# The Brothers Karamazov, The Sensualists

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book III — The Sensualists

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b3-c9. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b3-c9.json.


Сейчас вслед за Дмитрием Федоровичем вбежали в залу и Григорий со Смердяковым.  
Hard on Dmitri Fyodorovich's heels, Grigory and Smerdyakov came rushing into the hall as well.
> «за» + instrumental for 'after, behind': «вслед за» ('hard on the heels of') governs the instrumental, so «Дмитрием Федоровичем» carries instrumental endings -ом/-ем. The preposition «за» takes the instrumental for a static 'behind/after' and the accusative for motion behind something; here it locates the pursuers right behind Dmitri.
> Fronted verb, subject held to the end: Russian's free word order lets the perfective verb «вбежали» ('came running in') open the clause while the subject «Григорий со Смердяковым» lands last as the new information. The particle «и» here is not 'and' but emphatic 'too, as well' — Grigory and Smerdyakov also burst in.

Они же в сенях и боролись с ним, не впускали его (вследствие инструкции самого Федора Павловича, данной уже несколько дней назад).  
They had been struggling with him out in the entry, trying to keep him from coming in (on instructions Fyodor Pavlovich himself had given several days before).
> «сени» — the cold entry-passage: «сени» (only plural) is the unheated vestibule of a Russian house, the threshold space between the porch and the living rooms. It is where servants intercept an unwanted visitor — exactly the scuffle Dostoevsky stages here.
> Imperfective for ongoing struggle: Both verbs are imperfective past: «боролись» ('were struggling') and «не впускали» ('kept not letting in'). The imperfective paints the wrestling as a drawn-out process rather than a single completed act, so the English reaches for 'had been struggling, trying to keep him out.'
> Past passive participle in the genitive: «данной» is the past passive participle of «дать» ('given'), declined feminine genitive to agree with «инструкции» (genitive after «вследствие»; the instrumental would be «инструкцией»). It compresses a whole relative clause ('which had been given') into one modifier — the dense participial style typical of 19th-century literary Russian.

Воспользовавшись тем, что Дмитрий Федорович, ворвавшись в залу, на минуту остановился, чтоб осмотреться, Григорий обежал стол, затворил на обе половинки противоположные входным двери залы, ведшие во внутренние покои, и стал пред затворенною дверью, раздвинув обе руки крестом и готовый защищать вход, так сказать, до последней капли.  
Seizing on the fact that Dmitri Fyodorovich, having burst into the hall, had stopped a moment to take stock, Grigory ran round the table, pulled shut both leaves of the doors facing the entrance — the ones leading into the inner rooms — and stood before the closed door, his arms flung out crosswise, ready to defend the way in, so to speak, to the last drop.
> Perfective adverbial participle: «Воспользовавшись» is a past perfective verbal adverb (деепричастие) from «воспользоваться», 'having taken advantage of.' This -вши/-вшись form names an action completed just before the main verb (here «Григорий обежал», 'Grigory ran round'). Dostoevsky chains several such participles to pack a rapid sequence of finished actions into one sentence.
> A chain of perfective gerunds: Beyond the opening «Воспользовавшись», the sentence stacks more past gerunds — «ворвавшись» ('having burst in') and «раздвинув» ('having spread apart') — each naming a finished action by Grigory or Dmitri attached to the main verbs. Massed деепричастия like this are a signature of Russian narrative density.
> Past active participle as compressed relative clause: «ведшие» is the past active participle of «вести» ('leading'), agreeing with «двери» and standing in for «которые вели» ('which led'). It is one of several reduced который-clauses that let Dostoevsky modify the doors without a string of separate sentences.
> 'To the last drop' — of blood: «до последней капли» ('to the last drop [of blood]') is a set heroic idiom for fighting to the death. Dostoevsky hedges it with «так сказать» ('so to speak'), gently mocking the old servant's melodramatic readiness to die defending a door.

