puts the negated object in the genitive «этого» ("this I cannot bear"), and the whole object is hurled to the front for force. The triple «совсем не могу … никак не могу» piles emphatic negation.

Кровь бросилась ему в голову.  
The blood rushed to his head.
> Dative of the affected person: "The blood rushed to his head" places the affected person in the dative «ему», not a possessive — Russian's idiom for bodily reactions happening to someone. «бросилась» is the perfective «-ся» of a sudden rush.

Он даже спутался, но было уже не до слога, и он схватил свою шляпу.  
He even grew flustered, but it was no longer a moment for fine phrasing, and he snatched up his hat.
> Impersonal «не до» + genitive: The idiom «не до X» (with genitive «слога») means "there was no time/room for X" — here "it was no longer a moment for fine phrasing." An impersonal, subjectless turn very characteristic of Russian.
> «слог» — literary style, fine phrasing: «слог» here means not "syllable" but "style, manner of expression." The narrator's joke: Miusov, the fastidious stylist, is now too rattled to choose his words — "no time for elegant style."

— Чего такого он не может? — вскричал Федор Павлович, — «никак не может и ни за что не может»? Ваше преподобие, входить мне аль нет? Принимаете сотрапезника?  
"What is it he cannot do?" cried Fyodor Pavlovich. "'Absolutely cannot, and cannot on any account'? Your Reverence, am I to come in or not? Will you receive a fellow diner?"
> Dative subject of the infinitive + folksy «аль»: «входить мне аль нет?» is a deliberative-infinitive question with dative «мне»: "am I to come in or not?" — no nominative, the infinitive carrying the modality. «аль» is a rustic, folksy variant of «или» ("or"), part of Fyodor Pavlovich's clowning peasant act.
> «сотрапезник» — a fellow at table: «сотрапезник», from «со-» (with) + «трапеза» (the meal/repast, itself a churchly word), means a fellow diner, a companion at the board. Its faintly elevated, monastic ring makes Fyodor Pavlovich's mock-humble entrance the more impudent.

— Милости просим от всего сердца, — ответил игумен. — Господа! Позволю ли себе, — прибавил он вдруг, — просить вас от всей души, оставив случайные распри ваши, сойтись в любви и родственном согласии, с молитвой ко господу, за смиренною трапезою нашей…  
"You are welcome with all my heart," answered the Superior. "Gentlemen! May I," he added suddenly, "beg you with all my soul to set aside your chance quarrels and to come together in love and kindred concord, with a prayer to the Lord, at our humble table…"
> Interrogative particle «ли» softening a request: «Позволю ли себе» fronts the verb with the enclitic «ли» to form a deferential yes/no question — "may I permit myself…?" — a more formal, literary move than question intonation, fitting the Superior's courtly plea.
> Perfective gerund + perfective infinitive of appeal: «оставив» (perfective gerund, "having set aside") names the prior condition, leading to the perfective infinitive «сойтись» ("to come together") that is the object of «просить». Note the bookish post-positioned possessive «распри ваши».

— Нет, нет, невозможно, — крикнул как бы не в себе Петр Александрович.  
"No, no, impossible," Pyotr Alexandrovich shouted, almost beside himself.
> «как бы» + idiom «не в себе»: «как бы» ("as if, as it were") hedges the description with «бы»; «не в себе» is the fixed idiom "beside oneself, not himself," «в себе» using the reflexive in the prepositional. Together: "shouted, as if beside himself."

— А коли Петру Александровичу невозможно, так и мне невозможно, и я не останусь.  
"Well, if it is impossible for Pyotr Alexandrovich, then it is impossible for me too, and I shall not stay.
> Dative-subject impossibility: «Невозможно» is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject: the person for whom the thing is impossible stands in the dative — «Петру Александровичу», «мне». This experiencer-first frame, so common in Russian, makes Fyodor's clowning sound like a logical syllogism.
> Folksy «коли» for «если»: «Коли» is a colloquial, slightly archaic conditional conjunction equivalent to «если» (if). Fyodor adopts a mock-peasant register here, opening his protest with a homely subordinator that flavors the whole speech.
> Perfective future as a vow: «Останусь» is the perfective «остаться» conjugated like a present, so it reads as a single completed future act — «I shall (not) stay». Negated, it becomes a flat refusal, the perfective sealing it as a one-time decision rather than a habit.

Я с тем и шел.  
That is what I came in for.
> «с тем» — 'with that purpose': «С тем» (instrumental of «то») here means 'with that very intention'; the «и» before «шел» underscores it — 'that is precisely what I came in for'. «Шел» is the imperfective unidirectional motion verb «идти» in the past, framing the arrival as the journey he was already on.

Я всюду теперь буду с Петром Александровичем: уйдете, Петр Александрович, и я пойду, останетесь — и я останусь.  
From now on I shall be everywhere with Pyotr Alexandrovich: if you leave, Pyotr Alexandrovich, I leave too; if you stay, I stay.
> Compound future with быть: «Буду» is the future of «быть» — but here it stands alone as a full verb 'I will be', plus «с Петром Александровичем» in the instrumental after «с» ('with'). The same «буду» also builds the imperfective compound future when joined to an infinitive.
> Conditionless conditionals in the perfective future: These are implicit conditions with no «если»: the bare perfective futures «уйдете / пойду», «останетесь / останусь» pair off as 'if you leave, I'll leave; if you stay, I'll stay'. The parallel perfective verbs lock each clause into a single matched event, mimicking Fyodor like a shadow.

Родственным-то согласием вы его наипаче кольнули, отец игумен: не признает он себя мне родственником!  
It was the kindred concord that stung him most of all, Father Superior: he does not acknowledge me as a kinsman!
> Instrumental of means + the topic clitic «-то»: «Родственным согласием» is instrumental, the means by which he was stung ('by the kindred concord'). The hyphenated «-то» on the fronted phrase flags it as the known topic under discussion — 'as for that kindred-concord business' — a colloquial highlighting clitic, not the indefinite «-то».
> Archaic «наипаче» — 'most of all': «Наипаче» is a bookish Church-Slavonic adverb meaning 'especially, above all', the elevated cousin of «особенно». Fyodor sprinkles such solemn words to mock the monastic register he is profaning.
> Reflexive «себя» with predicate instrumental: «Признаёт себя… родственником» — 'acknowledges himself as a kinsman': «себя» is the reflexive object pointing back to the subject, and «родственником» is a predicate noun in the instrumental, the case Russian uses for the role one is recognized as.

Так ли, фон Зон? Вот и фон Зон стоит. Здравствуй, фон Зон.  
Isn't that so, von Sohn? Look, there's von Sohn standing there. Hello, von Sohn."
> The interrogative particle «ли»: «Так ли?» — 'Is that so?' — uses the enclitic «ли», which fronts the focused word («так») and forms a neutral yes/no question. Fyodor's repeated «Так ли, фон Зон?» becomes a taunting refrain through the scene.
> Familiar singular imperative «Здравствуй»: «Здравствуй» is the «ты»-singular greeting (literally 'be healthy'), an old imperative form. Choosing the intimate singular over the polite «здравствуйте» is itself an insult, treating the startled Maximov like a familiar inferior.

— Вы… это мне-с? — пробормотал изумленный помещик Максимов.  
"You… you mean me, sir?" muttered the astonished landowner Maximov.
> The servile particle «-с»: «-с» (from «сударь», 'sir') is an obsequious particle tacked onto words to signal deference. Mild, frightened Maximov peppers his speech with it — «мне-с?» — marking his low social footing; it recurs throughout the chapter as a badge of timid politeness.
> «пробормотать» — to mutter out: «Пробормотал» is the perfective of «бормотать» (to mumble); the prefix «про-» gives it the sense of getting a few words out under one's breath. It paints Maximov's flustered, half-audible reply.

— Конечно, тебе, — крикнул Федор Павлович. — А то кому же? Не отцу же игумену быть фон Зоном!  
"Of course you," cried Fyodor Pavlovich. "Who else? The Father Superior can hardly be von Sohn!"
> Dative addressee and the particle «же»: «Тебе» and «кому» are datives ('to you', 'to whom'), the case of the person addressed. «Же» on «кому же» adds insistent exasperation — 'well, who else?!' — one of the small modal particles that carry tone where English needs stress.
> Dative + infinitive 'is hardly to be': A dative subject «отцу игумену» plus the infinitive «быть» builds a rhetorical impossibility — 'the Father Superior is hardly the one to be von Sohn'. The predicate «фон Зоном» sits in the instrumental after «быть», and «же» makes it incredulous.

— Да ведь и я не фон Зон, я Максимов.  
"But I'm not von Sohn either, I'm Maximov."
> Stacked particles: «да ведь и»: Three little words pile up to plead: «да» ('but'), «ведь» (appealing to the obvious — 'after all, you see'), and «и» ('also'). Together they give Maximov's protest its helpless, reasoning tone: 'but you see, I'm not von Sohn either'.
> Zero copula in the present: Both clauses are verbless: Russian uses no 'to be' in the present, so the predicate noun stays in the nominative («Максимов»). Negation just adds «не» before the noun — there is no copula for it to attach to.

— Нет, ты фон Зон.  
"No, you are von Sohn.
> Flat assertion with «ты»: The bare nominative «ты фон Зон» (zero copula) and the familiar «ты» make Fyodor's contradiction blunt and overbearing. He simply overrules the man's own name, the comedy lying in the impossibility of the claim.

