# The Brothers Karamazov, The Controversy

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book III — The Sensualists

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b3-c7. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b3-c7.json.


Но валаамова ослица вдруг заговорила.  
But Balaam's ass suddenly spoke up.
> Perfective «за-»: the onset of speech: The prefix «за-» on «говорить» (to speak) yields the perfective «заговорить» — not 'to speak' but 'to begin to speak, to pipe up.' The perfective past «заговорила» marks a single, sudden inceptive event, perfectly matched to «вдруг» (suddenly).

Тема случилась странная: Григорий поутру, забирая в лавке у купца Лукьянова товар, услышал от него об одном русском солдате, что тот, где-то далеко на границе, у азиятов, попав к ним в плен и будучи принуждаем ими под страхом мучительной и немедленной смерти отказаться от христианства и перейти в ислам, не согласился изменить своей веры и принял муки, дал содрать с себя кожу и умер, славя и хваля Христа, — о каковом подвиге и было напечатано как раз в полученной в тот день газете.  
The subject had come up by chance: that morning, while Grigory was collecting goods at the shop of the merchant Lukyanov, he had heard from him of a certain Russian soldier who, somewhere far off on the frontier among the Asiatics, had fallen into their captivity and, being compelled by them under threat of an agonizing and immediate death to renounce Christianity and go over to Islam, refused to betray his faith and accepted the torments — let himself be flayed alive and died glorifying and praising Christ — a feat of which an account had appeared in the very newspaper received that same day.
> Imperfective gerund «забирая»: setting the scene: «Забирая» is the present (imperfective) деепричастие of «забирать» (to collect, pick up). It sets a simultaneous backdrop — 'while collecting goods' — to the main verb «услышал» (heard). The gerund must share the subject of the main clause, here Grigory.
> «будучи» + short passive participle — high bookish style: «Будучи» is the rare gerund of «быть» (being), and «принуждаем» the short present passive participle of «принуждать» (to compel). The chain 'being compelled by them' is markedly literary; the agent «ими» (by them) stands in the instrumental, as passives require.
> Genitive of negation: «своей веры»: «Изменить» (to betray) here takes its object in the genitive «своей веры» rather than the expected dative/accusative, pulled into the genitive by the negated frame «не согласился изменить». The reflexive possessive «своей» (one's own) points back to the soldier.
> «дал» + infinitive: 'let / allowed': «Дать» plus an infinitive means 'to let, allow' something be done — here 'let his skin be flayed off himself.' The reflexive «с себя» (off oneself) refers back to the soldier, and «содрать» is the brutal verb 'to tear/strip off.'
> «славя и хваля» — twin gerunds of praise: Two imperfective gerunds, 'glorifying and praising,' fall into a near-liturgical doublet. «Славить» carries a solemn, devotional ring (it underlies «слава» — glory), elevating the soldier's death to an act of worship.
> «азияты» — archaic spelling of 'Asiatics': The 19th-century form «азияты» (modern «азиаты») denotes the Muslim peoples of the empire's southern frontier. The word carries the period's loose, othering sense of 'Asiatics' / 'Asian tribesmen' rather than a precise ethnonym.
> «каковой» — bookish relative 'of which': «Каковой» is an archaic, chancery-flavoured relative pronoun ('of which, which said'), much stiffer than ordinary «который». It belongs to the elevated, slightly bureaucratic narrative register Dostoevsky uses for a newspaper account.

Об этом вот и заговорил за столом Григорий.  
It was about this, then, that Grigory began to speak at the table.
> Fronting + «вот ... и»: 'it was about this that': The object «об этом» (about this) is fronted for emphasis, framed by «вот ... и» ('this is the very thing that'). Russian's case endings free the word order so that the topic can lead and the new information — that Grigory spoke up — lands at the end.

Федор Павлович любил и прежде, каждый раз после стола, за десертом, посмеяться и поговорить хотя бы даже с Григорием.  
Even before this, Fyodor Pavlovich had always loved, every time after the meal, over dessert, to laugh and chatter — even if only with Grigory.
> «любил» + perfective (delimitative) infinitives of habit: The imperfective past «любил» (loved, was fond of) plus the perfective delimitative infinitives «посмеяться и поговорить» (formed with the attenuative «по-»; imperfectives смеяться/говорить) frames a recurring habit. Note the «по-» prefix on each: it gives an attenuative 'have a bit of a laugh and a chat' rather than full-blown laughing and talking.
> «хотя бы даже» — 'if only even with': The cluster «хотя бы даже» piles up concessive particles to mean 'even if only with' — Fyodor Pavlovich would gladly banter even with a mere servant. The phrase quietly underscores the social gap between master and Grigory.

В этот же раз был в легком и приятно раскидывающемся настроении.  
And on this occasion he was in a light and pleasantly expansive mood.
> Dropped subject and emphatic «же»: The subject pronoun «он» is dropped — recoverable from context — and «же» on «в этот раз» insists on the contrast: 'on THIS occasion (as opposed to others).' Such tiny particles carry the connective work English does with stress.
> «раскидывающееся настроение» — an expansive mood: A vivid, slightly comic coinage: «раскидываться» literally is 'to spread/sprawl out,' so the present active participle paints a mood that is loosening and 'sprawling pleasantly' — Fyodor Pavlovich relaxing expansively into mischief.

Попивая коньячок и выслушав сообщенное известие, он заметил, что такого солдата следовало бы произвести сейчас же во святые и снятую кожу его препроводить в какой-нибудь монастырь: «То-то народу повалит и денег».  
Sipping his brandy and hearing out the news that had been reported, he remarked that such a soldier ought to be canonized this very minute and his flayed skin sent off to some monastery or other: "That would pull in the crowds, and the money too."
> Two contrasting gerunds: process vs completed: «Попивая» is an imperfective gerund (sipping away, ongoing), «выслушав» a perfective gerund (having heard out, completed first). The pair shows the aspectual split inside the деепричастие: simultaneous background against a prior, finished act.
> «коньячок» — affectionate diminutive of brandy: The diminutive «-ок» on «коньяк» (cognac/brandy) adds a cozy, indulgent warmth — 'his nice little brandy.' It signals Fyodor Pavlovich's relish, not the drink's size; such expressive diminutives saturate his speech.
> Impersonal «следовало бы» + conditional: «Следовало бы» is an impersonal construction ('one ought to') with the irrealis particle «бы», softening it to 'ought, really' — sarcastic here. There is no nominative subject; the modal predicate governs the infinitive «произвести».
> «то-то ... повалит» — 'that'll really pour in': «То-то» is an emphatic particle ('won't it just,' 'that's the thing'); «повалить» means to 'pour/throng in droves.' Both «народу» (people) and «денег» (money) sit in the partitive genitive — a flood of crowds and cash.

Григорий поморщился, видя, что Федор Павлович нисколько не умилился, а по всегдашней привычке своей начинает кощунствовать.  
Grigory frowned, seeing that Fyodor Pavlovich was not in the least moved but, after his usual habit, was beginning to blaspheme.
> «видя» gerund + «что»-clause: The imperfective gerund «видя» (seeing) opens a perception report introduced by «что» (that). Inside, the imperfective present «начинает кощунствовать» renders an unfolding action vividly in the 'historic present' against the past-tense narration.
> Contrastive «а»: 'not moved, but rather': «А» is the mild contrastive conjunction that pivots between two states — not 'but' in opposition so much as 'whereas/instead.' Here it turns from what Fyodor Pavlovich failed to do («не умилился») to what he is doing instead.
> «кощунствовать» — to blaspheme, profane the sacred: A weighty, bookish verb meaning to mock or desecrate holy things. For the pious Grigory it names the precise sin he sees in his master's joking; the abstract «-ствовать» suffix gives it a grave, almost legal coloration.

Как вдруг Смердяков, стоявший у двери, усмехнулся.  
When suddenly Smerdyakov, who was standing by the door, smirked.
> Past active participle «стоявший»: «Стоявший» is the past active participle of «стоять» (to stand), compressing 'who was standing by the door' into a single adjective agreeing with «Смердяков». It declines and agrees like any adjective and replaces a «который»-clause — a hallmark of literary prose.
> Semelfactive «-ну-»: a single smirk: «Усмехнуться» is perfective and reflexive («-ся»); the «-ну-» suffix marks one brief, semelfactive act — a single curl of the lip. Combined with «вдруг» (suddenly) it lands as one sharp, instantaneous gesture.

Смердяков весьма часто и прежде допускался стоять у стола, то есть под конец обеда.  
Even before this, Smerdyakov had quite often been permitted to stand by the table — that is, toward the end of dinner.
> Reflexive-passive «допускался»: The imperfective «-ся» verb «допускался» functions as a passive — 'was allowed/permitted (to stand).' Russian often uses «-ся» rather than a periphrastic passive for habitual or ongoing situations, here the recurring permission given to a servant.
> «то есть» — appositive clarification: «То есть» ('that is, i.e.') introduces a self-correction or refinement — the narrator narrows 'by the table' to 'toward the end of dinner.' It is a frequent connective in Dostoevsky's chatty, qualifying narrative voice.

С самого же прибытия в наш город Ивана Федоровича стал являться к обеду почти каждый раз.  
And ever since Ivan Fyodorovich's arrival in our town, he had taken to appearing at dinner almost every time.
> Genitive of the verbal noun: 'since the arrival of': «Прибытия» (arrival) is a verbal noun in the genitive after «с» (since/from), and «Ивана Фёдоровича» is a further genitive of the one arriving — 'since the arrival of Ivan Fyodorovich.' Russian readily nominalizes events where English might use a clause.
> «стал» + imperfective infinitive: 'took to': «Стать» plus an imperfective infinitive («являться» — to appear, show up) marks the inception of a habit: 'began/took to appearing.' The imperfective and «почти каждый раз» (almost every time) keep the new behaviour iterative rather than a single event.