Увидав это, Дмитрий не вскрикнул, а даже как бы взвизгнул и бросился на Григория.  
Seeing this, Dmitri did not so much cry out as let loose a kind of shriek, and he hurled himself at Grigory.
> Perfective gerund opening the action: «Увидав» is the past perfective gerund of «увидеть» ('having caught sight of'), with the older -в variant Dostoevsky favours over modern «увидев». It marks the prior glimpse that triggers Dmitri's lunge in the main clause.
> Contrastive «а» correcting, not just adding: The pair «не … а …» ('not X but rather Y') uses «а», the contrastive conjunction that substitutes one thing for another. Dostoevsky pushes past the expected verb «вскрикнул» ('cried out') to the sharper «взвизгнул» ('let out a shriek/squeal'), the «а даже» escalating the description.

— Значит, она там!  
"So she is in there!
> «значит» as an inferential 'so': «Значит» literally 'it means', but in speech it works as a discourse particle — 'so then, that means.' Dmitri leaps to a conclusion: the locked inner door must be hiding Grushenka. The bare «она там» needs no copula, the present-tense 'is' simply absent.

Ее спрятали там!  
They've hidden her in there!
> Subjectless 3rd-person plural = impersonal passive: «спрятали» ('they hid') is a bare 3rd-person plural with no stated subject — Russian's standard way of saying 'someone hid her / she has been hidden.' The accusative «Ее» ('her') is fronted as the topic, the unnamed hiders kept vague and sinister.

Прочь, подлец! — Он рванул было Григория, но тот оттолкнул его.  
Out of the way, you scoundrel!" He made to wrench Grigory aside, but the old man shoved him back.
> «подлец» — scoundrel, base wretch: «подлец» is a strong term of abuse, 'scoundrel, vile man', rooted in «подлый» ('base, low, mean'). Hurled at the loyal old servant who blocks his way, it shows Dmitri's fury overriding any sense of justice.
> The particle «было» — an action begun but undone: «было» after a perfective past marks an action started or attempted but at once cut short or reversed: 'he made to wrench Grigory aside [but…].' Here the very next clause, «но тот оттолкнул его», supplies the reversal. This frozen «было» is a distinctive 19th-century narrative device.
> «тот» tracking the second party: The demonstrative «тот» ('that one, the latter') points back not to the nearest noun but to Grigory, neatly distinguishing the two men without naming them. Russian leans on «тот»/«этот» for exactly this clause-internal reference-tracking.

Вне себя от ярости, Дмитрий размахнулся и изо всей силы ударил Григория.  
Beside himself with rage, Dmitri swung his arm back and struck Grigory with all his might.
> «вне себя» — 'beside oneself': «вне себя» literally 'outside oneself', the idiom for being out of control with emotion. «от ярости» ('with rage') uses «от» + genitive to name the cause of a state — a standard pattern for the source of an involuntary feeling.
> «изо всей силы» — with all one's might: A fixed adverbial phrase, «из(о) всей силы» ('with all [one's] strength'), where «из» + genitive expresses the source/extent of effort. The spelling «изо» (with the buffer vowel -о) appears before the consonant cluster of «всей».

Старик рухнулся как подкошенный, а Дмитрий, перескочив через него, вломился в дверь.  
The old man dropped as though scythed down, and Dmitri, leaping over him, broke through the door.
> 'Fell as if scythed down': «как подкошенный» ('as if mown/scythed down') is a stock simile for a body collapsing all at once, from «подкосить» (to cut at the root). «рухнулся» is an expressive reflexive form of «рухнуть», 'crashed down.' The image likens the felled old man to cut grain.
> Perfective gerund + «через» + accusative: «перескочив» ('having leapt over') is a past perfective gerund framing the action just before «вломился» ('broke through'). «через него» ('over him') shows «через» governing the accusative, its usual case for motion across or over.