Ваше преподобие, знаете вы, что такое фон Зон? Процесс такой уголовный был: его убили в блудилище — так, кажется, у вас сии места именуются, — убили и ограбили и, несмотря на его почтенные лета, вколотили в ящик, закупорили и из Петербурга в Москву отослали в багажном вагоне, за нумером.  
Your Reverence, do you know what von Sohn is? There was a criminal trial about it: he was murdered in a den of vice — that, I believe, is what such places are called among you — murdered and robbed, and despite his venerable years he was packed into a crate, sealed up, and shipped from Petersburg to Moscow in a baggage car, under a number.
> «блудилище» — a den of vice: Built on the root «блуд» (fornication) with the Slavonic place-suffix «-илище», «блудилище» is a heavily bookish, condemnatory word for a brothel — 'a place of debauchery'. Its churchy form makes Fyodor's smut sound mock-scriptural.
> Archaic «сии» and the -ся passive «именуются»: «Сии» is the bookish archaic demonstrative for «эти» ('these'), and «именуются» is the imperfective «-ся» form used passively — 'are called/named'. The lofty register («сии… именуются») drips with sarcasm aimed at the monks' delicacy of speech.
> A chain of perfective verbs driving the narrative: A string of perfective past verbs — «убили, ограбили, вколотили, закупорили, отослали» — marches the grisly story forward event by event. Each names a single completed act; the impersonal third-person plural ('they') leaves the killers vague.
> «лета» — years (of age): «Лета» here is the suppletive plural meaning 'years of age / one's years' (related to «год»). «Почтенные лета» — 'venerable years' — is a set, slightly formal phrase, the dignified diction sharpening the horror of the crate.
> Old spelling «нумер» for «номер»: «Нумер» is the 19th-century form of «номер» ('number'), closer to its Latin source. 'Shipped... under a number' reduces the murdered man to freight — a label on a parcel — and the dated spelling fixes the anecdote in its period.

А когда заколачивали, то блудные плясавицы пели песни и играли на гуслях, то есть на фортоплясах.  
And while they were nailing him up, the lewd dancing-women sang songs and played on psalteries — that is, on fortifianos.
> Imperfective past for the simultaneous backdrop: The imperfective verbs «заколачивали», «пели», «играли» set an ongoing scene — they were nailing him up *while* the women sang and played. Imperfective aspect supplies exactly this 'all the while' background, against which the perfectives elsewhere mark the discrete deeds.
> «плясавицы» — mock-Slavonic dancing-women: «Плясавица» is a deliberately archaic, biblical-sounding word for a dancing-girl (cf. the dancer who asked for John the Baptist's head), paired with «блудные» ('lewd'). The faux-Scriptural coinage is Fyodor parodying a holy idiom for a brothel scene.
> «гусли» and the nonce-word «фортопляс»: The «гусли» is an ancient Russian plucked zither (psaltery); «фортопляс» is Fyodor's drunken garble of «фортепьяно» (piano), comically crossing it with «плясать» (to dance). The mash-up — 'on psalteries, that is, on fortifianos' — caps the buffoonery.

Так вот это тот самый фон Зон и есть. Он из мертвых воскрес, так ли, фон Зон?  
So that is the very same von Sohn. He has risen from the dead — isn't that so, von Sohn?"
> Emphatic «тот самый» + retained «есть»: «Тот самый» means 'the very same / that exact one', and the retained copula «есть» (normally dropped in the present) plus «и» adds emphatic finality — 'so this is the very same von Sohn'. Such retained «есть» is a markedly emphatic, bookish flourish.
> «воскреснуть» — to rise from the dead: «Из мертвых воскрес» — 'rose from the dead' — is the very phrase of Christ's Resurrection in the Creed. Fyodor blasphemously applies the Paschal formula to his von Sohn farce, a calculated profanation in a monastery.

— Что же это такое? Как же это? — послышались голоса в группе иеромонахов.  
"What is this? What is the meaning of it?" came voices from the group of hieromonks.
> «же» of indignant astonishment: The particle «же» on «что же / как же» intensifies the question into an outcry — 'what on earth is this? how can this be?'. It carries the scandalized emotion of the monks where English would rely on tone alone.

— Идем! — крикнул Петр Александрович, обращаясь к Калганову.  
"Let us go!" cried Pyotr Alexandrovich, turning to Kalganov.
> First-person exhortation «Идём!»: «Идём!» uses the present-tense 'we' form as a hortative — 'let's go!' — a common alternative to «давайте пойдём». Miusov's clipped command marks his decision to walk out on the whole scene.
> Present gerund «обращаясь»: «Обращаясь» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) — 'turning [to]' — naming an action simultaneous with the main verb «крикнул». It shares the subject (Miusov) and compresses 'he cried out, turning to Kalganov' into one literary stroke. «К Калганову» is dative after «к».

— Нет-с, позвольте! — визгливо перебил Федор Павлович, шагнув еще шаг в комнату, — позвольте и мне довершить.  
"No, sir, allow me!" Fyodor Pavlovich shrilly broke in, taking yet another step into the room. "Allow me to finish too.
> Polite plural imperative «позвольте»: «Позвольте» is the polite/plural imperative of «позволить» ('allow, permit'), here used as a courteous interruption — 'allow me'. The added dative «мне» plus «и» ('me too') and the perfective infinitive «довершить» ('to finish off') frame his demand to have his say.
> Perfective past gerund «шагнув»: «Шагнув» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) — 'having taken a step' — expressing a prior, completed action attending «перебил» (broke in). The cognate object «шаг» ('a step') intensifies the single, momentary stride into the room.
> «визгливо» — shrilly, with a squeal: «Визгливо» (adverb from «визг», a screech/squeal) paints Fyodor's voice as high and grating — the sound of an excited, undignified man. The narrator's word choice deflates his self-styled 'knight of honor' before he even speaks.

Там в келье ославили меня, что я будто бы непочтительно вел себя, а именно тем, что про пескариков крикнул.  
In there, in the cell, they put it about that I behaved disrespectfully — namely, by shouting about the gudgeons.
> «ославить» — to spread it about, defame: «Ославить» (perfective) means to give someone a bad name by gossip — 'they put it about (that I…)'. Built on «слава» (fame/repute) with «о-», it casts Fyodor as the slandered victim, reversing the truth.
> «будто бы» — reportedly, supposedly: «Будто бы» flags reported, doubtful claim — 'that I supposedly behaved...'. It disclaims responsibility for the assertion. «Вел себя» ('behaved oneself') uses the reflexive «себя» as object of the set phrase «вести себя».
> «пескарики» — the little gudgeons: «Пескарик» is the diminutive of «пескарь», a small river fish (gudgeon). The affectionate «-ик» suffix mocks the triviality of the offense he is accused of — 'shouting about the little gudgeons' — a running gag through the scene.

Петр Александрович Миусов, родственник мой, любит, чтобы в речи было plus de noblesse que de sincérité, a я, обратно, люблю, чтобы в моей речи было plus de sincérité que de noblesse, и — наплевать на noblesse!  
Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov, my kinsman, likes there to be plus de noblesse que de sincérité in one's speech, whereas I, on the contrary, like there to be plus de sincérité que de noblesse in mine, and — to hell with noblesse!
> «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: After verbs of wishing like «любит» ('likes [it] to be'), the subordinate clause takes «чтобы» plus a past-form verb («было») — the willed/desired mood, not a plain fact. This is the «что» vs «чтобы» distinction: not reporting that something is, but wanting it to be so.
> Contrastive «а» pivoting the comparison: «А» is the mild contrastive conjunction marking a shift of subject — 'whereas I, on the contrary'. It hinges Fyodor's self-flattering inversion against Miusov, the gentle 'and/but' that has no exact English equal.
> «наплевать на» — to spit on / not give a damn: «Наплевать на (что-то)» literally means 'to spit upon', idiomatically 'to not give a damn about'. After his mincing French, Fyodor crashes back into crude Russian — 'to hell with noblesse' — the very collision of registers that is his weapon.

Так ли, фон Зон? Позвольте, отец игумен, я хоть и шут и представляюсь шутом, но я рыцарь чести и хочу высказать.  
Isn't that so, von Sohn? Permit me, Father Superior: I may be a buffoon and play the buffoon, but I am a knight of honor and I wish to speak my mind.
> Concessive «хоть… но»: «Хоть (и)… но» is the concessive frame 'although… yet' — 'though I am a buffoon, yet I am a knight of honor'. Both predicate nouns stand in the bare nominative (zero copula), the antithesis posed as flat self-definition.
> «-ся» verb + predicate instrumental: «Представляюсь» is the reflexive «представляться» ('to present oneself as, pretend to be'), and its predicate «шутом» takes the instrumental — the case of the assumed role. He plays the buffoon; the instrumental quietly frames it as a performance, not his essence.
> «рыцарь чести» — a knight of honor: «Рыцарь» (knight) carries chivalric, romantic overtones; «рыцарь чести» is a stock noble self-image. From a self-confessed «шут» (buffoon), the phrase is pure bombast — the Schillerian posturing Fyodor loves to strike.

Да-с, я рыцарь чести, а в Петре Александровиче — прищемленное самолюбие и ничего больше.  
Yes, sir, I am a knight of honor, whereas in Pyotr Alexandrovich there is nothing but wounded vanity and nothing more.
> Locative «в ком» for 'in someone': «В Петре Александровиче» is prepositional after «в», locating a quality inside a person — 'in Pyotr Alexandrovich [there is]…'. The contrastive «а» again sets his nobility against Miusov's mere vanity. «Да-с» = emphatic «да» + the servile «-с».
> «прищемлённое самолюбие» — pinched pride: «Самолюбие» is self-regard/amour-propre; «прищемлённое» (past passive participle of «прищемить», to pinch/catch) gives the vivid image of vanity caught and smarting, as a finger in a door. 'Wounded vanity and nothing more' is Fyodor's diagnosis of his rival.

Я и приехал-то, может быть, сюда давеча, чтобы посмотреть да высказать.  
I came here today, perhaps, precisely to take a look and to speak my mind.
> «чтобы» of purpose + infinitives: «Чтобы» here introduces purpose — 'in order to take a look and speak out' — governing the perfective infinitives «посмотреть» and «высказать». The emphatic «и… -то» on «приехал-то» foregrounds the very fact of his coming: 'I did come here, you know, precisely to…'.
> «давеча» — a while ago, earlier today: «Давеча» is a homely, slightly archaic adverb meaning 'earlier (today), a little while back'. It belongs to the folksy colloquial layer of Fyodor's speech, like «коли» — the peasant idiom he affects.