— Ты чего? — спросил Федор Павлович, мигом заметив усмешку и поняв, конечно, что относится она к Григорию.  
"What's the matter with you?" asked Fyodor Pavlovich, catching the smirk in an instant and understanding, of course, that it was aimed at Grigory.
> Colloquial genitive «чего» = 'what's with you?': «Чего» is the genitive of «что», used colloquially for an abrupt 'what?' / 'what's the matter?' The clipped, verbless question — 'You — what?' — is brusque, familiar, and exactly the tone a master takes with a servant.
> Twin perfective gerunds: instantaneous grasp: «Заметив» and «поняв» are perfective past gerunds ('having noticed' and 'having understood'), naming prior completed acts behind the asking. «Мигом» ('in a flash') intensifies the speed of his perception.
> Reflexive «относиться» + dropped-then-named subject: «Относиться к» (to pertain to, be aimed at) is one of the many «-ся» verbs that exist only in reflexive form. The postposed subject «она» (the smirk) lands after the verb for emphasis — 'aimed it was, at Grigory.'

— А я насчет того-с, — заговорил вдруг громко и неожиданно Смердяков, — что если этого похвального солдата подвиг был и очень велик-с, то никакого опять-таки, по-моему, не было бы греха и в том, если б и отказаться при этой случайности от Христова примерно имени и от собственного крещения своего, чтобы спасти тем самым свою жизнь для добрых дел, коими в течение лет и искупить малодушие.  
"It's just on the matter of that, sir," Smerdyakov began suddenly, loud and unexpected, "that even if this praiseworthy soldier's feat was a very great one, sir, still, to my mind, there would again be no sin whatever in it if, in such a circumstance, one were to renounce, say, Christ's name and one's own baptism, in order by that very means to save one's life for good works, and over the course of years to redeem one's faintheartedness by them."
> The deferential particle «-с»: Smerdyakov peppers his speech with the enclitic «-с» (a contraction of «сударь», 'sir'). Attached to words like «того-с» or «велик-с», it signals servile politeness toward social superiors. It has no real English equivalent, so we render it with an occasional 'sir'; in the Russian it marks his obsequious, calculating manner.
> Conditional «бы» + genitive of negation: «Не было бы греха» combines the irrealis «бы» with the negated existential «не было» that pulls «греха» (sin) into the genitive. The protasis «если б ... отказаться» uses «бы» again with a bare infinitive — 'if one were to renounce' — a tightly hypothetical frame.
> Short adjective «велик» — predicative 'great': «Велик» is the short (predicative) form of «великий» (great). Short adjectives can only predicate, never modify, and carry a bookish, absolute ring — fitting Smerdyakov's mock-solemn assessment of the soldier's feat.
> «чтобы» of purpose + reflexive possessive: «Чтобы» plus an infinitive states purpose ('in order to save'). «Свою жизнь» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» (one's own), correctly pointing back to the clause's implied subject — the man saving his own life.
> «коими» and «искупить» — archaic + theological lexis: «Коими» is the bookish instrumental plural of relative «кой» ('by which'), and «искупить» is the loaded verb 'to redeem, atone for.' «Малодушие» ('faintheartedness, cowardice of soul') is a moral-theological term; Smerdyakov drapes self-interest in pious vocabulary.

— Это как же не будет греха? Врешь, за это тебя прямо в ад и там, как баранину, поджаривать станут, — подхватил Федор Павлович.  
"How is it there'll be no sin? You're lying — for that they'll send you straight to hell and roast you there like mutton," Fyodor Pavlovich chimed in.
> «станут» + imperfective: durative future: «Стать» here builds a future ('they will'); with the imperfective «поджаривать» (to fry/roast) it pictures an ongoing, drawn-out roasting rather than a single act — the torments of hell stretched out. Verb-final order throws the threat into relief.
> «Врёшь!» — 'You're lying / nonsense!': «Врать» is the colloquial 'to lie, talk rubbish.' Flung out alone, «Врёшь!» is less a literal accusation than a vehement 'Rubbish! / Not so!' — a blunt conversational rebuff typical of Fyodor Pavlovich's banter.

И вот тут-то и вошел Алеша.  
And it was just then that Alyosha came in.
> Emphatic frame «вот тут-то ... и»: A pile-up of focusing particles — «вот», «тут-то» (the clitic «-то» stressing the moment), and «и» — converges to spotlight the timing: 'and it was at just that moment that Alyosha came in.' The drama lies entirely in these little words.

Федор Павлович, как мы видели, ужасно обрадовался Алеше.  
Fyodor Pavlovich, as we have seen, was terribly delighted at Alyosha.
> «обрадоваться» + dative of the thing rejoiced at: The perfective reflexive «обрадоваться» (to be gladdened) governs the dative «Алёше» — 'was delighted at Alyosha.' «Ужасно» literally 'terribly' here just intensifies, the everyday hyperbole 'awfully glad.'

— На твою тему, на твою тему! — радостно хихикал он, усаживая Алешу слушать.  
"To your subject, to your subject!" he tittered joyfully, sitting Alyosha down to listen.
> Imperfective gerund of attendant action: «Усаживая» (seating, settling) is the present gerund of «усаживать», running alongside the main «хихикал» (tittered) — he giggled while sitting Alyosha down. The bare infinitive «слушать» states the purpose: to listen.
> «хихикать» — to titter, snigger: An onomatopoeic, faintly undignified verb for a high-pitched giggle. Applied to a grown man and father, it paints Fyodor Pavlovich as gleefully childish, savouring the mischief he is stage-managing.

— Насчет баранины это не так-с, да и ничего там за это не будет-с, да и не должно быть такого, если по всей справедливости, — солидно заметил Смердяков.  
"As for the mutton, that's not how it is, sir; and there'll be nothing for it there at all, sir, and there shouldn't be either, if everything were done by full justice," Smerdyakov observed weightily.
> Genitive negative «ничего ... не будет»: «Ничего ... не будет» shows negative concord (the «ни»-word plus «не») together with the genitive «ничего» as the absent subject of «не будет» — 'there'll be nothing.' The «-с» again tags on servile deference.
> Impersonal «не должно быть» + genitive: An impersonal modal with no subject — 'there shouldn't be (any such thing).' The negation again draws «такого» into the genitive. Smerdyakov reasons in cool, impersonal abstractions, fitting the legalistic cast of his argument.
> «солидно» — 'weightily, with gravity': «Солидно» means with self-important seriousness and composure. The narrator's choice underscores the comedy: a kitchen servant pronouncing on theology with the measured gravity of a learned man.

— Как так по всей справедливости, — крикнул еще веселей Федор Павлович, подталкивая коленом Алешу.  
"How do you mean, by full justice?" cried Fyodor Pavlovich, more cheerful still, nudging Alyosha with his knee.
> Instrumental of means: «коленом»: «Коленом» (with/by his knee) is the instrumental of «колено», naming the bodily means of the nudging. The gerund «подталкивая» (nudging) again runs simultaneous with the main verb «крикнул».
> Comparative adverb «веселей»: «Веселей» (more cheerfully) is the predicative comparative of «весело», with the colloquial «-ей» for «-ее». «Ещё» ('still more') stacks onto it: each exchange leaves Fyodor Pavlovich gigglier than the last.

— Подлец он, вот он кто! — вырвалось вдруг у Григория.  
"He's a scoundrel, that's what he is!" burst suddenly from Grigory.
> Zero copula + emphatic «вот он кто»: Present-tense identification needs no verb 'to be': «Подлец он» is simply 'A scoundrel — he.' The tag «вот он кто» ('that's who he is') doubles down with a demonstrative flourish, all without any copula.
> Reflexive «вырвалось» + «у» + genitive: «Вырваться» ('to burst/escape out') with the «-ся» middle voice and «у Григория» (from Grigory) frames the outburst as something that broke from him almost against his will — the words 'burst out of' him.
> «подлец» — scoundrel, base wretch: A strong term of moral contempt — a 'base, vile man,' not merely a rogue. It accuses Smerdyakov of low, dishonourable character, and recurs through the novel as one of its key words of moral judgment.

Гневно посмотрел он Смердякову прямо в глаза.  
He looked Smerdyakov straight in the eye, furious.
> Adverb-fronting for emphasis: The adverb «гневно» (angrily) is fronted ahead of the verb and subject for emotional weight — the manner is the news. «Смердякову» is a dative of the person looked at, in the idiom «посмотреть кому в глаза» (to look someone in the eye).

— Насчет подлеца повремените-с, Григорий Васильевич, — спокойно и сдержанно отразил Смердяков, — а лучше рассудите сами, что раз я попал к мучителям рода христианского в плен и требуют они от меня имя божие проклясть и от святого крещения своего отказаться, то я вполне уполномочен в том собственным рассудком, ибо никакого тут и греха не будет.  
"As for the scoundrel, hold off a moment, sir, Grigory Vasilyevich," Smerdyakov retorted, calm and self-possessed, "and you'd do better to reason it out for yourself: that once I've fallen captive to the tormentors of the Christian race and they demand of me that I curse God's name and renounce my own holy baptism, then I am fully entitled to do so by my own reason, for there will be no sin in it at all."
> Polite imperative «повремените» + «-с»: «Повремените» is the polite/plural imperative of «повременить» (to wait a little) — the «-те» marks deference to Grigory, reinforced by the servile «-с». Smerdyakov answers an insult with elaborate, needling courtesy.
> «раз» = 'once / given that' (conditional-causal): «Раз» here is a conditional-causal conjunction, 'once / seeing that' — it sets up the premise of Smerdyakov's syllogism. The perfective «попал» (fell/landed) marks the completed event of capture, against the present «требуют» (they demand).
> «род христианский» — bookish word order: The postposed adjective in «рода христианского» ('of the Christian race/kind') is an elevated, almost liturgical inversion. «Мучитель» ('tormentor') casts the captors as persecutors of the faithful — Smerdyakov adopting the lofty diction of martyrdom.
> «ибо» — archaic 'for, because': «Ибо» is the bookish, Scripture-flavoured conjunction 'for' (vs. plain «потому что»). It belongs to sermon and chronicle; in Smerdyakov's mouth it lends his sophistry a mock-theological solemnity. Note the genitive «никакого ... греха» under negation.