Смердяков оставался в зале, на другом конце, бледный и дрожащий, тесно прижимаясь к Федору Павловичу.  
Smerdyakov stayed behind in the hall, at the far end, pale and trembling, pressing himself close against Fyodor Pavlovich.
> Imperfective gerund for simultaneous action: «прижимаясь» is the present (imperfective) gerund of «прижиматься», 'pressing himself', describing what Smerdyakov does at the same time as «оставался» ('was staying'). The reflexive -сь and «к» + dative ('to Fyodor Pavlovich') complete the cowering image.
> Long-form adjectives + present active participle: «бледный» ('pale') is a long-form adjective and «дрожащий» ('trembling') a present active participle from «дрожать», both nominative masculine to agree with Smerdyakov. Used predicatively here, they read like English '-ing/-' modifiers describing his state.

— Она здесь, — кричал Дмитрий Федорович, — я сейчас сам видел, как она повернула к дому, только я не догнал.  
"She is here," Dmitri Fyodorovich was shouting, "I saw it myself just now, how she turned toward the house — only I couldn't catch up with her.
> «как» introducing a perceived event: After verbs of perception, «как» works like English 'how' or 'as' to report what was seen: «видел, как она повернула» ('saw how she turned'). The perfective «повернула» captures the single completed turn toward the house.
> «не» + perfective: failed to complete: «не догнал» ('didn't catch up') is negated perfective: the action was aimed at completion but did not reach it. With «только» ('only, just') it conveys regret — he nearly caught her but failed.

Где она?  
Where is she?

Где она?  
Where is she?"
> Repetition as emotional intensifier: The doubled «Где она?» ('Where is she?') needs no verb 'to be' in the present and gains its force purely from repetition — a stylistic marker of Dmitri's mounting frenzy. Russian present-tense identity sentences regularly drop the copula entirely.

Непостижимое впечатление произвел на Федора Павловича этот крик: «Она здесь!» Весь испуг соскочил с него.  
That shout — "She is here!" — worked an unaccountable effect on Fyodor Pavlovich. All his fear sprang off him at once.
> Object first, subject last for drama: Russian fronts the heavy phrase «Непостижимое впечатление» ('an unaccountable impression') as topic and holds the grammatical subject «этот крик» ('this shout') to the very end as the punch. Case endings keep the roles clear despite the inversion: «впечатление» is accusative object, «крик» nominative subject.
> «непостижимый» — incomprehensible, beyond grasp: «непостижимый» ('incomprehensible, inscrutable'), built on «постичь» ('to grasp, comprehend'), is a bookish, almost theological word for what the mind cannot fathom. It lifts a moment of mere fright into something uncanny.
> Prefixed perfective + «с» + genitive: «соскочил» ('jumped off, sprang away'), from «соскочить», pairs with «с» + genitive «с него» ('off him') to picture the fear physically leaping off Fyodor Pavlovich. The vivid prefix «со-» of removal makes the abstract «испуг» ('fright') almost a living thing.

— Держи, держи его! — завопил он и ринулся вслед за Дмитрием Федоровичем.  
"Hold him, hold him!" he bawled, and went tearing after Dmitri Fyodorovich.
> Imperfective imperative, doubled: «Держи» is the imperfective imperative of «держать» ('hold!'). The imperfective fits an ongoing, urgent command, and its repetition conveys panicked insistence — 'hold him, hold him!' The object «его» ('him') is animate accusative.
> Expressive verbs of outcry and rush: «завопил» ('let out a howl/bawled') and «ринулся» ('rushed, flung himself') are strongly expressive perfectives; the prefix «за-» marks the sudden onset of the shout. Dostoevsky picks loud, kinetic verbs to render the old man's abrupt switch from fear to pursuit.