У меня здесь сын Алексей спасается; я отец, я об его участи забочусь и должен заботиться.  
My son Alexei is seeking salvation here; I am his father, I care about his fate and am bound to care about it.
> Reflexive «спасаться» — to seek one's salvation: «Спасается» is the «-ся» verb «спасаться», which in a monastic context means 'is working out his salvation / lives the ascetic life' — not merely 'is saving himself'. The reflexive turns the act inward, the standard word for entering monastic life.
> «заботиться о» + prepositional: «Заботиться» ('to care for, be concerned about') governs «о» plus the prepositional — «об его участи» ('about his fate'). The verb is itself a «-ся» reflexive. Note the old «об его»; modern usage prefers «о его».

Я всё слушал да представлялся, да и смотрел потихоньку, а теперь хочу вам и последний акт представления проделать.  
I have been listening all the while and playing my part, watching on the sly, and now I want to perform for you the last act of the show as well.
> Imperfective past + folksy «да (и)»: The three imperfective past verbs «слушал, представлялся, смотрел» depict sustained, simultaneous activity over the whole scene — 'I kept listening and playing a part and watching'. The connective «да (и)» is a folk-flavored 'and', looser and chattier than «и».
> «потихоньку» — quietly, on the sly: «Потихоньку» (from «тихо», quiet, with a diminutive softening) means 'quietly, little by little, on the quiet'. It catches the sly, watchful self-control Fyodor claims under his clowning.

У нас ведь как? У нас что падает, то уж и лежит.  
For how do things go with us? With us, whatever falls lies where it falls.
> Correlative «что… то» as 'whatever… that': The relative «что» paired with correlative «то» means 'whatever (falls), that (lies)'. The imperfective «падает / лежит» states a general law, and «уж и» ('already and') gives the resigned finality — 'whatever falls just lies there'.
> «У нас» + «ведь» — 'with us, you know': «У нас» (literally 'at ours', genitive after «у») means 'in our country / among us'. The particle «ведь» invites agreement — 'for how is it with us, you know?'. Fyodor frames a sweeping claim about the Russian character.

У нас что раз упало, то уж и вовеки лежи.  
With us, whatever has once fallen must lie there forever.
> Imperative «лежи» as a generalized fate: After the perfective «упало» ('once fallen'), the singular imperative «лежи» ('lie!') is used impersonally for an inescapable rule — 'whatever has fallen, just lie there forever'. This jussive use of the imperative makes a command of fate itself.
> «вовеки» — forever, unto the ages: «Вовеки» is an elevated, Church-Slavonic-flavored adverb meaning 'for ever, unto the ages' (cf. liturgical «во веки веков»). Its solemnity ironically inflates a fatalistic shrug into eternal doom.

Как бы не так-с! Я встать желаю.  
Not a bit of it, sir! I mean to get up.
> «как бы не так» — 'not a bit of it!': «Как бы не так» is a fixed colloquial exclamation of scornful refusal — 'nothing of the kind!', 'not on your life!'. The «бы» is frozen inside the idiom rather than building a real conditional; the appended «-с» keeps the mock-deferential tone.
> «желать» + perfective infinitive; marked word order: «Желать» ('to wish, mean to') takes the perfective infinitive «встать» ('to get up, rise'). Fronting «встать» before «желаю» throws the stress onto the act of rising — the news of the sentence — a small instance of Russian's topic-comment freedom.

Отцы святые, я вами возмущен.  
Holy fathers, I am indignant with you.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «Возмущён» is the short-form past passive participle of «возмутить» ('to outrage'), used predicatively — 'I am indignant'. The cause stands in the instrumental, «вами» ('by you'), the regular agent case in such passive constructions.

Исповедь есть великое таинство, пред которым и я благоговею и готов повергнуться ниц, а тут вдруг там в келье все на коленках и исповедуются вслух.  
Confession is a great sacrament, before which even I stand in awe and am ready to prostrate myself to the ground — and then suddenly, in there in the cell, everyone is on their knees confessing aloud.
> Retained copula «есть» in a solemn definition: Russian normally drops 'to be' in the present, but «есть» is kept here for gravity, as in formal definitions and Scripture — 'Confession IS a great sacrament'. The retained «есть» lends a creedal, lapidary weight to the pronouncement.
> Relative «который» + archaic «пред»: «Пред которым» — 'before which' — uses the relative «который», agreeing in gender/number with «таинство» but taking the instrumental its preposition demands. «Пред» is the bookish variant of «перед», governing the instrumental.
> «повергнуться ниц» — to fall prostrate: «Ниц» is an archaic adverb 'face-downward', and «повергнуться ниц» means to throw oneself down in prostration — the full liturgical bow. The solemn phrase momentarily lets Fyodor pose as a man of reverence before he resumes his attack.

Разве вслух позволено исповедоваться?  
Is it permitted to confess aloud?
> «Разве» + impersonal «позволено»: «Разве» introduces an incredulous rhetorical question — 'is it really allowed…?'. «Позволено» is a short impersonal passive participle ('it is permitted'), governing the «-ся» infinitive «исповедоваться» ('to confess [oneself]'). No subject is named — the rule is stated impersonally.

Святыми отцами установлено исповедание на ухо, тогда только исповедь ваша будет таинством, и это издревле.  
The holy fathers established confession in the ear; only then will your confession be a sacrament, and so it has been from of old.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «Установлено» is the short past passive participle ('has been established'), and the agent «святыми отцами» ('by the holy fathers') stands in the instrumental — the textbook agent construction. The fronted agent gives the rule scriptural authority.
> «издревле» — from of old, since ancient times: «Издревле» is a bookish, elevated adverb meaning 'from ancient times, of old' (root «древний», ancient). It anchors the practice in venerable tradition — and recurs in the abbot's reply, knitting their exchange.
> «исповедание на ухо» — confession 'in the ear': «На ухо» literally 'into the ear' is the idiom for whispering privately; «исповедание на ухо» is auricular (private) confession. The set phrase contrasts pointedly with the «вслух» ('aloud') Fyodor decries.

А то как я ему объясню при всех, что я, например, то и то…. ну то есть то и то, понимаете? Иногда ведь и сказать неприлично.  
Or else how am I to explain to him in front of everyone that I, for instance, did this and that… well, that is, this and that, you understand? Sometimes, you know, it is improper even to say it.
> Perfective future «объясню» as deliberation: «Объясню» is the perfective future of «объяснить» ('I will/am to explain'), here in a deliberative rhetorical question — 'how am I to explain…?'. «Ему» is the dative addressee; «при всех» ('in front of everyone') uses the prepositional after «при».
> Impersonal predicate «неприлично»: «Неприлично» is an impersonal predicative — 'it is improper / indecent' — taking an infinitive («сказать») and no subject. The particle «ведь» ('you know, after all') makes Fyodor's mock-coyness conspiratorial.

Так ведь это скандал! Нет, отцы, с вами тут, пожалуй, в хлыстовщину втянешься… Я при первом же случае напишу в синод, а сына своего Алексея домой возьму…  
Now that's a scandal! No, fathers, with you here one might well be drawn into Flagellantism… At the very first opportunity I'll write to the Synod, and I'll take my son Alexei home…"
> Generalized 2nd-person «втянешься»: «Втянешься» is the perfective future of the «-ся» verb «втянуться» ('to get drawn in'), used in the impersonal generalizing 'one' sense — 'one might well get drawn into…'. The «-ся» makes it intransitive/middle; «в хлыстовщину» is accusative of motion-into after «в».
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «Своего» (свой) means 'one's own', pointing back to the subject 'I' — 'my own son'. Using «свой» rather than «моего» is the idiomatic choice when the possessor is the clause's subject. «Возьму» is perfective future, sealing the threat.

Здесь нотабене.  
Here a nota bene.

Федор Павлович слышал, где в колокола звонят.  
Fyodor Pavlovich could hear where the bells were ringing.
> An idiom about knowing the lay of the land: Literally "to hear where the bells are ringing," this Russian idiom means to have a sharp sense of what is going on and where the sensitive spots lie. We keep the literal image — "could hear where the bells were ringing" — because the church bells are especially apt in a monastery setting; in plainer English it would simply mean he knew where the weak spot lay.
> Impersonal 'they' + accusative «в колокола»: «Звонят» is third-person plural with no stated subject — the indefinite 'they ring / the bells are rung'. The idiom takes «в колокола» (accusative after «в»), since «звонить в» governs the accusative for the instrument struck.

Были когда-то злые сплетни, достигшие даже до архиерея (не только по нашему, но и в других монастырях, где установилось старчество), что будто слишком уважаются старцы, в ущерб даже сану игуменскому, и что, между прочим, будто бы старцы злоупотребляют таинством исповеди и проч., и проч.  
There had once been malicious rumors, reaching even the bishop — not only about our monastery but about others where the institution of elders had taken root — that the elders were supposedly held in too great esteem, even to the detriment of the Superior's office, and that, among other things, the elders supposedly abused the sacrament of confession, and so on, and so on.
> Past active participle «достигшие»: «Достигшие» is the past active participle of «достигнуть/достичь» ('that had reached'), agreeing with «сплетни» and condensing a «который»-clause into one bookish modifier — 'rumors that had reached…'. Such participial economy is a signature of literary narration.
> «будто» reported claim + «-ся» passive: «Будто» marks the content as merely alleged ('that supposedly…'), and «уважаются» is the imperfective «-ся» used passively — 'the elders are [too greatly] esteemed'. The whole rumor is held at arm's length as hearsay.
> «в ущерб» + dative — 'to the detriment of': «В ущерб» ('to the detriment of') governs the dative — «сану игуменскому» ('the abbot's office/rank'). «Сан» is the dignity or rank of a churchman, so the complaint is that the elders' prestige undercut the abbot's official authority.

Обвинения нелепые, которые и пали в свое время сами собой и у нас, и повсеместно.  
Absurd accusations, which in due time died away of themselves, both with us and everywhere else.
> Reflexive «сами собой» — of their own accord: «Сами собой» (intensive «сам» + instrumental of reflexive «себя») means 'by themselves, of their own accord, with no outside cause'. The accusations 'fell away of themselves' — a set idiom built on the reflexive pronoun.
> Relative «которые» resuming the noun: «Которые» picks up «обвинения» ('accusations'), agreeing in number and taking nominative as the subject of its own clause. «В своё время» ('in due course') uses reflexive «свой»; «пали» is the perfective past of «пасть», a bookish higher synonym of «упасть».