— Да ты уж это говорил, ты не расписывай, а докажи! — кричал Федор Павлович.  
"You've said that already — don't embroider, prove it!" Fyodor Pavlovich shouted.
> Imperative pair: imperfective vs perfective: «Не расписывай» is a negated imperfective imperative ('don't go embellishing' — prohibiting an ongoing activity), while «докажи» is a perfective imperative demanding one completed act ('prove it!'). The aspect choice is exactly why the two commands feel different.
> «расписывать» — to lay it on, embellish: Literally 'to paint over in detail,' here colloquially 'to embroider, spin out, dwell on.' Fyodor Pavlovich wants the conclusion, not the ornate build-up — 'don't decorate it, prove it.'

— Бульонщик! — прошептал Григорий презрительно.  
"Broth-maker!" Grigory whispered contemptuously.
> «бульонщик» — 'broth-maker': A scornful coinage from «бульон» (broth) plus the agent suffix «-щик»: 'broth-cook, soup-boiler.' Grigory belittles Smerdyakov by reducing him to his kitchen function (he is, in fact, the household cook) — a class insult, not a culinary fact.

— Насчет бульонщика тоже повремените-с, а не ругаясь рассудите сами, Григорий Васильевич.  
"As for the broth-maker, hold off on that too, sir, and instead of cursing, reason it out for yourself, Grigory Vasilyevich.
> Negated imperfective gerund «не ругаясь»: «Не ругаясь» ('without cursing') is a negated imperfective gerund, naming the manner to be avoided. It pairs with the perfective imperative «рассудите» (reason it out) — 'instead of swearing, judge for yourself.' «Сами» (yourselves) drives home the appeal to reason.

Ибо едва только я скажу мучителям: «Нет, я не христианин и истинного бога моего проклинаю», как тотчас же я самым высшим божьим судом немедленно и специально становлюсь анафема проклят и от церкви святой отлучен совершенно как бы иноязычником, так даже, что в тот же миг-с — не то что как только произнесу, а только что помыслю произнести, так что даже самой четверти секунды тут не пройдет-с, как я отлучен, — так или не так, Григорий Васильевич?  
For the moment I say to the tormentors, 'No, I am no Christian and I curse my true God,' that very instant, by God's own supreme judgment, I immediately and expressly become anathema accursed and am utterly cut off from the holy Church, as though I were a heathen — so much so that in that very instant, sir — not even when I've actually pronounced it, but the very moment I think of pronouncing it, so that not so much as a quarter of a second goes by, sir — I'm already cut off. Is that so or is it not, Grigory Vasilyevich?"
> «едва только ... как» — 'the moment ... that': The correlative «едва только ... как» ('no sooner ... than') frames two near-simultaneous events. «Скажу» is a perfective future ('the moment I say'), «становлюсь» a vivid present pulling the consequence into the now — the curse falls instantly.
> Short passive participles: 'cursed, cut off': «Проклят» and «отлучён» are short past-passive participles ('accursed,' 'excommunicated'), predicating a resulting state. The agent of the second — implicitly the Church / God's judgment — and the source «от церкви» (from the Church) frame his sudden severance.
> Construction «не то что ... а»: «Не то что ... а (только что)» means 'not so much ... as' / 'not even when ... but the very moment that' — Smerdyakov insists the curse strikes not at speech but at the mere intention. «Помыслю» is a perfective future of bookish «помыслить» (to think, conceive).
> Tag question «так или не так»: A rhetorical 'is that so or not?', mock-deferentially put to Grigory while really aimed at the room. The whole speech is built as a chain of such checkpoints — Smerdyakov dragging his listener step by step through a syllogism.

Он с видимым удовольствием обращался к Григорию, отвечая, в сущности, на одни лишь вопросы Федора Павловича и очень хорошо понимая это, но нарочно делая вид, что вопросы эти как будто задает ему Григорий.  
It was with visible relish that he addressed Grigory, while in substance answering only Fyodor Pavlovich's questions, and understanding this perfectly well, yet deliberately pretending that it was Grigory who was putting these questions to him.
> A chain of imperfective gerunds: Three present gerunds — «отвечая», «понимая», «делая» — hang off the main «обращался», layering simultaneous actions into one long literary sentence. Such gerund-chains are a signature of 19th-century narrative density.
> «делать вид, что» — 'to pretend that': The idiom «делать вид» ('to put on an appearance') takes a «что»-clause of the pretence. The fronted-then-inverted «задаёт ему Григорий» throws Grigory to the end as the supposed questioner — the very fiction Smerdyakov is staging.
> «в сущности» — 'in essence, really': «В сущности» ('essentially, in substance') is the narrator's analytic aside, peeling apart appearance («с видимым удовольствием» — with visible relish) from reality. It marks the cool, dissecting intelligence the narrator lends to Smerdyakov's performance.

— Иван! — крикнул вдруг Федор Павлович, — нагнись ко мне к самому уху.  
"Ivan!" Fyodor Pavlovich suddenly cried. "Lean over, right up to my very ear.
> Perfective imperative «нагнись»: «Нагнись» is the singular perfective imperative of «нагнуться» (to bend/lean over), a single requested act. «К самому уху» ('right up to the very ear') uses «самый» as an intensifier — 'to my very ear.'

Это он для тебя всё это устроил, хочет, чтобы ты его похвалил.  
He's gotten this whole thing up for your sake — he wants you to praise him.
> Emphatic «это ... он» cleft: The framing «Это он ... устроил» ('it's HE who got this up') singles out Smerdyakov as the agent, much like an English cleft. «Устроил» is perfective — a single completed bit of stage-managing.
> «хотеть, чтобы» + past-form irrealis: A verb of wishing takes «чтобы» plus the past-tense form «похвалил» — not a real past but the irrealis required after «чтобы»: 'wants you to praise him.' The «чтобы»-clause expresses a willed, not-yet-real outcome.

Ты похвали.  
Go on, praise him."
> Imperative with overt «ты» for urging: The subject pronoun «ты» is normally dropped before an imperative; keeping it here («Ты похвали» — 'You — praise him') adds insistence and personal appeal, nudging Ivan to play along.

Иван Федорович выслушал совершенно серьезно восторженное сообщение папаши.  
Ivan Fyodorovich heard out his papa's rapturous communication with perfect seriousness.
> Perfective «выслушал»: heard right out: «Выслушать» (perfective) means to hear something through to the end, attentively — the «вы-» prefix carries the sense of exhausting the action. Ivan takes in the whole of his father's stage-whisper, completely.
> «папаша» — the diminutive 'papa': «Папаша» is a familiar, faintly ironic 'papa/daddy.' The narrator's word choice quietly colours the scene with Ivan's detached amusement at his rapturous, tipsy father.

— Стой, Смердяков, помолчи на время, — крикнул опять Федор Павлович. — Иван, опять ко мне к самому уху нагнись.  
"Stop, Smerdyakov, hold your tongue a while," Fyodor Pavlovich cried again. "Ivan, lean over to my very ear once more."
> «помолчи» — 'be quiet a while' («по-» attenuative): The «по-» prefix on «молчать» (to be silent) gives a delimited 'be silent for a bit'; the perfective imperative «помолчи» asks for one bounded stretch of quiet, not silence forever. «На время» (for a while) reinforces the limited duration.

Иван Федорович вновь с самым серьезнейшим видом нагнулся.  
Ivan Fyodorovich, with the most serious air, leaned over again.
> Double superlative «самый серьёзнейший»: «Серьёзнейший» is already a bookish suffixal superlative ('most serious'), and «самым» piles the periphrastic superlative on top — an emphatic, slightly comic 'with the very most serious air.' The redundancy heightens Ivan's deadpan gravity.

— Люблю тебя так же, как и Алешку.  
"I love you just as much as Alyoshka.
> Correlative «так же, как» = 'just as ... as': «Так же, как» sets up an equative comparison ('just as much as'), with the additive «и» ('even/as well') before «Алёшку». The subject «я» is dropped, recoverable from the verb ending «люблю».
> «Алёшка» — the rougher diminutive: «Алёшка» is a blunter, more familiar diminutive of Alexei than the affectionate «Алёша», the «-ка» suffix lending a casual, even slightly coarse warmth. From a tipsy father it reads as rough tenderness.

Ты не думай, что я тебя не люблю.  
Don't go thinking I don't love you.
> Negated imperfective imperative + embedded negation: «Не думай» is a negated imperfective imperative — 'don't (go) thinking,' warning off a frame of mind. The «что»-clause carries its own negation «не люблю» ('don't love'), so two unrelated «не»'s sit side by side, one per clause.

Коньячку?  
A little brandy?"
> Partitive genitive offer: «коньячку»: The special partitive genitive ending «-у» on the diminutive «коньячок» means 'some brandy?' — a portion, not the whole. This «-у» partitive survives mainly with mass nouns in colloquial offers (чайку, сахарку), here doubly cozy with the diminutive.