Григорий меж тем поднялся с полу, но был еще как бы вне себя.  
Grigory, meanwhile, had picked himself up off the floor, but he was still as if beside himself.
> «меж тем» — bookish 'meanwhile': «меж тем» is the elevated, slightly archaic variant of «между тем» ('meanwhile'), with the shortened poetic «меж». It belongs to the narrator's literary register, marking a shift back to Grigory's parallel action.
> Old partitive/locative «с полу»: «поднялся» ('got up', reflexive «-ся») takes «с полу» ('from the floor') — note the old short genitive ending -у on «пол» instead of modern «с пола». This second-declension -у form survives in fixed phrases and 19th-century prose.

Иван Федорович и Алеша побежали вдогонку за отцом.  
Ivan Fyodorovich and Alyosha ran in pursuit of their father.
> «за» + instrumental for pursuit: «вдогонку за» ('in pursuit of, chasing after') governs the instrumental, hence «за отцом» ('after their father'). «побежали», a perfective with the inceptive prefix «по-», marks the start of the running.

В третьей комнате послышалось, как вдруг что-то упало об пол, разбилось и зазвенело: это была большая стеклянная ваза (не из дорогих) на мраморном пьедестале, которую, пробегая мимо, задел Дмитрий Федорович.  
In the third room something was suddenly heard to fall to the floor, shatter, and ring out: it was a large glass vase (not an expensive one) on a marble pedestal, which Dmitri Fyodorovich had caught with his sleeve as he ran past.
> Impersonal «послышалось» + «как»-clause: «послышалось» ('it was heard / there came a sound') is an impersonal reflexive verb with no subject, introducing the perceived event with «как» ('how/that'). The chain of perfectives «упало, разбилось и зазвенело» ('fell, shattered, rang out') gives three crisp completed sounds.
> «который» relative with an embedded gerund: The relative pronoun «которую» is feminine accusative, agreeing in gender/number with «ваза» but taking accusative as the object of «задел» ('caught, brushed'). Nested inside is the imperfective gerund «пробегая» ('while running past'), a clause within a clause.
> «пьедестал» — a French loan for the salon: «пьедестал» ('pedestal'), borrowed via French, signals the genteel furnishing of Fyodor Pavlovich's house — a marble stand for a vase. The narrator's aside «(не из дорогих)» ('not an expensive one') quietly punctures the pretension.

— Ату его! — завопил старик. — Караул!  
"Sic him!" bawled the old man. "Help, murder!"
> A hunting cry turned on a person: «Ату!» is the shout a hunter uses to set hounds on their quarry, roughly 'Sic him! After him!' By screaming it at his own son Dmitri, Fyodor Pavlovich grotesquely treats him like prey being run down. We render it 'Sic him!' to keep the cruel hunting image, which a neutral 'At him!' would flatten away.
> «Караул!» — the cry for help: «Караул!» (originally 'guard, watch', from a Turkic loan) is the conventional shout of alarm — 'Help! Murder!' — used when one is being attacked or robbed. The old man raises the public hue and cry against his own son.

Иван Федорович и Алеша догнали-таки старика и силою воротили в залу.  
Ivan Fyodorovich and Alyosha did catch up with the old man and forced him back into the hall.
> The particle «-таки» — 'did after all': The clitic «-таки», hyphenated to the verb, means 'after all, nevertheless, did manage to.' «догнали-таки старика» conveys that they finally did catch the old man despite the chase. It is a colloquial particle of mild triumph or concession.
> Instrumental of means + archaic «воротили»: «силою» is the instrumental of «сила» ('by force'), the instrumental's core 'by means of' use; the older -ою ending sits beside the modern -ой. «воротили» ('brought back') is the folk/archaic equivalent of «возвратили / вернули», colouring the narration.

— Чего гонитесь за ним! Он вас и впрямь там убьет! — гневно крикнул на отца Иван Федорович.  
"What are you chasing after him for! He really will kill you in there!" Ivan Fyodorovich shouted angrily at his father.
> Genitive «чего» in an exasperated question: «Чего» is the genitive of «что», used colloquially for 'why on earth, what for'. With the reflexive «гонитесь» ('you chase', «гнаться» + «за» + instrumental) it forms an indignant rhetorical question — not really asking, but rebuking.
> «впрямь» — 'really, sure enough': «и впрямь» ('really, truly, sure enough') is a colloquial intensifier affirming a likelihood. Ivan warns that Dmitri «и впрямь там убьет» — really will kill him in there; «убьет» is perfective future ('will kill [outright]').