Но глупый дьявол, который подхватил и нес Федора Павловича на его собственных нервах куда-то всё дальше и дальше в позорную глубину, подсказал ему это бывшее обвинение, в котором Федор Павлович сам не понимал первого слова.  
But the stupid devil who had caught Fyodor Pavlovich up and was bearing him on his own nerves ever deeper into a shameful abyss prompted him with this old accusation, of which Fyodor Pavlovich himself did not understand the first word.
> Relative clause + mixed aspect: The «который»-clause pairs a perfective («подхватил» — had caught up) with an imperfective («нёс» — was bearing), so a single seizing gives way to an ongoing carrying. «На его собственных нервах» — 'on his own nerves' — is prepositional after «на».
> Genitive of negation: «не понимал первого слова»: Under negation the object slips into the genitive: «не понимал… первого слова» ('did not understand the first word'). The idiom 'not to understand the first word [of something]' relies on this genitive of negation for its absoluteness.
> «позорная глубина» — a shameful abyss: «Позор» is public shame/disgrace; «позорная глубина» is the 'shameful depth/abyss' into which the devil drags him. The moralized landscape — a man borne 'ever deeper' into shame — is pure Dostoevskian interior drama.

Да и высказать-то его грамотно не сумел, тем более что на этот раз никто в келье старца на коленях не стоял и вслух не исповедовался, так что Федор Павлович ничего не мог подобного сам видеть и говорил лишь по старым слухам и сплетням, которые кое-как припомнил.  
And he could not even state it coherently, all the more since on this occasion no one in the elder's cell had stood on their knees or confessed aloud, so that Fyodor Pavlovich could have seen nothing of the sort himself and was speaking only from old rumors and gossip that he had somehow scraped together in his memory.
> Emphatic «-то» + perfective «не сумел»: The clitic «-то» on the fronted infinitive «высказать» topicalizes it — 'as for even *stating* it coherently, he couldn't'. «Не сумел» is the perfective past of «суметь» ('manage to'), so the failure is a single completed outcome.
> Negative concord with «никто»: Russian requires the verb to stay negated even with a negative pronoun: «никто… не стоял… не исповедовался» — literally 'nobody did not stand… did not confess', meaning 'no one stood or confessed'. This double negation is obligatory, not a logical error.
> Genitive of negation: «ничего… подобного»: «Ничего подобного» ('nothing of the sort') sits in the genitive under the negated «не мог… видеть» — the genitive of negation triggered by «ничего». The split of «ничего» from its modifier «подобного» across the verb is a fluid, colloquial word order.

Но, высказав свою глупость, он почувствовал, что сморозил нелепый вздор, и вдруг захотелось ему тотчас же доказать слушателям, а пуще всего себе самому, что сказал он вовсе не вздор.  
But, having blurted out his foolishness, he felt that he had spouted absurd nonsense, and suddenly he longed to prove at once to his hearers, and above all to himself, that what he had said was not nonsense at all.
> Perfective past gerund «высказав»: «Высказав» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) — 'having blurted out' — marking an action completed just before the main verb «почувствовал». It shares the subject and packs sequence into a single clause, the hallmark of narrative prose.
> Dative-subject «захотелось»: «Захотелось ему» is an impersonal, subjectless construction — the wish 'comes over' the experiencer, who stands in the dative «ему». The «-ся» reflexive plus dative renders desire as something that befalls him rather than something he wills.
> «сморозить вздор» — to blurt out nonsense: «Сморозить» is a vivid colloquial perfective for blurting out something stupid (literally akin to 'to freeze out'), and «вздор» is 'rubbish, nonsense'. The slangy verb captures Fyodor's own dawning sense that he has said something foolish.

И хотя он отлично знал, что с каждым будущим словом всё больше и нелепее будет прибавлять к сказанному уже вздору еще такого же, — но уж сдержать себя не мог и полетел как с горы.  
And although he knew perfectly well that with each succeeding word he would only heap more and more, still more absurd nonsense onto what he had already said, he could no longer hold himself back and went tumbling on as though down a hill.
> Concessive «хотя» + compound future: «Хотя» ('although') opens the concessive clause; inside it «будет прибавлять» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive) — 'he would keep adding', an ongoing, repeated action. The imperfective stresses the relentless piling-on.
> «как с горы» — like rolling downhill: «Полететь как с горы» ('to fly off as from a mountain') is the image of an unstoppable downhill plunge. The simile renders Fyodor's loss of self-control as physical momentum — once started, he 'went tumbling on'.

— Какая подлость! — крикнул Петр Александрович.  
"What baseness!" cried Pyotr Alexandrovich.
> «подлость» — baseness, a vile act: «Подлость» is meanness, baseness, a contemptibly low deed (root «подлый», base/vile). Miusov's clipped exclamation — 'what baseness!' — is the gentry's recoil at Fyodor's gutter performance.

— Простите, — сказал вдруг игумен. — Было сказано издревле: «И начат глаголати на мя многая некая, даже и до скверных некиих вещей. Аз же вся слышав, глаголах в себе: се врачество Иисусово есть и послал исцелити тщеславную душу мою».  
"Forgive me," the Superior said suddenly. "It was said of old: 'And they began to speak against me many things, even unto certain foul matters. But I, having heard it all, said within myself: this is the medicine of Jesus, sent to heal my vainglorious soul.'"
> Church Slavonic quotation: The Superior answers in Church Slavonic, the liturgical language of Russian Orthodoxy, which sounds archaic and scriptural to a modern ear. Note forms like Аз ("I", modern я), начат ("began"), and глаголати ("to speak", modern говорить). Dostoevsky uses the elevated register to contrast the monk's humility with Fyodor's vulgar mockery.
> Old pronoun «мя» and the gerund «слышав»: «Мя» is the Old Church Slavonic accusative of «я» ('me', modern «меня»), and «на мя» means 'against me'. «Аз же вся слышав» ('but I, having heard all') uses the archaic past gerund «слышав» with neuter-plural «вся» ('all things') — solemn, Scripture-flavored syntax.
> «врачество», «исцелити», «тщеславие»: «Врачество» is the archaic 'medicine/healing', and «исцелити» the Slavonic infinitive 'to heal' (modern «исцелить»). «Тщеславную» — 'vainglorious' — names the very sin of vanity. The abbot reframes Fyodor's abuse as the medicine of Christ sent to cure his own pride.

А потому и мы благодарим вас с покорностью, гость драгоценный!  
"And so we too thank you with humility, precious guest!"
> «благодарить» + accusative; «с покорностью»: «Благодарить» takes the accusative of the person thanked — «вас». «С покорностью» ('with humility/submission') uses the instrumental of manner after «с». The plural «мы» («благодарим») speaks for the whole brotherhood.
> «драгоценный» — precious; postposed adjective: «Драгоценный» is an elevated 'precious, dear', and placing the adjective *after* «гость» ('guest') gives a warm, formulaic, almost liturgical ring — 'precious guest'. The abbot returns Fyodor's abuse with disarming, deliberate courtesy.

И он поклонился Федору Павловичу в пояс.  
And he bowed to Fyodor Pavlovich from the waist.
> «поклониться» + dative of the person bowed to: «Поклониться» ('to bow') governs the dative of the one bowed to — «Федору Павловичу». «В пояс» ('to the waist') is the idiom for a deep waist-bow. The reflexive «-ся» here is lexicalized into the verb of bowing.

— Те-те-те! Ханжество и старые фразы! Старые фразы и старые жесты! Старая ложь и казенщина земных поклонов! Знаем мы эти поклоны!  
"Tut, tut, tut! Hypocrisy and stale phrases! Stale phrases and stale gestures! The old lie and the rote formality of bows to the ground! We know these bows!
> «Те-те-те!» — a dismissive 'tut-tut': «Те-те-те!» is an interjection of mocking dismissal or sudden recognition — roughly 'tut, tut!' or 'aha, aha!'. Fyodor brushes the abbot's humble bow aside with this jeering noise before launching his tirade.
> «ханжество» and «казёнщина»: «Ханжество» is sanctimony, religious hypocrisy; «казёнщина» (from «казённый», official/state-issued) is soulless, rote officialdom. Fyodor brands the bow 'the rote formality of bows to the ground' — empty performance, not devotion.
> Verbless exclamations + emphatic word order: The hammering nominal fragments («Старые фразы и старые жесты!») dispense with verbs entirely for rhetorical punch. In «Знаем мы эти поклоны!» the inverted verb-first order with stressed «мы» throws scorn forward — 'oh, WE know these bows!'.

«Поцелуй в губы и кинжал в сердце», как в «Разбойниках» Шиллера.  
'A kiss on the lips and a dagger in the heart,' as in Schiller's The Robbers.
> «кинжал» — a dagger: «Кинжал» is a dagger or stiletto, a Romantic prop of treachery and revenge. 'A kiss on the lips and a dagger in the heart' caps Fyodor's accusation that the monks' meekness masks hidden malice.

Не люблю, отцы, фальши, а хочу истины! Но не в пескариках истина, и я это провозгласил!  
I do not like falsehood, fathers, I want the truth! But the truth is not in gudgeons, and I proclaimed it!
> Genitive of negation + genitive of «хотеть»: Both objects are genitive: «фальши» under negated «не люблю» (genitive of negation), and «истины» because «хотеть» ('to want') regularly governs the genitive of abstract objects. The parallel genitives sharpen the antithesis falsehood / truth.
> Fronted negated locative for emphasis: «Не в пескариках истина» ('the truth is not in the gudgeons') fronts the negated prepositional phrase «в пескариках» before the verbless predicate «истина». The marked order hammers the contrast — where the truth is *not*. «И я это провозгласил» uses the lofty «провозгласить» ('proclaim').