— Дайте.  
"Give me some."
> Polite imperative «дайте»: «Дайте» is the polite/plural imperative of «дать» (to give). Ivan's curt, single-word reply — 'Give (me some)' — keeps the «вы»-form deference to his father even while staying laconic.

«Однако сам-то ты порядочно нагрузился», — пристально поглядел на отца Иван Федорович.  
"You've fairly loaded up yourself, though," Ivan Fyodorovich glanced intently at his father.
> Intensifier «сам» + topic clitic «-то»: «Сам» ('yourself') with the topic-marking clitic «-то» throws contrastive weight onto Fyodor Pavlovich: 'YOU yourself, though...' It is Ivan's unspoken thought, the «-то» signalling a pointed shift back to the father.
> «нагрузиться» — colloquial 'to get loaded': Literally the reflexive 'to load oneself up' («груз» = cargo), here the colloquial 'to get drunk, tank up.' «Порядочно» ('a fair bit') tempers it. Ivan's silent judgment of his father is wry and earthy.

Смердякова же он наблюдал с чрезвычайным любопытством,  
Smerdyakov, however, he watched with extraordinary curiosity.
> Fronted object + contrastive «же»: The object «Смердякова» (accusative animate, = genitive form) is fronted and tagged with «же» to pivot the focus: 'Smerdyakov, on the other hand, he was watching.' The imperfective «наблюдал» pictures sustained, attentive observation.

— Анафема ты проклят и теперь, — разразился вдруг Григорий, — и как же ты после того, подлец, рассуждать смеешь, если…  
"You are anathema accursed even now," Grigory suddenly broke out, "and how is it that after that, you scoundrel, you dare to argue, if —"
> anathema accursed: «Анафема» is the Church Slavonic / Greek word for excommunication — a formal curse cutting a person off from the Church. Paired with «проклят» ('cursed'), it intensifies the condemnation. Grigory, a devout servant, hurls it literally at Smerdyakov; we render it 'anathema accursed.'
> Indignant «как же» + «смеешь» + infinitive: «Как же» ('how on earth') uses «же» to load the question with outrage; «смеешь рассуждать» is 'you dare to argue,' the verb «сметь» (to dare) governing the infinitive. The unfinished «если…» leaves the threat hanging.

— Не бранись, Григорий, не бранись! — прервал Федор Павлович.  
"Don't scold, Grigory, don't scold!" Fyodor Pavlovich interrupted.
> Negated imperfective imperative «не бранись»: «Бранись» is the imperative of the reflexive «браниться» (to scold, quarrel); negated and imperfective, «не бранись» forbids the ongoing activity — 'stop scolding / don't go on scolding.' The repetition mimics Fyodor Pavlovich's gleeful soothing.

— Вы переждите, Григорий Васильевич, хотя бы самое даже малое время-с, и прослушайте дальше, потому что я всего не окончил.  
"You wait, Grigory Vasilyevich, even just the briefest moment, sir, and hear me out further, because I haven't finished it all.
> Polite perfective imperatives + «-с»: «Переждите» (wait it out) and «прослушайте» (hear through) are polite («вы») perfective imperatives, each a single bounded act. The deferential «-с» on «время-с» keeps up Smerdyakov's mock-courtly register toward Grigory.
> Genitive of negation: «всего не окончил»: Under negation the object «всё» shifts to genitive «всего» — 'I haven't finished it all.' «Потому что» ('because') subordinates the reason. The genitive-of-negation here signals 'not the whole of it.'

Потому в самое то время, как я богом стану немедленно проклят-с, в самый, тот самый высший момент-с, я уже стал всё равно как бы иноязычником, и крещение мое с меня снимается и ни во что вменяется, — так ли хоть это-с?  
For at the very moment I am instantly cursed by God, sir, at that very, that supreme instant, sir, I have already become exactly as though a heathen, and my baptism is stripped from me and counts for nothing — is that at least so, sir?
> «стану» + short passive participle; agent in instrumental: «Стану проклят» is a future of becoming plus the short passive participle 'cursed.' The agent «богом» (by God) stands in the instrumental — the case that names the doer of a passive. «Как» here is temporal, 'at the moment that.'
> Two reflexive-passive verbs in «-ся»: «Снимается» (is stripped off) and «вменяется» (is reckoned/counted) are imperfective «-ся» passives — the baptism 'is removed and is counted as nothing.' «Ни во что» ('as nothing at all') uses the «ни»-intensifier of negation.
> «вменять» — theological 'to impute, reckon': «Вменять / вменяется» is a churchly-legal verb for imputing or reckoning to someone's account (cf. 'imputed righteousness'). «Ни во что вменяется» = 'is counted for nothing.' Smerdyakov reaches for the precise vocabulary of doctrine.

— Заключай, брат, скорей, заключай, — поторопил Федор Павлович, с наслаждением хлебнув из рюмки.  
"Get to the point, brother, quick, get to the point," Fyodor Pavlovich hurried him, taking a sip from his glass with relish.
> Imperfective imperative «заключай» — urging on: «Заключай» is the imperfective imperative of «заключать» (to conclude, sum up); the imperfective with «скорей» (quicker) urges the process along — 'get on with concluding!' Perfective «заключи» would demand the single finished act; the imperfective hurries the doing.
> Perfective gerund «хлебнув» of a single gulp: «Хлебнув» is the perfective past gerund of «хлебнуть» (to take a gulp) — one quick swallow, prior to and accompanying the urging. «С наслаждением» ('with relish') is an instrumental-based manner phrase.

— А коли я уж не христианин, то, значит, я и не солгал мучителям, когда они спрашивали: «Христианин я или не христианин», ибо я уже был самим богом совлечен моего христианства, по причине одного лишь замысла и прежде чем даже слово успел мое молвить мучителям.  
"And if I am no longer a Christian, then it follows that I did not lie to the tormentors when they asked, 'Are you a Christian or not?' — for I had already been stripped of my Christianity by God Himself, on account of the mere intention, and even before I had managed to utter a word to the tormentors.
> «коли ... то» — folksy-archaic 'if ... then': «Коли» is a colloquial-archaic 'if' (vs. «если»), paired with the resumptive «то» ('then'). «Значит» ('it means, so') threads the syllogism. Smerdyakov's logic-chopping marches forward on these old conditional hinges.
> Short passive «совлечён» + instrumental agent: «Был совлечён» ('was stripped/divested') is a periphrastic passive with «быть» plus a short past-passive participle. The agent «самим богом» (by God Himself) stands in the instrumental, the source «моего христианства» in the genitive — 'stripped of my Christianity.'
> «совлечь» — Church-Slavonic 'to divest, strip off': «Совлечь» is an elevated, Scriptural verb for stripping off (as one 'puts off the old man' in Paul's epistles). Its solemn register clashes comically with the self-serving use Smerdyakov makes of it.
> «прежде чем» + bookish «молвить»: «Прежде чем» ('before') subordinates a time clause. «Молвить» is an archaic, folk-poetic 'to utter/say a word,' far loftier than «сказать» — another Slavonicism in Smerdyakov's mouth, dressing sophistry as scripture.

А коли я уже разжалован, то каким же манером и по какой справедливости станут спрашивать с меня на том свете как с христианина за то, что я отрекся Христа, тогда как я за помышление только одно, еще до отречения, был уже крещения моего совлечен?  
And if I have already been broken from the ranks, then in what manner and by what justice will I be called to account in the next world as a Christian for having renounced Christ, when for the mere thought alone, even before the renunciation, I had already been stripped of my baptism?
> Instrumental of manner + «по» of standard: «Каким манером» ('in what manner') is an instrumental-of-manner phrase, while «по какой справедливости» ('by what justice') uses «по» + dative for the standard or principle. «Станут спрашивать» is an imperfective future — an ongoing calling-to-account.
> «тогда как» — concessive 'whereas, when': «Тогда как» ('whereas, while in fact') sets up the contrast on which his argument turns: he is to be judged as a Christian even though he had already been un-Christianed. The passive «был совлечён» again states the prior result.

Коли я уж не христианин, значит, я и не могу от Христа отрекнуться, ибо не от чего тогда мне и отрекаться будет.  
If I am no longer a Christian, then it follows I cannot even renounce Christ, for there will then be nothing for me to renounce.
> Negative «не от чего» + dative + compound future: «Не от чего» ('there is nothing from which') is a negative existential built on «что», governed by «от». The dative «мне» marks the one who has nothing to renounce, and «будет ... отрекаться» is the imperfective compound future. A dense knot of negation, dative-experiencer, and future.
> Aspect pair «отрекаться / отречься»: The passage plays both members of the pair: imperfective «отрекаться» (the ongoing act of renouncing) and perfective «отречься/отрекнуться» (the single completed renunciation). Choosing one over the other is choosing whether to view the apostasy as process or as done deed.

С татарина поганого кто же станет спрашивать, Григорий Васильевич, хотя бы и в небесах, за то, что он не христианином родился, и кто же станет его за это наказывать, рассуждая, что с одного вола двух шкур не дерут.  
Who is going to call a filthy Tatar to account, Grigory Vasilyevich, even in heaven, for not having been born a Christian, and who is going to punish him for that, reasoning that you can't strip two hides from a single ox?
> You can't take two hides off one ox: A Russian proverb meaning you cannot punish or charge someone twice for the same thing — literally 'two hides are not torn from one ox.' Smerdyakov twists folk wisdom to prop up his argument; we render «с одного вола двух шкур не дерут» as 'you can't strip two hides from a single ox.'
> Rhetorical «кто же ... станет» — 'who on earth would': The interrogative «кто» plus the indignant particle «же» plus «станет» + imperfective infinitive forms a rhetorical question expecting the answer 'no one.' The parallel repetition ('who will call to account ... who will punish') builds the rhetorical pressure.