— Ванечка, Лешечка, она, стало быть, здесь, Грушенька здесь, сам, говорит, видел, что пробежала…  
"Vanechka, Lyoshechka, so she really is here, Grushenka is here — he says he saw her himself, that she ran in..."
> «стало быть» — 'so, therefore': «стало быть» is a fixed inferential phrase, 'so then, it follows, that means' — bookish-colloquial and a verbal tic of several Dostoevsky characters. It frames the old man's eager deduction that Grushenka really is in the house.
> Inserted «говорит» for reported speech: The parenthetical «говорит» ('he says') is dropped into the clause to attribute the claim to Dmitri without a full 'he says that…' frame — a hallmark of lively spoken Russian. «сам» ('himself') stresses that Dmitri personally saw her.

Он захлебывался.  
He was gasping for breath.
> «захлёбываться» — to choke on one's own words: «захлёбываться» literally 'to gulp/choke (as on water)', here means he was gasping and stumbling over his words in agitation. The imperfective past «захлебывался» gives the ongoing, breathless state.

Он не ждал в этот раз Грушеньки, и вдруг известие, что она здесь, разом вывело его из ума.  
He had not expected Grushenka this time, and the sudden news that she was here had thrown him clean out of his wits.
> «вывести из ума» — drove him out of his wits: «вывело из ума» ('drove out of [his] mind'), with «из» + genitive «ума», is an idiom of losing one's senses; «разом» ('all at once') stresses the suddenness. The subject is the abstract «известие» ('the news'), which grammatically does the driving.

Он весь дрожал, он как бы обезумел.  
He was trembling all over; he seemed to have gone out of his mind.
> «как бы» softening the verb: «как бы» ('as it were, as if, sort of') hedges the strong perfective «обезумел» ('went mad'), so the narrator says he seemed to lose his mind rather than asserting it flatly. This «как бы» recurs through the chapter as a narratorial qualifier.

— Да ведь вы видели сами, что она не приходила! — кричал Иван.  
"But you saw for yourself that she didn't come!" Ivan shouted.
> «да ведь» — appealing to shared knowledge: «да» opens the retort with exasperated 'but', and «ведь» is the modal particle that appeals to what both know — 'but you saw it yourself, after all.' Together they give Ivan's protest its frustrated, you-know-this-already tone, which no single English word captures.

— А может, через тот вход?  
"Then maybe by that other entrance?"
> Topic-shifting «а» + elliptical question: «А» here is the contrastive/topic-shifting conjunction launching a new possibility, and «может» is short for «может быть» ('maybe'). The verb is left out entirely — 'Then maybe by that other entrance?' — typical clipped dialogue. «через» + accusative «тот вход» marks motion through the entrance.

— Да ведь он заперт, тот вход, а ключ у вас…  
"But that entrance is locked, and you have the key..."
> Short-form past passive participle as predicate: «заперт» is the short-form past passive participle of «запереть» ('to lock'), used predicatively to state a result: 'it is locked.' Short participles like «заперт, заперта, заперто» join (an implied) «быть» to express the standing condition.
> «у» + genitive for possession: «у вас» ('with you / in your keeping') is the «у» + genitive construction Russian uses for possession instead of a verb 'to have': 'and you have the key.' The copula is again unspoken in the present.

Дмитрий вдруг появился опять в зале.  
Dmitri suddenly reappeared in the hall.