Отцы монахи, зачем поститесь? Зачем вы ждете за это себе награды на небеси? Так ведь из-за этакой награды и я пойду поститься!  
Monk-fathers, why do you fast? Why do you expect a reward in heaven for it? Why, for a reward like that, I'd go and fast too!
> Reflexive «поститься» + genitive object of «ждать»: «Поститесь» is the «-ся» verb «поститься» ('to fast'). «Ждать» ('to expect, await') governs the genitive of an abstract/indefinite object — «награды» ('a reward'). The taunting «зачем?» ('what for?') frames asceticism as mercenary.
> Church-Slavonic locative «на небеси»: «На небеси» is the Church-Slavonic prepositional of «небо» ('in heaven'), where modern Russian says «на небе/на небесах». The liturgical form, echoing the Lord's Prayer, lets Fyodor mockingly ape the language of piety.
> «из-за» + genitive; colloquial «этакий»: «Из-за» ('because of, for the sake of') governs the genitive — «этакой награды». «Этакий» is a colloquial, expressive variant of «такой» ('such a'), faintly contemptuous here. «Пойду поститься» pairs the perfective future of motion with an infinitive of purpose.

Нет, монах святой, ты будь-ка добродетелен в жизни, принеси пользу обществу, не заключаясь в монастыре на готовые хлеба и не ожидая награды там наверху, — так это-то потруднее будет.  
No, holy monk, you be virtuous in life, do some good for society, instead of shutting yourself up in a monastery on free bread and looking for a reward up there — that would be a good deal harder.
> Imperative «будь» + softening «-ка» + short adjective: «Будь» is the singular imperative of «быть» ('be!'), and the clitic «-ка» softens it into coaxing challenge — 'now you just be…'. «Добродетелен» is a short-form adjective (predicate only), giving the bookish, sententious flavor of a moral maxim.
> Negated present gerunds «не заключаясь… ожидая»: Two imperfective present gerunds, both negated — «не заключаясь» ('without shutting [oneself] up', a «-ся» verb) and «не ожидая» ('without awaiting') — describe the manner attending the imperative. They share its implied subject 'you'.
> «на готовые хлеба» — on free board: «Хлеба» (plural of «хлеб») here means 'keep, sustenance'; «на готовых/готовые хлеба» is the idiom for living at another's expense, 'on free bread'. Fyodor sneers that the monks idle on charity rather than earning their keep.

Я тоже ведь, отец игумен, умею складно сказать.  
I too, Father Superior, can turn a fine phrase, you know.
> «ведь» + «уметь» + perfective infinitive: «Ведь» ('you know, after all') invites the abbot to grant the point. «Умею… сказать» pairs «уметь» ('to know how') with the perfective infinitive «сказать»; «складно» means 'smoothly, eloquently' — Fyodor preening over his own rhetoric.

Что у них тут наготовлено? — подошел он к столу. — Портвейн старый Фактори, медок разлива братьев Елисеевых, ай да отцы!  
What have they laid in here?" He stepped up to the table. "Old Factory port, mead bottled by the Eliseev Brothers, oh ho, fathers!
> Short passive participle «наготовлено»: «Наготовлено» is a short impersonal past passive participle ('what has been laid in / prepared'). With no named agent and the prefix «на-» suggesting abundance, it scans the spread of food as if cataloguing evidence against the monks.
> «медок» and the exclamation «ай да»: «Медок» is the affectionate diminutive of «мёд» (mead). «Ай да (отцы)!» is a colloquial exclamation of mock admiration — 'oh ho, what fathers!' / 'well done indeed!'. The endearing suffix and folk interjection drip with sarcasm.

Не похоже ведь на пескариков.  
Doesn't look much like gudgeons, does it.
> Impersonal «похоже на» + «ведь»: «Похоже на (что-то)» is the impersonal 'it resembles / looks like', governing «на» + accusative «пескариков». «Ведь» again seeks the listener's nod — 'doesn't look much like gudgeons, does it'. The gudgeon refrain returns to skewer the monks' luxury.

Ишь бутылочек-то отцы наставили, хе-хе-хе! А кто это всё доставлял сюда?  
Look at all the little bottles the fathers have set out, heh-heh-heh! And who brought all this here?
> Interjection «ишь», diminutive, partitive genitive: «Ишь» is a colloquial interjection of surprised disapproval ('just look!'). «Бутылочек» is the genitive plural diminutive of «бутылка» — 'little bottles' — partitive after «наставить» ('to set out a quantity of'); «-то» topicalizes them. The chain of folk markers makes the jeer thoroughly low-register.
> Imperfective «доставлял» for the repeated supply: «Доставлял» is imperfective past — 'who kept bringing / used to bring all this here?' — picturing an ongoing, repeated provisioning rather than one delivery. The aspect sets up his next point about the peasant's steady tribute.

Это мужик русский, труженик, своими мозольными руками заработанный грош сюда несет, отрывая его от семейства и от нужд государственных!  
It's the Russian peasant, the laborer, who carries here the penny earned with his own calloused hands, tearing it away from his family and from the needs of the state!
> Past passive participle modifying «грош»: «Заработанный» is the past passive participle of «заработать» ('earned'), agreeing with «грош» and standing before it with its own instrumental phrase «своими… руками» ('with his own… hands'). This pre-posed participial cluster is dense literary syntax — 'the penny earned with his calloused hands'.
> Present gerund «отрывая» + «от» + genitive: «Отрывая» is an imperfective present gerund ('tearing [it] away'), attendant on «несёт». «От семейства… от нужд» takes the genitive after «от». The postposed adjective «государственных» lends the phrase a weighty, oratorical cadence.

Ведь вы, отцы святые, народ сосете!  
Why, holy fathers, you are sucking the people dry!"
> Imperfective «сосёте» as habitual accusation: «Сосёте» is imperfective present ('you suck / are sucking'), naming an ongoing, habitual practice. «Народ» ('the people') is the accusative object. The visceral metaphor — 'you suck the people dry' — caps the demagogic peroration before he is rebuked.

— Это уж совсем недостойно с вашей стороны, — проговорил отец Иосиф.  
"This is quite unworthy on your part," said Father Iosif.
> Impersonal «недостойно» + «с вашей стороны»: «Недостойно» is an impersonal predicative ('it is unworthy'), and «с вашей стороны» ('on your part') is the set idiom assigning the conduct to someone. Father Iosif's measured rebuke uses no nominative subject — the judgment hovers impersonally over Fyodor's behavior.

Отец Паисий упорно молчал.  
Father Paisy kept stubbornly silent.
> Imperfective «молчал» for sustained silence: «Молчал» is imperfective past — Father Paisy 'kept silent', a continued state rather than a single act. The adverb «упорно» ('stubbornly, doggedly') deepens the durative force: a pointed, unbroken refusal to answer Fyodor.

Миусов бросился бежать из комнаты, а за ним и Калганов.  
Miusov rushed out of the room, and Kalganov after him.
> «броситься» + infinitive; gapped clause with «а»: «Бросился бежать» — the reflexive «броситься» ('to dash') plus the infinitive «бежать» — means 'rushed to flee'. In «а за ним и Калганов» the verb is gapped (understood from the first clause), and contrastive «а» tacks on the second runner: 'and Kalganov after him'.

— Ну, отцы, и я за Петром Александровичем! Больше я к вам не приду, просить будете на коленях, не приду.  
"Well, fathers, I'm off after Pyotr Alexandrovich too! I'll not come to you again — beg me on your knees, I'll not come.
> Perfective future «не приду» + genitive-like «больше не»: «Не приду» is the perfective future of «прийти» ('I will not come [even once]'), and «больше… не» means 'no more, never again'. The emphatic repetition of «не приду» frames a flat, final vow. «К вам» is dative after «к».
> Conditionless concession in the compound future: «Просить будете» is the imperfective compound future ('you will [keep] begging'), set as an implicit concession with no «если» or «хоть» — 'even if you beg on your knees, I won't come'. The bare juxtaposition lets the contrast speak for itself.

Тысячу рубликов я вам прислал, так вы опять глазки навострили, хе-хе-хе! Нет, еще не прибавлю.  
I sent you a thousand rubles, so you've got your greedy little eyes peeled again, heh-heh-heh! No, I'll add nothing more.
> «рублики» — the little rubles: «Рублики» is the diminutive of «рубли» ('rubles'). The cozy suffix on a sum as large as a thousand is sneering and proprietorial — flaunting his gift while belittling it, as if tossing the monks a trifle.
> «навострить глазки» — to prick up greedy little eyes: «Навострить» means to sharpen/prick up (usually «уши», ears); applied to «глазки» (diminutive 'little eyes') it paints eager, grasping attention. With the diminutive, 'you've got your greedy little eyes peeled' drips contempt for the monks' supposed avarice.
> Perfective future «не прибавлю»: «Не прибавлю» is the perfective future of «прибавить» ('I will not add [any more]'). The perfective makes it a single, definitive withholding — 'I'll add nothing more' — the punchline to his mock-generous taunt.

Мщу за мою прошедшую молодость, за всё унижение мое! — застучал он кулаком по столу в припадке выделанного чувства.  
I am avenging my bygone youth, all my humiliation!" He banged his fist on the table in a fit of manufactured feeling.
> «мстить за» + accusative: «Мщу» is the present of «мстить» ('to avenge, take revenge'), which governs «за» + accusative for what one avenges — «за молодость… за унижение». The fronted bare verb gives the cry a sudden, theatrical force.
> Instrumental of instrument + «по» + dative: «Кулаком» ('with his fist') is the instrumental of the means, and «по столу» ('on/along the table') is «по» + dative for the surface struck. «Застучал» (perfective with «за-») marks the onset of the banging — 'he began pounding'.
> «выделанное чувство» — manufactured feeling: «Припадок» is a fit or seizure; «выделанное» (past passive participle of «выделать», to work up/fabricate) brands the emotion as counterfeit. The narrator's phrase — 'a fit of manufactured feeling' — exposes Fyodor's whole tirade as theater.