Да и сам бог вседержитель с татарина если и будет спрашивать, когда тот помрет, то, полагаю, каким-нибудь самым малым наказанием (так как нельзя же совсем не наказать его), рассудив, что ведь неповинен же он в том, если от поганых родителей поганым на свет произошел.  
And even God Almighty Himself, if He does call the Tatar to account when he dies, will, I suppose, do so with some very small punishment (since it's impossible not to punish him at all), reasoning that, after all, the man is not to blame for it if he came into the world a heathen, born of heathen parents.
> Perfective gerund «рассудив» + particles «ведь ... же»: «Рассудив» ('having reasoned') is a perfective gerund of God's prior deliberation. Inside the «что»-clause, «ведь» appeals to shared sense ('after all') and «же» insists — the man is surely not to blame. «Неповинен» is a short adjective, 'not guilty.'
> Instrumental of means + indefinite «-нибудь»: «Наказанием» (with a punishment) is an instrumental of means after «наказать ... наказанием». «Каким-нибудь» ('some ... or other') uses the non-specific indefinite particle «-нибудь» — any small punishment at all.
> «произойти на свет» — to be born; jingling «поганый»: «Произойти на свет» ('to come into the world') is a slightly elevated idiom for being born. The threefold echo of «поганый» (heathen/filthy) — parents, manner, child — hammers the inheritance of unbelief as something not chosen.

Не может же господь бог насильно взять татарина и говорить про него, что и он был христианином?  
Surely the Lord God cannot seize the Tatar by force and declare of him that he too was a Christian?
> Rhetorical negation + «же»: 'surely God cannot': Fronted «не может» with the particle «же» makes an indignant rhetorical question — 'surely God cannot...' The infinitives «взять ... и говорить» depend on «не может». «Насильно» ('by force') is an adverb of manner.
> Predicate instrumental «христианином»: After «был» (was), the predicate noun goes into the instrumental «христианином» rather than the nominative — the standard pattern for naming a role or state in the past. The additive «и» means 'he too (was a Christian).'

Ведь значило бы тогда, что господь вседержитель скажет сущую неправду.  
For that would mean the Lord Almighty was telling an outright untruth.
> «ведь» + conditional «значило бы»: «Ведь» opens the sentence as an appeal to the obvious ('for, after all'), and «значило бы» is the impersonal conditional 'it would mean.' Together they press a self-evident hypothetical consequence on the listener.
> «сущая неправда» — 'an outright untruth': «Сущий» is a bookish intensifier ('downright, sheer, very') and «неправда» a softened 'untruth/falsehood' (lit. 'un-truth'). The pairing accuses God of telling a flat lie — the blasphemous edge of Smerdyakov's reductio.

А разве может господь вседержитель неба и земли произнести ложь, хотя бы в одном только каком-нибудь слове-с?  
And can the Lord Almighty of heaven and earth pronounce a falsehood, even in but a single word of any kind, sir?"
> «разве» — incredulous question particle: «Разве» frames an incredulous rhetorical question ('can it really be that...?'), expecting a horrified 'no.' It signals the speaker's own disbelief at the possibility he raises — God uttering a lie.
> «вседержитель» — Pantocrator, 'Almighty': «Вседержитель» (lit. 'all-holder') is the Church-Slavonic calque of Greek Pantokrator, 'Almighty, sustainer of all,' the title under which Christ gazes down from the dome of an Orthodox church. The lofty epithet, drawn from the liturgy, magnifies the irreverence of doubting His truthfulness.

Григорий остолбенел и смотрел на оратора, выпучив глаза.  
Grigory was struck dumb and stared at the orator, his eyes bulging.
> Perfective gerund «выпучив» — 'goggling': «Выпучив» is the perfective past gerund of «выпучить» (to bulge/goggle the eyes), a completed act framing his stare. The gerund neatly attaches the vivid physical detail to «смотрел» (was staring).
> «остолбенеть» + ironic «оратор»: «Остолбенеть» is to be rooted to the spot like a post («столб» = pillar), 'struck dumb.' Calling the servant Smerdyakov «оратор» ('orator') is the narrator's dry irony — the kitchen-boy holding forth like a rhetorician.

Он хоть и не понимал хорошо, что говорят, но что-то из всей этой дребедени вдруг понял и остановился с видом человека, вдруг стукнувшегося лбом об стену.  
Though he did not really understand what was being said, he had suddenly grasped something out of all this drivel and stopped short with the look of a man who has suddenly cracked his forehead against a wall.
> Reflexive past active participle «стукнувшегося»: «Стукнувшегося» is the past active participle of the reflexive perfective «стукнуться» (to knock oneself), in the genitive to agree with «человека». «Лбом» (with his forehead) is an instrumental of the body part — a participial phrase doing the work of a whole «который»-clause.
> Concessive «хоть и ... но» + aspect contrast: «Хоть и ... но» ('though ... yet') frames the concession. The imperfective «не понимал» (kept not understanding, generally) contrasts with the perfective «понял» (suddenly grasped one thing) — aspect carrying the whole sense of a flash of comprehension within a fog.
> «дребедень» — drivel, rubbish: A dismissive colloquial noun for nonsense, twaddle, worthless stuff (here genitive «дребедени» after «из»). The narrator voices Grigory's verdict on Smerdyakov's reasoning — gibberish out of which, all the same, something pierced him.

Федор Павлович допил рюмку и залился визгливым смехом.  
Fyodor Pavlovich drained his glass and dissolved into shrill laughter.
> Two perfective verbs of completion: «Допил» ('drank to the bottom,' «до-» = to completion) and «залился» ('burst into,' «за-» inceptive, lit. 'poured over with') are both perfective — two crisp completed events. «Смехом» (with laughter) is an instrumental of what he was flooded by.
> «визгливый» — shrill, squealing: «Визгливый» (from «визг», a squeal/shriek) paints the laughter as high, grating, undignified. The choice keeps Fyodor Pavlovich's mirth unpleasant and faintly hysterical, in keeping with the scene's blasphemous glee.

— Алешка, Алешка, каково! Ах ты, казуист!  
"Alyoshka, Alyoshka, how about that! Oh, you casuist!
> Exclamatory short neuter «каково!»: «Каково!» is the short neuter form of «каков» used as an exclamation — 'how about that! what do you make of it!' The short adjective here predicates over the whole situation, a lively colloquial flourish.

Это он был у иезуитов где-нибудь, Иван.  
He's been with the Jesuits somewhere, Ivan.
> Indefinite «где-нибудь» — 'somewhere or other': «Где-нибудь» uses the non-specific «-нибудь» suffix: 'somewhere, anywhere — I couldn't say where.' It is vaguer than «где-то» ('somewhere specific but unknown'); Fyodor Pavlovich isn't naming a place, just gesturing at one.

Ах ты, иезуит смердящий, да кто же тебя научил?  
Oh, you stinking Jesuit, now who taught you all this?
> «смердящий» — a pun on Smerdyakov's name: «Смердящий» ('stinking,' present active participle of «смердеть», to reek) puns on the surname Smerdyakov, itself built on «смерд» (a base serf) and the verb 'to stink.' Fyodor Pavlovich's 'stinking Jesuit' is a sly play on the man's very name and lowly origin.
> Opening «да» + emphatic «кто же»: Sentence-initial «да» here is not 'yes' but an emotive opener ('now, why,'), and «кто же» loads the question with astonishment — 'now who on earth taught you?' The perfective «научил» asks for the one who completed the teaching.

Но только ты врешь, казуист, врешь, врешь и врешь.  
Only you're lying, casuist, lying and lying and lying.
> Imperfective «врёшь» repeated for intensity: The imperfective present «врёшь» ('you're lying') repeated threefold turns into an iterative, escalating accusation — the imperfective's openness to repetition exploited rhetorically. It is bluster, not a single charge.

Не плачь, Григорий, мы его сею же минутой разобьем в дым и прах.  
Don't cry, Grigory, we'll grind him to smoke and dust this very minute.
> Archaic «сею же минутой» + perfective future: «Сею» is the archaic instrumental of «сей» ('this'), surviving in set phrases — 'this very minute.' «Минутой» is an instrumental of time, intensified by «же». «Разобьём» is a perfective future: we'll smash him, once and done.
> «в дым и прах» — 'to smoke and dust': An emphatic idiom for utter destruction, 'to smithereens.' «Прах» ('dust, ashes') carries a faint biblical ring (dust to dust), lending Fyodor Pavlovich's boast a mock-grand, apocalyptic flourish.

Ты мне вот что скажи, ослица: пусть ты пред мучителями прав, но ведь ты сам-то в себе всё же отрекся от веры своей и сам же говоришь, что в тот же час был анафема проклят, а коли раз уж анафема, так тебя за эту анафему по головке в аду не погладят.  
Tell me this, you ass: granted you're in the right before the tormentors, but you yourself, deep down, still renounced your own faith, and you say yourself that in that same hour you were anathema accursed — and once you're anathema, then they won't be patting you on the head in hell for that anathema.
> «ослица» — 'she-ass', tying back to Balaam: Fyodor Pavlovich addresses Smerdyakov as «ослица» (a female donkey), echoing the chapter's opening «валаамова ослица» (Balaam's ass). The grammatically feminine, faintly absurd term half-insults, half-marvels at the servant who has unexpectedly found his tongue.
> Concessive «пусть» + short adjective «прав»: «Пусть» here is concessive — 'granted, let's say (you're right)' — conceding a point for argument's sake. «Прав» is the short predicative adjective 'right/in the right.' «Пред» is the archaic, bookish form of «перед» (before).
> Intensifier «сам», reflexive «в себе», clitic «-то»: «Сам» ('yourself') with «-то» drives the contrast, «в себе» ('within yourself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional. The reflexive «отрёкся» («-ся») and the repeated «сам же» (yourself, after all) keep the focus relentlessly on Smerdyakov's own inner act.
> «по головке не погладят» — 'won't pat you on the head': An idiom: 'they won't pat you on the head for it' = you'll get no praise, you'll be in trouble. The diminutive «головка» (little head) gives it a mock-tender, ironic warmth, all the sharper applied to the torments of hell.

Об этом ты как полагаешь, иезуит ты мой прекрасный?  
What's your view on that, my splendid Jesuit?"
> Possessive sandwiched for mockery: The word order «иезуит ты мой прекрасный» splits the noun phrase, slotting «ты» (you) inside it: literally 'Jesuit-you-my-splendid'. This intrusive «ты» and the inverted weight throw the whole phrase into sneering, affectionate-contemptuous address.

— Это сумления нет-с, что сам в себе я отрекся, а всё же никакого и тут специально греха не было-с, а коли был грешок, то самый обыкновенный весьма-с.  
"There's no doubt, sir, that deep down I renounced it; but still there was no special sin in it whatever, sir, and if there was a little sin, it was the most ordinary kind, sir."
> The servile «-с»: Smerdyakov peppers his speech with the enclitic «-с» («нет-с», «было-с») — a contraction of «сударь» (sir) once tacked onto words to signal deference to a superior. It marks him as a lackey and gives his casuistry a wheedling, over-polite tone the translation renders as the repeated 'sir'.
> Substandard «сумление» for «сомнение»: «сумления» (doubt) is Smerdyakov's malformed, semi-literate version of standard «сомнения» — the kind of pseudo-bookish mangling Dostoevsky uses to paint his half-educated pretension. He repeats the error as «сумление» in s87.
> Reflexive «отрекся» + emphatic «сам в себе»: «отрекся» is the past of the «-ся» verb «отречься» (to renounce, abjure), which exists only in reflexive form. «сам в себе» ('in myself, inwardly') leans on the reflexive pronoun «себя» to locate the renunciation deep within.
> The diminutive «грешок» — a little sin: Against the full «грех» (sin), the suffix «-ок» in «грешок» shrinks and excuses it: 'a trifling little sin, nothing serious'. The diminutive does the moral work of minimizing, perfectly suiting Smerdyakov's self-exculpation.

— Как так обыкновенный весьма-с!  
"How do you mean, the most ordinary kind, sir!"
> Indignant echo without a verb: The exclamation has no verb at all — «Как так…!» ('How so…!') simply throws Smerdyakov's own words «обыкновенный весьма» back at him. Russian freely drops the copula and lets word order and intonation carry the outraged disbelief.

— Врешь, пр-р-роклятый, — прошипел Григорий.  
"You're lying, you c-c-cursed thing," Grigory hissed.
> The stuttered curse «проклятый»: «проклятый» ('cursed, damned one') is a passive participle of «проклясть» used as a noun of abuse. Dostoevsky writes the rolled, drawn-out «пр-р-р-» to render Grigory hissing the word through his teeth in fury.
> Perfective «прошипел» for a single hiss: «прошипел» (he hissed out) is the perfective of «шипеть», the prefix «про-» giving a single, completed burst of sound. Such perfective speech-verbs after dialogue snap the narrative forward one event at a time.

— Рассудите сами, Григорий Васильевич, — ровно и степенно, сознавая победу, но как бы и великодушничая с разбитым противником, продолжал Смердяков, — рассудите сами, Григорий Васильевич: ведь сказано же в писании, что коли имеете веру хотя бы на самое малое даже зерно и притом скажете сей горе, чтобы съехала в море, то и съедет, нимало не медля, по первому же вашему приказанию.  
"Reason it out for yourself, Grigory Vasilyevich," Smerdyakov went on, smooth and sedate, conscious of his victory yet acting as though he were being magnanimous with a beaten opponent, "reason it out for yourself, Grigory Vasilyevich: after all, it is written in Scripture that if you have faith even but the size of the smallest grain, and you then say to this mountain that it should move into the sea, it will move, without the slightest delay, at your very first command.
> Polite plural imperative «рассудите»: «Рассудите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «рассудить» (to judge, reason out), the «-те» ending marking the deference Smerdyakov shows the older Grigory. He rings it twice like a refrain.
> Ironic gerund «великодушничая»: «великодушничая» is the present gerund of «великодушничать» — a faintly mocking verb meaning 'to play the magnanimous one, put on a show of generosity'. The «-ничать» suffix flavours it with affected performance, exactly the narrator's sly point about Smerdyakov.
> Archaic «сей» — 'this': «сей» (here dative «сей горе», 'to this mountain') is the bookish/Church-Slavonic demonstrative for «этот». It deliberately echoes the elevated language of Scripture, which Smerdyakov apes to lend his sophistry a sacred ring; it recurs through the passage.
> «чтобы» + past form for a willed command: «скажете сей горе, чтобы съехала» — 'tell the mountain that it should move'. After «чтобы» Russian uses the past-tense form «съехала» (not an infinitive or future), because the clause expresses a willed, not-yet-real outcome; this is «чтобы» fused with the irrealis «бы».

Что же, Григорий Васильевич, коли я неверующий, а вы столь верующий, что меня беспрерывно даже ругаете, то попробуйте сами-с сказать сей горе, чтобы не то чтобы в море (потому что до моря отсюда далеко-с), но даже хоть в речку нашу вонючую съехала, вот что у нас за садом течет, то и увидите сами в тот же момент, что ничего не съедет-с, а всё останется в прежнем порядке и целости, сколько бы вы ни кричали-с.  
Well then, Grigory Vasilyevich, since I'm an unbeliever and you are so great a believer that you even scold me without ceasing, try it yourself, sir — say to this mountain not that it should move into the sea (because the sea is a long way from here, sir), but even just into our stinking little stream, the one that runs there behind the garden, and you'll see for yourself that very instant that nothing will move, sir, and everything will stay in its former order and entire, however much you may shout, sir.
> Folksy «коли» for «если»: «коли» is a colloquial/archaic conditional 'if', a homely substitute for «если» that flavours Smerdyakov's whole disquisition with peasant-bookish speech. «неверующий» ('unbeliever') is the present active participle of «верить» used as a noun.
> Diminutive «речку» + 'stinking': «речка» is the affectionate diminutive of «река» (river) — here a humble little stream — paired with «вонючую» (stinking). The bathos is deliberate: Smerdyakov downgrades Scripture's 'sea' to the reeking ditch behind the garden to make faith look absurd.
> Concessive «сколько бы ни» — 'however much': «сколько бы вы ни кричали» combines the irrealis particle «бы» with intensifying «ни» and the past form «кричали» to mean 'however much you might shout'. The «бы…ни» frame builds the universal-concessive ('no matter how'), and «ни» here intensifies rather than negates.

А это означает, что и вы не веруете, Григорий Васильевич, надлежащим манером, а лишь других за то всячески ругаете.  
And this means that you too do not believe, Grigory Vasilyevich, in the proper manner, but only scold others in every way for it.
> Pseudo-genteel «надлежащим манером»: «надлежащим манером» ('in the proper manner') uses the bookish participle «надлежащий» (due, fitting) and the Germanism «манер» — a stock phrase that lets Smerdyakov sound officially correct. The instrumental «манером» expresses the manner of the action.
> Topic-shifting «а» opening the verdict: The sentence opens with «а», the mild contrastive 'and/but' that pivots to a new point — here Smerdyakov's triumphant conclusion ('and so this means…'). It marks a turn, not a real opposition, threading his argument forward.

Опять-таки и то взямши, что никто в наше время, не только вы-с, но и решительно никто, начиная с самых даже высоких лиц до самого последнего мужика-с, не сможет спихнуть горы в море, кроме разве какого-нибудь одного человека на всей земле, много двух, да и то, может, где-нибудь там в пустыне египетской в секрете спасаются, так что их и не найдешь вовсе, — то коли так-с, коли все остальные выходят неверующие, то неужели же всех сих остальных, то есть население всей земли-с, кроме каких-нибудь тех двух пустынников, проклянет господь и при милосердии своем, столь известном, никому из них не простит?  
And then again, taking it that no one in our time — not only you, sir, but decidedly no one, from the very highest personages down to the very lowest peasant, sir — can shove a mountain into the sea, except perhaps some single man on all the earth, two at most, and even they, perhaps, are somewhere off in the Egyptian desert saving their souls in secret, so that you'd never find them at all — then if that's how it is, sir, if all the rest turn out to be unbelievers, can it really be that all those others — that is, the whole population of the earth, sir, save those two hermits of some kind — will be cursed by the Lord, and that in His mercy, so famous as it is, He will pardon not one of them?
> Substandard gerund «взямши»: «взямши» is a non-standard, folk past gerund of «взять» (standard would be «взяв»), meaning 'having taken (the case that…)'. The «-мши» ending is a colloquial/dialectal form Dostoevsky plants to keep Smerdyakov's voice half-literate beneath its pretension.
> Negative concord with «никто… не»: «никто… не сможет» piles the negative pronoun «никто» onto the negated verb «не сможет» — Russian's obligatory double negation, where both pieces are required for the single meaning 'no one can'. The scope is widened by «решительно никто» ('decidedly no one').
> Incredulous «неужели же»: «неужели» is the particle of astonished disbelief ('can it really be that…?'), reinforced by emphatic «же». It frames a rhetorical question expecting the answer 'surely not', the keystone of Smerdyakov's mock-theological argument that God could not damn the whole earth.
> Archaic plural «сих»: «сих» is the genitive/accusative plural of archaic «сей» ('these'), as in «всех сих остальных» (all these others). Like «сей горе» above, it lends a scriptural-juridical solemnity that clashes comically with the servant's argument.