Много значил этот монастырек в моей жизни! Много горьких слез я из-за него пролил!  
This little monastery meant a great deal in my life! Many a bitter tear have I shed on its account!
> A dismissive diminutive: «монастырёк» is «монастырь» (monastery) with the diminutive suffix -ёк. In Fyodor Pavlovich's mouth it is not affectionate but belittling — "this little monastery" — the same suffix that can endear can also reduce and sneer.
> Fronted predicate for emphasis: The neutral order would be «Этот монастырёк много значил». By hurling «Много значил» to the front, the speaker throws all the rhetorical weight onto how much it supposedly meant — theatrical emphasis, not new grammar.
> Genitive after a quantity word: «Много» (many/much) governs the genitive plural «горьких слёз». This is the partitive genitive that quantity words and numerals above four demand — "many of bitter tears."

Вы жену мою, кликушу, восставляли против меня.  
You set my wife, the shrieker, against me.
> The "shrieker": A «кликуша» is a woman subject to fits of hysterical screaming, popularly thought to be possessed and given to crying out (от «кликать», to call out) during church services. It is a culturally loaded folk-religious term, not a clinical one.
> Imperfective past of repeated agitation: «восставляли» (an archaic-flavoured form of «восстанавливать», to set/turn against) is imperfective past, reading as a repeated or sustained campaign of incitement rather than a single act. «против» governs the genitive «меня».

Вы меня на семи соборах проклинали, по околотку разнесли!  
You cursed me at seven councils and spread the word of it all over the district!
> Spread it round the neighbourhood: «околоток» is an old word for a local district or neighbourhood; «разнесли» (perfective of «разносить») means to carry/spread gossip about. The pairing means "broadcast it all over the district."
> Perfective: the deed accomplished: Against the imperfective «проклинали» (kept cursing) stands the perfective «разнесли» — the gossip viewed as a single completed accomplishment. The aspect pair lets one sentence hold both an ongoing campaign and its finished result.

Довольно, отцы, нынче век либеральный, век пароходов и железных дорог.  
Enough, holy fathers; this is a liberal age, the age of steamships and railways.
> Stacked genitives of "of": "The age of steamships and of railways" is built from genitive plurals: «пароходов», «железных дорог». The genitive is Russian's all-purpose "of," and here it strings the emblems of the age into apposition with «век».

Ни тысячи, ни ста рублей, ни ста копеек, ничего от меня не получите!  
Not a thousand, not a hundred rubles, not a hundred kopecks — you'll get nothing whatever out of me!
> Piled-up «ни» and negative concord: Repeated «ни… ни…» ("neither… nor…") reinforces a negation that culminates in «ничего… не получите». Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even amid all these «ни»-words: many negatives, one emphatic meaning — "you'll get nothing whatever."
> Genitive of the negated object: Under negation the objects slide into the genitive: «тысячи», «ста рублей», «ста копеек». A negated, non-specific quantity "of" money is exactly where the genitive of negation lives.

Опять нотабене.  
Again a nota bene.
> Nota bene: «нотабене» (from Latin nota bene, "note well") is a bookish borrowing the narrator drops in ironically — Fyodor Pavlovich is treating his own tirade as a text with marginal annotations, underscoring the staged, performative quality of his outburst.

Никогда и ничего такого особенного не значил наш монастырь в его жизни, и никаких горьких слез не проливал он из-за него.  
Never, in any way, had our monastery meant anything of the sort in his life, nor had he ever shed a single bitter tear on its account.
> Cascade of negatives: The narrator deflates the speech with a chain: «никогда», «ничего», «никаких» all leaning on the negated verbs «не значил», «не проливал». Russian negative concord lets several «ни»-words sit under a single negation — emphatic, not contradictory.
> Genitive under negation: The negated object stands in the genitive: «никаких горьких слёз». The imperfective «проливал» (was shedding) frames the whole supposed habit of weeping as something that simply never went on at all.

Но он до того увлекся выделанными слезами своими, что на одно мгновение чуть было себе сам не поверил; даже заплакал было от умиления; но в тот же миг почувствовал, что пора поворачивать оглобли назад.  
But he had been so carried away by his own manufactured tears that for a single instant he very nearly believed himself; he even came close to weeping out of tenderness — yet in that same moment he felt that it was time to turn the shafts back around.
> To turn the shafts back: «оглобли» are the long shafts of a horse-drawn cart; "to turn the shafts back" is an idiom for beating a retreat, abruptly changing course. The earthy image fits a man who has just realized his performance has gone far enough.
> The «было» of the unrealized act: The particle «было» marks an action begun or nearly begun but cut short or undone: «чуть было… не поверил» (very nearly believed) and «заплакал было» (started to weep but didn't follow through). It is a quietly archaic, very 19th-century device.
> Reflexive «себе» plus intensifier «сам»: «себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun «себя», pointing back to the subject ("believed himself"), reinforced by «сам» ("himself," in person). Together they sharpen the irony: he almost took in his own act.
> «умиление» — tender emotion: «умиление» is a melting tenderness or sentimental emotion, often with a spiritual tinge in religious contexts. «от умиления» ("out of tenderness") names the very feeling Fyodor Pavlovich is counterfeiting.

Игумен на злобную ложь его наклонил голову и опять внушительно произнес:  
At his malicious lie the Father Superior bowed his head and once more pronounced impressively:
> Two perfectives move the scene: «наклонил» (bowed) and «произнёс» (pronounced) are both perfective past — two single, completed gestures that advance the action one beat at a time, the engine of narrative as opposed to standing description.

— Сказано снова: «Претерпи смотрительне находящее на тя невольно бесчестие с радостию, и да не смутишися, ниже возненавидиши бесчестящего тя». Так и мы поступим.  
"It is written again: 'Bear with gladness the dishonor that befalls thee against thy will, and be not troubled, neither hate him that dishonors thee.' So shall we too do."
> Church-Slavonic grammar: «тя» is the Slavonic accusative of "thee" (modern «тебя»); «да не смутишися» uses «да» + verb for an exhortation ("be not troubled"); «ниже» means "nor"; «возненавидиши» is the Slavonic 2nd-person ending -ши. These archaic forms mark the elevated, scriptural register.
> Imperative of endurance: «Претерпи» is the perfective imperative of «претерпеть» (to endure to the end), commanding a single resolute act of forbearance. The whole quotation is built as a string of commands and prohibitions.

— Те-те-те, вознепщеваху! и прочая галиматья! Непщуйте, отцы, а я пойду.  
"Tut, tut, tut — 'they have murmured!' and the rest of the gibberish! Murmur away, fathers, but I am off.
> Mocking the Slavonic «непщевати»: Fyodor Pavlovich seizes on the archaic Slavonic verb «непщевати» (to think, suppose, murmur) and twists it into nonsense — «вознепщеваху» (a fake Slavonic aorist, "they murmured") and the jeering imperative «Непщуйте!» ("murmur away!"). He is parodying churchly diction.
> «галиматья» — gibberish: «галиматья» (from French galimatias) means nonsense, gibberish, mumbo-jumbo. Fyodor Pavlovich dismisses the abbot's holy quotation as so much «галиматья» — the calculated insult of a buffoon.
> Archaic «и прочая»: «и прочая» ("and the rest, et cetera") is an old neuter-plural Slavonic form, where modern Russian would say «и прочее». Fyodor Pavlovich keeps up his mock-ecclesiastical voice even in his dismissals.

А сына моего Алексея беру отселе родительскою властию моею навсегда.  
And my son Alexei I take away from here forever, by my paternal authority.
> «отселе» — archaic "from here": «отселе» is a bookish/archaic equivalent of «отсюда» (from here / hence). The elevated adverb, like «родительскою властию», lets Fyodor Pavlovich strike a grand legalistic pose while snatching his son away.
> Archaic instrumental endings: «властию» (modern «властью») and «родительскою… моею» (modern «-ой») carry the old bookish instrumental endings -ию/-ою. The instrumental here is the means — "by my paternal authority" — dressed in deliberately solemn 19th-century clothing.
> Present imperfective as declaration: «беру» is present-tense imperfective "I take." Used for a willed, performative act ("I hereby take him away forever"), the present tense gives the announcement the force of an accomplished decision.

Иван Федорович, почтительнейший сын мой, позвольте вам приказать за мною следовать!  
Ivan Fyodorovich, my most respectful son, permit me to command you to follow me!
> Bookish superlative in -ейший: «почтительнейший» ("most respectful") is the synthetic superlative with the suffix -ейший, a markedly bookish form. Aimed at the silent, contemptuous Ivan, it drips with sarcasm.
> A self-undermining politeness: «позвольте» is the polite imperative "permit (me)," «вам» the dative "to you." The comic absurdity is grammatical and social at once: he politely asks permission to issue a command — «приказать… следовать», to order someone to follow.

Фон Зон, чего тебе тут оставаться! Приходи сейчас ко мне в город.  
Von Sohn, what have you to stay here for! Come along to me in town this instant.
> Dative subject of an infinitive: "What is there for you to stay here for?" is built impersonally: dative «тебе» as the one concerned, plus the bare infinitive «оставаться», with no nominative subject — a hallmark Russian experiencer construction.
> Imperative of invitation: «Приходи» is the imperative of the prefixed motion verb «приходить» (to come/arrive), addressed familiarly to «ты». «ко мне» ("to my place") uses «к» + dative — the case the preposition demands.

У меня весело. Всего верстушка какая-нибудь, вместо постного-то масла подам поросенка с кашей; пообедаем; коньячку поставлю, потом ликерцу; мамуровка есть… Эй, фон Зон, не упускай своего счастия!  
It's merry at my place. It's only a verst or so away; instead of lenten oil I'll serve you a suckling pig with kasha; we'll dine; I'll set out the brandy, then the cordial; there's arctic-bramble (knyazhenika) liqueur too… Hey, von Sohn, don't let your luck slip by!
> "Just a verst or so": A «верста» is about 1.07 km; «верстушка» is the diminutive ("a mere little verst"), and «какая-нибудь» ("some… or other") downplays the distance further — "only a verst or so away."
> Diminutive drinks and arctic-bramble liqueur: «коньячку» and «ликерцу» are caressing diminutive-partitive forms of «коньяк» (brandy) and «ликёр» (cordial) — "a nice drop of brandy… of cordial." «мамуровка» is a homemade liqueur of «мамура» = the arctic bramble (knyazhenika, Rubus arcticus), a different berry from cloudberry («морошка»).
> Reflexive possessive «своего»: «своего» (reflexive possessive) means the luck belongs to the subject being addressed — "your own luck." «счастия» is the archaic genitive of «счастье». The negated imperative «не упускай» urges him not to let it slip.