А потому и я уповаю, что, раз усомнившись, буду прощен, когда раскаяния слезы пролью.  
And so I too trust that, having once fallen into doubt, I shall be pardoned when I shed the tears of repentance."
> The pious «уповать» — to trust in God: «уповаю» (I trust, set my hope) is a solemn, Church-tinged verb reserved for hope placed in God or providence, far loftier than plain «надеяться». Smerdyakov wraps his self-serving calculation in devotional vocabulary; he repeats «уповая» in the chapter's closing line.
> Past gerund + future passive: «усомнившись» is the perfective past gerund of «усомниться» ('having once come to doubt'), naming the prior completed act; «буду прощен» is the imperfective compound future of «быть» plus the short passive participle «прощён» (I shall be pardoned). Two non-finite/analytic forms stacked in one literary breath.
> Inverted 'tears of repentance': «раскаяния слезы пролью» ('I shall pour out the tears of repentance') fronts the genitive «раскаяния» before its noun «слезы» and ends on the verb — a deliberately poetic, liturgical word order. «пролить слёзы» is a set elevated idiom for weeping.

— Стой! — завизжал Федор Павлович в апофеозе восторга, — так двух-то таких, что горы могут сдвигать, ты все-таки полагаешь, что есть они?  
"Stop!" shrieked Fyodor Pavlovich in an apotheosis of delight. "So those two of the kind that can move mountains — you do, after all, suppose they exist?
> «завизжал» — broke into a shriek: «завизжал» is the inceptive perfective of «визжать» (to squeal, shriek); the prefix «за-» marks the sudden onset of the sound. It paints Fyodor Pavlovich's gleeful, almost hysterical delight at the 'controversy'.
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: In «двух-то таких» the hyphenated «-то» clitic underlines the known topic just raised — 'those two of the kind (we were speaking of)'. It is not the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то»; here it singles out and stresses an established referent.
> Accusative plural object «горы»: «могут сдвигать» governs «горы» (mountains) — the accusative plural (identical in form to the nominative plural for this inanimate noun; the genitive plural would be «гор»). The imperfective infinitive «сдвигать» frames mountain-moving as a repeatable capacity, not one finished act, fitting 'those who can move mountains'.

Иван, заруби черту, запиши: весь русский человек тут сказался!  
Ivan, mark it down, write it down: the whole Russian man has shown himself here!"
> Two perfective imperatives: «заруби» (lit. 'notch it', from «зарубить») and «запиши» (write it down) are perfective singular imperatives fired off in command. «заруби (себе) на носу» is an idiom for 'note it well, mark my words'; here clipped to the bare verb for emphasis.
> «сказался» — revealed himself: «сказаться» (here «сказался») is the reflexive 'to show/declare itself, become manifest'. «весь русский человек тут сказался» — 'the whole Russian man has shown himself here' — is Fyodor Pavlovich's grandiose claim that Smerdyakov's quibble lays bare the national soul.

— Вы совершенно верно заметили, что это народная в вере черта, — с одобрительною улыбкой согласился Иван Федорович.  
"You noted quite rightly that this is a popular trait in matters of faith," Ivan Fyodorovich agreed with an approving smile.
> «народный» — of the common people: «народная… черта» means 'a folk / popular trait' — «народный» derives from «народ» (the people, the nation) and carries the whole 19th-c. weight of the simple Russian folk and their faith. Ivan grants that the mountain-moving literalism is a genuine trait of popular belief.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «с одобрительною улыбкой» ('with an approving smile') shows the older literary feminine instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»), agreeing with «улыбкой». The «с» + instrumental marks accompanying manner; the «-ою» form is a period-elevated flourish.

— Соглашаешься! Значит, так, коли уж ты соглашаешься!  
"You agree! Then so it is, if even you agree!
> Present «соглашаешься» as a live concession: «соглашаешься» is the 2nd-person present of imperfective «соглашаться» (to agree) — the present tense (only imperfectives have one) and the dropped pronoun would be normal, but Fyodor keeps «ты» for triumphant emphasis: 'if even YOU agree'. «уж» adds insistent 'already/indeed'.

Алешка, ведь правда? Ведь совершенно русская вера такая?  
Alyoshka, it's true, isn't it? Isn't that exactly the Russian sort of faith?"
> The familiar-rough «Алешка»: Fyodor Pavlovich calls his son not the tender «Алёша» but «Алёшка» — the «-ка» suffix here is offhand, coarse-familiar, the form a master might use to a servant or a father to a boy. It marks his careless, bantering register.
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge and seeks agreement — 'it's true, isn't it? after all…'. Repeated in «ведь совершенно русская вера такая?», it tugs at Alyosha for confirmation, a hallmark of Fyodor's coaxing dialogue.

— Нет, у Смердякова совсем не русская вера, — серьезно и твердо проговорил Алеша.  
"No, Smerdyakov's faith isn't Russian at all," Alyosha said gravely and firmly.
> «у» + genitive for 'has': «у Смердякова… вера» uses the «у» + genitive possessive frame (lit. 'at Smerdyakov [there is] faith') — Russian's normal way of saying someone has something. «совсем не» ('not at all') negates the predicate adjective «русская».
> Perfective «проговорил» + adverbs: «проговорил» (uttered, brought out) is perfective, the prefix «про-» giving a single completed act of speech; the adverbs «серьёзно и твёрдо» ('gravely and firmly') colour Alyosha's quiet correction against the buffoonery around him.

— Я не про веру его, я про эту черту, про этих двух пустынников, про эту одну только черточку: ведь это же по-русски, по-русски?  
"I don't mean his faith — I mean this trait, these two hermits, just this one little touch: surely it's Russian, isn't it, Russian?"
> Double diminutive «черточка»: From «черта» (trait, line) Fyodor goes to «черточка» — a tiny touch, a mere little stroke. The «-очк-» diminutive makes the point feel small and intimate, as he narrows from 'his faith' to just 'this one little touch'.
> Adverbial «по-русски» — 'in the Russian way': «по-русски» is the «по-…-ски» adverb meaning 'Russian-ly, in the Russian manner'. Doubled and questioning, it presses the point: 'it's Russian, isn't it, Russian?' The same pattern gives «по-немецки», «по-нашему», etc.

— Да, черта эта совсем русская, — улыбнулся Алеша.  
"Yes, that trait is thoroughly Russian," Alyosha smiled.
> Zero copula, postposed demonstrative: «черта эта совсем русская» has no verb 'to be' — the present copula is simply absent, leaving 'trait-this-quite-Russian'. Placing the demonstrative «эта» after its noun («черта эта») is an emphatic, slightly colloquial word order.
> Reflexive perfective «улыбнулся»: «улыбнулся» (smiled) is the perfective of «улыбаться», a «-ся» verb that exists only in reflexive form; the «-нул-» infix gives a single, momentary smile rather than ongoing smiling.

— Червонца стоит твое слово, ослица, и пришлю тебе его сегодня же, но в остальном ты все-таки врешь, врешь и врешь; знай, дурак, что здесь мы все от легкомыслия лишь не веруем, потому что нам некогда: во-первых, дела одолели, а во-вторых, времени бог мало дал, всего во дню определил только двадцать четыре часа, так что некогда и выспаться, не только покаяться.  
"Your word is worth a gold piece, you ass, and I'll send it to you this very day; but in the rest of it you're still lying, lying and lying; know this, you fool: here we are all unbelievers only out of frivolity, because we've no time for it — first, business has us overwhelmed, and second, God gave us little time, allotting only twenty-four hours to the day, so that there's no time even to get enough sleep, let alone to repent.
> «ослица» — she-ass (a biblical jibe): «ослица» is the feminine 'she-ass', applied to a man as mockery — an echo of Balaam's ass (Numbers 22), the dumb beast that spoke truth. Fyodor crowns the theological wrangling by dubbing Smerdyakov a prophesying donkey.
> Imperative «знай» framing a lecture: «знай» is the singular imperative of «знать» (know!), here launching an admonition — 'know this, you fool, that…'. The bare imperative plus «что»-clause is a stock rhetorical opener for laying down a truth.
> «от» + genitive of cause: «от легкомыслия» ('out of frivolity') uses «от» + genitive to express cause — the reason for the unbelief. «лишь» ('only, merely') restricts it, and «не веруем» uses the loftier «веровать» for 'believe', tinging the boast with mock-solemnity.
> Archaic locative «во дню»: «всего во дню… только двадцать четыре часа» uses the old prepositional «во дню» (in a day) for modern «в дне/в дню» — a scripture-flavoured locative. The whole conceit, God 'allotting' (определил) hours, mockingly apes liturgical idiom.

А ты-то там пред мучителями отрекся, когда больше не о чем и думать-то было тебе как о вере и когда именно надо было веру свою показать!  
Whereas you went and renounced your faith there before the tormentors, when there was nothing else for you to be thinking about but your faith, and when it was precisely the moment to show your faith!
> Contrastive «ты-то» + archaic «пред»: The «-то» clitic on «ты-то» pointedly singles out Smerdyakov by contrast ('whereas YOU, of all people…'). «пред» is the bookish/archaic form of «перед» (before) governing the instrumental «мучителями» (the tormentors).
> Impersonal «не о чем было» + dative: «больше не о чем… было тебе… думать» is an impersonal negative construction: the dative «тебе» is the experiencer and «не о чем» ('there was nothing to think about') the negative-pronoun predicate. The «-то» and «и» add insistent emphasis.

Так ведь это, брат, составляет, я думаю?  
So that does count for something, brother, I think?"
> «ведь» appealing for assent: «ведь» again leans on shared understanding — 'so this does count, doesn't it, brother, I think?'. «составляет» here means 'amounts to something, counts'; the tentative «я думаю» softens the assertion into a half-question.

— Составляет-то оно составляет, но рассудите сами, Григорий Васильевич, что ведь тем более и облегчает, что составляет.  
"It counts, true enough; but reason it out for yourself, Grigory Vasilyevich, that the very fact that it counts makes it all the more excusable."
> Concessive echo «X-то оно X, но…»: The frame «составляет-то оно составляет, но…» repeats the verb around the «-то» clitic and dummy «оно» to concede a point before objecting — 'it counts, true enough, but…'. This X-то-X-но pattern is a very idiomatic Russian way of granting-then-qualifying.
> Correlative «тем более… что»: «тем более и облегчает, что составляет» — 'all the more excuses it, precisely because it counts'. «тем более» ('all the more so') with a «что»-clause builds Smerdyakov's paradoxical turn: the very fact that faith counts is what lets him off.

Ведь коли бы я тогда веровал в самую во истину, как веровать надлежит, то тогда действительно было бы грешно, если бы муки за свою веру не принял и в поганую Магометову веру перешел.  
"For if I had believed back then in the very truth, as one ought to believe, then it really would have been sinful not to accept the torments for my faith and to go over to the foul faith of Mahomet.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A full irrealis conditional: «коли бы… веровал… было бы грешно» — past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы» in both clauses ('if I had believed… it would have been sinful'). «коли бы» is the folksy variant of «если бы»; «было бы грешно» is the impersonal predicate.
> Impersonal «надлежит» — 'as one ought': «как веровать надлежит» ('as one ought to believe') uses the bookish impersonal verb «надлежать» (to be incumbent, fitting) with a bare infinitive — a formal, almost juridical register Smerdyakov adopts to sound theologically exact.

Но ведь до мук и не дошло бы тогда-с, потому стоило бы мне в тот же миг сказать сей горе: двинься и подави мучителя, то она бы двинулась и в тот же миг его придавила, как таракана, и пошел бы я как ни в чем не бывало прочь, воспевая и славя бога.  
But it would never have come to the torments at all then, sir, because I'd only have had to say to this mountain in that same instant: 'Move and crush the tormentor,' and it would have moved and in that same instant crushed him like a cockroach, and I'd have walked off as if nothing had happened, singing hymns and glorifying God.
> Dative «мне» in a «стоило бы» conditional: «стоило бы мне… сказать… то она бы двинулась» — 'I'd only have had to say… and it would have moved'. The impersonal «стоило бы» takes the dative experiencer «мне» plus infinitive ('it would have been enough for me to…'); the main clause carries its own «бы».
> Singular imperatives to the mountain: Smerdyakov commands the mountain with perfective singular imperatives: «двинься» (move!, the «-ся» reflexive of «двинуть») and «подави» (crush!, from «подавить»). The reflexive «двинься» is intransitive 'shift yourself'.
> 'Like a cockroach': «придавила, как таракана» ('crushed him like a cockroach') — «таракан» (cockroach) in the animate accusative «таракана». The squashed insect is a recurring Dostoevskian image of casual, contemptuous annihilation; here it deflates the miracle into vermin-killing.
> Liturgical gerunds «воспевая и славя»: «воспевая и славя» are present gerunds of the elevated «воспевать» (to sing praises of) and «славить» (to glorify) — verbs straight from church hymnody. They paint Smerdyakov sauntering off 'singing and glorifying God', a blasphemously casual picture.

А коли я именно в тот же самый момент это всё и испробовал и нарочно уже кричал сей горе: подави сих мучителей, — а та не давила, то как же, скажите, я бы в то время не усомнился, да еще в такой страшный час смертного великого страха?  
But if at that very same moment I tried all this out and on purpose did shout to the mountain, 'Crush these tormentors,' and it didn't crush them — then how, tell me, could I have helped doubting at such a time, and at that, in so dreadful an hour of mortal and overwhelming terror?
> «испробовал» — tried out, put to the test: «испробовал» is perfective 'tried out, tested' (from «пробовать» with the thoroughgoing prefix «ис-»), stronger than plain 'tried'. Smerdyakov claims he actually put the mountain-faith to the experimental test — and «нарочно» ('on purpose') makes the impiety deliberate.
> Rhetorical «как же… бы»: «как же… я бы… не усомнился?» — 'how could I have helped doubting?'. The emphatic «же» on «как» plus the conditional «бы не усомнился» (past «усомнился» + «бы») turns it into a rhetorical question expecting 'of course I would'.
> Genitive chain 'of mortal great terror': «в такой страшный час смертного великого страха» heaps adjectives in the genitive — «смертного великого страха» ('of mortal, great fear') — and «страшный… страха» chimes the root «страх» for rhetorical dread. The piled genitive modifiers are a mark of heightened, bookish style.

И без того уж знаю, что царствия небесного в полноте не достигну (ибо не двинулась же по слову моему гора, значит, не очень-то вере моей там верят, и не очень уж большая награда меня на том свете ждет), для чего же я еще сверх того и безо всякой уже пользы кожу с себя дам содрать?  
Even apart from that I already know I shan't attain the kingdom of heaven in its fullness (for the mountain did not move at my word, which means they don't put much stock up there in my faith, and no very great reward awaits me in the next world) — so why, on top of all that and to no use whatever, should I let my skin be flayed off me besides?
> Genitive of negation «царствия… не достигну»: «достигнуть» governs the genitive, and under negation it stays genitive: «царствия небесного… не достигну» ('I shall not attain the kingdom'). «не достигну» is also a perfective simple future — perfective present-form endings yielding future sense.
> Bookish «ибо» — 'for, because': «ибо» ('for, because') is the archaic-literary causal conjunction, far more solemn than «потому что». Smerdyakov uses it to give his parenthetical reasoning a scriptural gravity — the same register as «дабы», «сей», and his other elevated tics.
> «себя» + causative 'have my skin flayed': «кожу с себя дам содрать» — lit. 'I'll let/cause my skin to be flayed off myself'. «дать» + infinitive («дам содрать») forms a causative-permissive ('let, have done'), and the reflexive «с себя» ('off myself') points the flaying back at the speaker.

Ибо если бы даже кожу мою уже до половины содрали со спины, то и тогда по слову моему или крику не двинулась бы сия гора.  
For even if my skin were already half flayed from my back, even then, at my word or my cry, this mountain would not budge.
> Counterfactual: 'even if… still…': «если бы… до половины содрали… то и тогда… не двинулась бы сия гора» is another irrealis conditional ('even if my skin were half flayed, even then this mountain would not budge'). Both verbs are past + «бы»; «и тогда» ('even then') heightens the concession.
> «по» + dative — 'at my word': «по слову моему или крику» ('at my word or my cry') uses «по» + dative «слову/крику» to mean 'in response to, on the strength of'. The postposed possessive «моему» and the dative give the phrase a scriptural cadence ('at my word the mountain shall move').

Да в этакую минуту не только что сумление может найти, но даже от страха и самого рассудка решиться можно, так что и рассуждать-то будет совсем невозможно.  
Indeed, at such a moment one might not only fall into doubt — one might, from sheer terror, lose one's very reason, so that there'd be no possibility of reasoning at all.
> Impersonal possibility «можно»: The sentence runs on impersonal predicates: «может найти» (doubt 'may come over one') and «можно… решиться» ('one might lose'). No nominative subject — the experience is framed as something that befalls anyone in 'such a minute'.
> «решиться» + genitive — to lose one's reason: «от страха и самого рассудка решиться можно» — «решиться» (with genitive «рассудка») here means not 'to decide' but the colloquial 'to lose, be deprived of' (one's reason). The genitive «рассудка» is the thing lost; «от страха» gives the cause.

А, стало быть, чем я тут выйду особенно виноват, если, не видя ни там, ни тут своей выгоды, ни награды, хоть кожу-то по крайней мере свою сберегу?  
And so, then, where am I particularly to blame in this, if, seeing no profit for myself either there or here, and no reward, I at least save my own skin?
> Short adjective «виноват» as predicate: «виноват» (guilty, to blame) is a short-form adjective, used only predicatively, agreeing in gender/number (виноват, виновата). With «выйду» ('I'll turn out [to be]') it asks 'where am I particularly to blame?' — the short form being the idiomatic predicate of guilt.
> Gerund «не видя» with «ни… ни»: «не видя ни там, ни тут своей выгоды, ни награды» — the negated present gerund «не видя» ('seeing no…') governs a string of «ни… ни» ('neither… nor') with negative concord. «свою/своей» is the reflexive possessive, the profit being his own.
> Perfective future «сберегу» + topic «-то»: «сберегу» (I'll save/preserve) is a perfective simple future. The «-то» on «кожу-то» topicalizes 'my skin' (the one thing left to save), and «свою» is again the reflexive possessive 'my own'.

А потому, на милость господню весьма уповая, питаюсь надеждой, что и совсем прощен буду-с…  
And therefore, trusting greatly in the mercy of the Lord, I feed on the hope that I shall be wholly pardoned, sir…"
> Pious closing gerund «уповая»: Smerdyakov ends as he began (s69), in devotional gerunds: «на милость господню… уповая» ('trusting greatly in the Lord's mercy'). «господню» is the possessive adjective of «Господь» (the Lord), and «уповать» the lofty 'to set one's hope in God'.
> «питаться надеждой» — to feed on hope: «питаюсь надеждой» ('I feed on / nourish myself with hope') is a set bookish metaphor; «питаться» is a «-ся» verb taking the instrumental «надеждой» for what one feeds on. The final «-с» on «буду-с» keeps the servile tone to the very last word.
---

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.