Он вышел, крича и жестикулируя.  
He went out, shouting and gesticulating.
> Two simultaneous gerunds: «крича» and «жестикулируя» are imperfective present gerunds («деепричастия») expressing actions going on at the same time as «вышел» — "he went out, shouting and gesticulating." Both share the subject of the main verb.

Вот в это-то мгновение Ракитин и увидел его выходящего и указал Алеше.  
It was precisely at this moment that Rakitin caught sight of him coming out and pointed him out to Alyosha.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» fastened to «это» ("this very moment") emphasizes a known, pointed referent — "it was precisely at this moment." This is the topic-stressing «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».
> Participle as object complement: «выходящего» is the present active participle of «выходить» (going out), here in the accusative agreeing with «его» — "saw him coming out." The participle compresses a whole "as he was going out" clause into one agreeing word.

— Алексей! — крикнул ему издали отец, завидев его, — сегодня же переезжай ко мне совсем, и подушку и тюфяк тащи, и чтобы твоего духу здесь не пахло.  
"Alexei!" the father shouted to him from a distance, spotting him. "Move in with me for good this very day, and bring your pillow and your mattress, and let there be no whiff of you left here."
> Insistent «же»: The particle «же» on «сегодня» ("this very day") adds urgent insistence — the untranslatable emphatic that English carries only by stress. «совсем» ("completely, for good") drives the command home.
> Imperatives of moving in: «переезжай» (move house) and «тащи» (drag/lug) are familiar imperatives to «ты». «тащи» is colloquial and physical — "haul over your pillow and mattress" — matching Fyodor Pavlovich's coarse register.
> «чтобы» + past for a willed negative: «чтобы… не пахло» uses «чтобы» with a past-form verb to express a willed outcome — "and let there be no whiff of you left here." «твоего духу» is genitive of the negated subject. The idiom «чтоб духу не было» means "clear out, be gone."

Алеша остановился как вкопанный, молча и внимательно наблюдая сцену.  
Alyosha stopped as if rooted to the spot, silently and attentively watching the scene.
> "As if rooted to the spot": «как вкопанный» (literally "as if dug in") is a set simile for stopping stock-still, frozen in place — the standard idiom for sudden, rooted immobility.
> Gerund of attendant manner: «наблюдая» is the imperfective gerund of «наблюдать» (to watch), expressing what Alyosha was doing while he «остановился». «молча» (silently) is itself a frozen gerund of «молчать». Both share the main subject.

Федор Павлович между тем влез в коляску, а за ним, даже и не оборотившись к Алеше проститься, молча и угрюмо стал было влезать Иван Федорович.  
Fyodor Pavlovich meanwhile had climbed into the carriage, and after him, without so much as turning to Alyosha to say goodbye, Ivan Fyodorovich began silently and gloomily to climb in as well.
> «коляска» — the carriage: A «коляска» is a light open horse-drawn carriage. It anchors the whole departure scene, with its «подножка» (footboard), «ступенька» (step), «кузов» (body), and «облучок» (driver's box).
> Negated past gerund: «не оборотившись» is the perfective past gerund of «оборотиться» (to turn round), here negated — "without even turning round." «проститься» (the -ся reflexive, to take leave) completes the sense "to say goodbye."
> «стал было» — began, then checked: «стал… влезать» (began to climb in) with the interrupting particle «было» signals an action begun but, as the next sentence shows, about to be disrupted. «влезать» is imperfective — the climbing-in seen as a process underway.

Но тут произошла еще одна паясническая и невероятная почти сцена, восполнившая эпизод.  
But here yet another buffoonish and almost incredible scene arose, rounding out the episode.
> «паяснический» — clownish: From «паяц» (a clown, harlequin, from Italian pagliaccio), «паяснический» means clownish, buffoonish. The narrator's word for the scene captures the grotesque farce that Maximov is about to enact.
> Past active participle as modifier: «восполнившая» is the past active participle of «восполнить» (to fill out, complete), agreeing with feminine «сцена» — "a scene that rounded out the episode." It packs a whole который-clause into one trailing word, in the bookish narrative style.

Вдруг у подножки коляски появился помещик Максимов.  
Suddenly, at the footboard of the carriage, the landowner Maximov appeared.
> Verb-then-subject for an entrance: The new character is held back to the end of the clause: «появился помещик Максимов». Putting the place and verb first and the subject last lets the carriage's footboard be the given ground and Maximov the news — Russian's topic-comment flow.

Он прибежал запыхавшись, чтобы не опоздать.  
He had come running, out of breath, so as not to be too late.
> Gerund of accompanying state: «запыхавшись» is the past gerund of the -ся verb «запыхаться» (to get out of breath), describing the state in which he «прибежал» (came running, perfective) — "came running, out of breath."
> «чтобы» + infinitive of purpose: With the same subject, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive to express purpose: «чтобы не опоздать» — "so as not to be late." «опоздать» is perfective, the feared single outcome of arriving too late.

Ракитин и Алеша видели, как он бежал.  
Rakitin and Alyosha had seen him running.
> Perception clause with «как»: «видели, как он бежал» — "saw how/that he was running." Russian renders "saw him running" with a «как»-clause and an imperfective verb «бежал» (was running, the unidirectional run viewed as process).

Он так спешил, что в нетерпении занес уже ногу на ступеньку, на которой еще стояла левая нога Ивана Федоровича, и, схватившись за кузов, стал было подпрыгивать в коляску.  
He was in such haste that in his impatience he had already set one foot on the step, on which Ivan Fyodorovich's left foot still rested, and, grabbing hold of the carriage body, was about to spring up into it.
> «так… что» result clause: «так спешил, что…» ("hastened so that…") sets up a consequence clause. Inside it the perfectives «занёс» (set/raised) and later «стал… подпрыгивать» drive the comic action forward step by step.
> Relative «который» in the prepositional: «на которой» is the relative pronoun «который», feminine to agree with «ступенька» (step), but in the prepositional after «на» because of its own role — "the step on which Ivan's foot still rested."
> Gerund plus interrupted action: «схватившись» is the past gerund of the -ся verb «схватиться» (to grab hold), prior to the main verb. «стал… подпрыгивать» (began to spring up) is again the «стал… было» pattern of an action launched but about to be cut off.

— И я, и я с вами! — выкрикивал он, подпрыгивая, смеясь мелким веселым смешком, с блаженством в лице и на всё готовый, — возьмите и меня!  
"Me too, me too, I'm coming with you!" he kept crying as he hopped about, laughing a thin, merry little laugh, blissful in the face and ready for anything. "Take me along as well!"
> Chained gerunds of manner: «подпрыгивая» (hopping) and «смеясь» (laughing) are imperfective gerunds piling up the manner of his crying out. «смеясь… смешком» couples the verb with its own cognate noun «смешок» (a little laugh) in the instrumental — "laughing a little laugh."
> «блаженство» — bliss: «блаженство» means bliss or beatitude, a word with a faintly religious aura (the «блаженный» is the holy fool/blessed one). Applied to the absurd Maximov "blissful in the face," it gives his foolish rapture an ironic halo.
> Polite/plural imperative: «возьмите» is the imperative of «взять» (to take) with the -те ending of plurality or politeness — Maximov addresses the carriage's occupants with deferential "take me too!"

— Ну не говорил ли я, — восторженно крикнул Федор Павлович, — что это фон Зон! Что это настоящий воскресший из мертвых фон Зон!  
"Now didn't I say so," Fyodor Pavlovich cried in delight, "that this was von Sohn! That this is the real von Sohn, risen from the dead!
> Rhetorical question with «ли»: The particle «ли» after the fronted, negated verb «не говорил» makes a rhetorical yes/no question — "Now didn't I say so?" It is a more emphatic, literary turn than mere intonation and pervades Dostoevsky's dialogue.

Да как ты вырвался оттуда? Что ты там нафонзонил такого и как ты-то мог от обеда уйти? Ведь надо же медный лоб иметь!  
But how did you tear yourself away from there? What sort of von-Sohning did you get up to back there, and how on earth could you walk out on a dinner? You'd have to have a brass forehead to do it!
> A verb coined from "von Sohn": «нафонзонил» is Fyodor Pavlovich's invented perfective verb, coined out of the name "von Sohn" with the prefix на- ("do a lot of X") — roughly "what von-Sohning did you get up to?" The spontaneous word-coinage is the height of his clowning.
> Contrastive «-то» on the pronoun: The clitic «-то» on «ты» («ты-то») sets him apart for emphasis — "how could you of all people…" This is the topicalizing «-то», marking a known referent singled out, not the indefinite suffix.
> Stacked particles «ведь» and «же»: «Ведь» appeals to shared obviousness ("after all, you'd have to…") and «же» insists; together they saturate the line with conversational pressure. «надо… иметь» is the impersonal «надо» + infinitive of necessity.
> "A brass forehead": «медный лоб» (literally "a copper/brass forehead") is an idiom for brazen shamelessness or thick-skinned stupidity — to do something so cheeky you'd need a forehead of brass.

У меня лоб, а я, брат, твоему удивляюсь! Прыгай, прыгай скорей! Пусти его, Ваня, весело будет.  
I have one myself, but yours, brother, astonishes me! Jump, jump, quick! Let him in, Vanya, it'll be fun.
> «удивляться» governs the dative: «удивляюсь» (the -ся verb "to marvel/be amazed at") takes its object in the dative: «твоему» (sc. «лбу»), "I marvel at yours." Many Russian verbs of emotion and attitude govern the dative rather than the accusative.
> Rapid-fire imperatives: «Прыгай» (jump), «Пусти» (let in/release) are familiar imperatives; the doubling «Прыгай, прыгай» and «скорей» ("quicker") convey breathless urging. «весело будет» is the impersonal future "it'll be fun."
> Familiar address: «Ваня», «брат»: «Ваня» is the affectionate diminutive of Иван, and «брат» ("brother") is here a chummy filler of address, not literal kinship. Both mark Fyodor Pavlovich's mock-jovial, presumptuous intimacy with his cold son.

Он тут как-нибудь в ногах полежит. Полежишь, фон Зон? Али на облучок его с кучером примостить?.. Прыгай на облучок, фон Зон!..  
He can lie down here somehow, at our feet. Will you lie down, von Sohn? Or shall we perch him up on the box with the coachman?.. Jump up onto the box, von Sohn!.."
> «али» — folksy "or": «али» is a colloquial, rustic variant of «или» (or). Sprinkled into his patter, it gives Fyodor Pavlovich's speech a deliberately low, folk-tinged colour.
> Box and coachman: The «облучок» is the raised driver's seat (the "box") at the front of the carriage, where the «кучер» (coachman) sits. Fyodor Pavlovich proposes perching Maximov up there like baggage.
> Perfective future as a question: «Полежишь?» is the perfective «полежать» (to lie down for a while) conjugated like a present but meaning future — "will you lie down?" The perfective frames it as a single bounded act of lying there a bit.

Но Иван Федорович, усевшийся уже на место, молча и изо всей силы вдруг отпихнул в грудь Максимова, и тот отлетел на сажень.  
But Ivan Fyodorovich, already settled in his seat, silently and with all his might suddenly shoved Maximov in the chest, and the man went flying back a full sazhen.
> Past active participle of settling in: «усевшийся» is the past active participle of the -ся verb «усесться» (to take one's seat), agreeing with Ivan — "having already settled into his seat." It sets the completed state against the sudden «отпихнул» that follows.
> Sudden perfective shove: «отпихнул» (perfective of «отпихивать», to shove off) is one violent, completed motion — "shoved him away." «изо всей силы» ("with all his might") is an idiom with the genitive after «из».

Если не упал, то только случайно.  
That he did not fall was due to chance alone.
> «если… то» as concession: Here «если… то» is not a true condition but a tight statement of fact: "if he didn't fall, it was only by chance." «упал» is perfective past, the single (averted) event of falling. The clipped construction mimics dry narratorial understatement.

— Пошел! — злобно крикнул кучеру Иван Федорович.  
"Drive on!" Ivan Fyodorovich shouted angrily to the coachman.
> «Пошёл!» — "Drive on!": Literally the past tense of «пойти» (he went), «Пошёл!» functions as a sharp command to a coachman or horse to start moving — "Get going! Drive on!" A past-tense form pressed into service as a brusque order.
> Dative addressee, inverted order: «кучеру» is the dative — the one shouted to. With the subject «Иван Фёдорович» placed after the verb and object, the sentence keeps the report's action first and names the speaker last, normal for a dialogue tag.

— Ну чего же ты? Чего же ты? Зачем ты его так? — вскинулся Федор Павлович, но коляска уже поехала.  
"Well, what's the matter with you? What's got into you? Why did you treat him like that?" Fyodor Pavlovich flared up, but the carriage was already moving off.
> Elliptical question with «же»: «Чего же ты?» has no verb — "Well, what's with you?" «чего» is the colloquial genitive of «что», and «же» adds aggrieved insistence. The verbless, particle-laden outburst is pure spoken Dostoevsky.
> Perfective of setting off: «поехала» is perfective (the prefixed «по-» on «ехать» marking the start of motion) — "the carriage had already set off." It closes the exchange with a single completed event against Fyodor Pavlovich's sputtering questions.

Иван Федорович не ответил.  
Ivan Fyodorovich did not answer.
> Perfective negated: «не ответил» — "did not answer" — negates the perfective «ответить», denying that the single act of answering ever happened. The terse refrain (it recurs through the scene) measures Ivan's stony silence.

— Ишь ведь ты! — помолчав две минуты, проговорил опять Федор Павлович, косясь на сынка. — Сам ведь ты весь этот монастырь затеял, сам подстрекал, сам одобрял, чего ж теперь сердишься?  
"There, you see what you are!" said Fyodor Pavlovich again after a silence of two minutes, eyeing his little son sidelong. "You're the one who got this whole monastery business up, you egged it on, you approved of it — so why are you angry now?"
> Exclamatory particles «ишь» and «ведь»: «Ишь» is an exclamation of surprised disapproval ("just look at you!"), and «ведь» appeals to the obvious. Together with «ты» they make a verbless jab — the spoken texture English can only render loosely as "There, you see what you are!"
> Past gerund vs present gerund: «помолчав» is the perfective past gerund ("having stayed silent a while," prior action), while «косясь» is the imperfective present gerund ("eyeing sidelong," simultaneous). The pair shows the two tenses of the «деепричастие» side by side.
> «сынок» — ironic little son: «сынка» is the accusative of «сынок», the diminutive of «сын» (son). Coming from a father needling his cold grown son, the affectionate suffix carries a sarcastic, mock-tender edge.
> Anaphoric «сам» and the accusing imperfectives: The hammered repetition of «сам» ("you yourself") pins the blame on Ivan. «подстрекал» and «одобрял» are imperfective past, painting the egging-on and approving as a sustained course of conduct, while «затеял» is the perfective "got the whole thing up."

— Полно вам вздор толочь, отдохните хоть теперь немного, — сурово отрезал Иван Федорович.  
"Enough of your idle chatter; rest a little at least now," Ivan Fyodorovich cut him off harshly.
> Impersonal «полно» + dative: «Полно» ("enough!") here governs a dative «вам» and an infinitive — an impersonal construction meaning "enough of your…" The whole frame has no nominative subject; «вам» names the one told to stop.
> "To pound nonsense": «вздор» is nonsense, rubbish; «толочь» means to pound/crush (as in a mortar). "To pound nonsense" — like the fuller «толочь воду в ступе» (pound water in a mortar) — means to engage in futile, empty chatter.
> Imperative softened by «хоть»: «отдохните» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «отдохнуть» (to rest up). The particle «хоть» ("at least, if only") concedes ground — "rest a little, at least now" — coloring the curt command with weary appeal.

Федор Павлович опять помолчал с две минуты.  
Fyodor Pavlovich again fell silent for a couple of minutes.
> Approximative «с» + accusative: «с две минуты» uses «с» with the accusative to mean "about, roughly" — "for a couple of minutes or so." This approximative «с» is distinct from the instrumental "with"; here it softens the duration to an estimate.

— Коньячку бы теперь хорошо, — сентенциозно заметил он.  
"A little brandy would be good right now," he remarked sententiously.
> Wistful «бы» without a verb: The particle «бы» builds an irrealis wish with no finite verb — "a little brandy would be good now." «Коньячку» is the partitive-diminutive genitive ("a drop of brandy"); the impersonal «хорошо» supplies the verbless predicate.
> «сентенциозно» — sententiously: «сентенциозно» (from «сентенция», a maxim) means in the manner of one delivering a weighty pronouncement. The narrator's word skewers Fyodor Pavlovich for declaring his craving for brandy as if it were profound wisdom.

Но Иван Федорович не ответил.  
But Ivan Fyodorovich did not answer.

— Доедем, и ты выпьешь.  
"You shall have a drink once we get there."
> Two perfective futures: Both «доедем» ("we'll get there," perfective «доехать» with до- = reach a destination) and «выпьешь» ("you'll have a drink," perfective «выпить») are perfectives conjugated for future meaning — two completed events, arrival then drink, with no auxiliary.

Иван Федорович всё молчал.  
Ivan Fyodorovich went on saying nothing.
> «всё» + imperfective of duration: The adverb «всё» here means "still, all the while," and with the imperfective «молчал» (kept silent) it stresses an unbroken, continuing state — "went on saying nothing." The imperfective is built for exactly this sustained silence.

Федор Павлович подождал еще минуты с две.  
Fyodor Pavlovich waited another couple of minutes.
> Approximation by inversion: «минуты с две» again means "about two minutes," with «с» + accusative for approximation. Inverting noun before numeral («минуты с две» rather than «с две минуты») is itself a colloquial way to signal "roughly."

— А Алешку-то я все-таки из монастыря возьму, несмотря на то, что вам это очень неприятно будет, почтительнейший Карл фон Мор.  
"All the same, I'm going to take little Alyoshka out of the monastery, in spite of its being very disagreeable to you, my most respectful Karl von Moor."
> Topicalizing «-то» on a fronted object: «Алёшку-то» throws the object to the front with the emphatic clitic «-то» marking it as the known topic — "as for little Alyoshka, I'll take him all the same." «возьму» is the perfective future.
> «Алёшка» — a coarse diminutive: «Алёшка», unlike the warm «Алёша», carries the -ка suffix that can sound familiar-to-rude. Used by the father here it is offhand and possessive, treating Alyosha as a chattel he can simply carry off.

Иван Федорович презрительно вскинул плечами и, отворотясь, стал смотреть на дорогу.  
Ivan Fyodorovich gave a contemptuous shrug of his shoulders and, turning away, sat staring at the road.
> Instrumental of the body part: «вскинул плечами» — "gave a toss of the shoulders" — uses the instrumental «плечами» to name the part of the body moved, the regular pattern with gestures (пожать плечами, кивнуть головой).
> Past gerund «отворотясь»: «отворотясь» is a past gerund of the -ся verb «отворотиться» (to turn away), of slightly archaic flavour — the prior action before «стал смотреть» ("began to look," i.e. sat staring). It shares Ivan's subject.

Затем уж до самого дома не говорили.  
After that they did not speak again the whole way home.
> Subjectless imperfective close: «не говорили» is imperfective past with the subject left to the verb's plural ending — "they did not speak." The imperfective denies the whole activity of talking for the duration «до самого дома» ("all the way home"), sealing the scene in silence.
---

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.