Он, конечно, нашел тот вход запертым, да и действительно ключ от запертого входа был в кармане у Федора Павловича.  
He had found that entrance locked, of course, for the key to the locked entrance really was in Fyodor Pavlovich's pocket.
> «да и» linking with 'and indeed': «да и» joins the clause with a confirming 'and indeed, and what's more', reinforced by «действительно» ('really'). The narrator steps in to verify Dmitri's failure: the key really was in the father's pocket.
> «от» + genitive for the key 'to' something: Russian says «ключ от» + genitive ('the key of/from'), not 'to': «ключ от запертого входа» = 'the key to the locked entrance.' «запертого» is the past passive participle declined as an adjective, masculine genitive, agreeing with «входа».

Все окна во всех комнатах были тоже заперты; ниоткуда, стало быть, не могла пройти Грушенька и ниоткуда не могла выскочить.  
All the windows in every room were locked as well; so there was nowhere Grushenka could have come in by, and nowhere she could have slipped out.
> Negative concord with «ниоткуда»: «ниоткуда» ('from nowhere') is a «ни»-adverb that obligatorily co-occurs with verbal «не»: «ниоткуда … не могла». Russian doubles the negation — 'from nowhere could she not get in' literally — yet means a single emphatic 'nowhere at all.' The pattern repeats for both entering and escaping.
> Short passive participle, plural: «заперты» is the plural short-form past passive participle ('were locked') agreeing with «окна», joined to «были» to state the past result. It parallels «заперт» a few lines earlier, sealing the room logically against Grushenka's entry.

— Держи его! — завизжал Федор Павлович, только что завидел опять Дмитрия, — он там в спальне у меня деньги украл! — И, вырвавшись от Ивана, он опять бросился на Дмитрия.  
"Hold him!" Fyodor Pavlovich screeched the moment he caught sight of Dmitri again. "He's stolen money from my bedroom in there!" And, tearing himself free of Ivan, he flung himself at Dmitri once more.
> «только что» + perfective: 'the moment he…': «только что» here means 'as soon as, the moment that', and the perfective «завидел» ('caught sight of', with inceptive «за-») marks the instantaneous trigger. The old man screeches the very instant he sees Dmitri again.
> Perfective gerund of breaking free: «вырвавшись» is the past perfective gerund of «вырваться» ('having torn oneself free'), reflexive «-ся», with «от» + genitive «от Ивана» ('out of Ivan's grip'). It names the completed wrench just before he flings himself («бросился») at Dmitri.
> «завизжать» — to start shrieking: «завизжал» ('shrieked, squealed', inceptive «за-» + «визжать') is a shrill, almost animal cry — Dostoevsky keeps choosing high-pitched verbs («взвизгнул», «завизжал») to dehumanize the screaming father and son. We render it 'screeched.'

Но тот поднял обе руки и вдруг схватил старика за обе последние космы волос его, уцелевшие на висках, дернул его и с грохотом ударил об пол.  
But the latter raised both hands and suddenly seized the old man by the last two wisps of hair still surviving at his temples, gave them a yank, and slammed him down on the floor with a crash.
> «схватить за» + accusative for the body part: Russian idiom seizes a person by a part using «за» + accusative: «схватил старика за … космы» ('seized the old man by the … wisps'). The person («старика») is animate accusative, the grabbed part follows «за». This is the standard frame for grabbing someone's hair, arm, collar.
> «космы» — straggly wisps of hair: «космы» (plural) are unkempt, straggling locks of hair, a contemptuous word. «уцелевшие» is a past active participle ('that had survived/remained'), underscoring how few hairs cling to the old man's temples — a grotesque, pitiable detail.
> «об» + accusative for impact against: «об пол» ('against the floor') uses «об/о» + accusative to mark the surface struck — the case of forceful contact. The chain of perfectives «схватил … дернул … ударил» ('seized, yanked, slammed') drives the violence forward blow by blow.

Он успел еще два или три раза ударить лежачего каблуком по лицу.  
He even managed to kick the prostrate man two or three times in the face with his heel.
> Substantivized adjective «лежачий»: «лежачего» ('the prostrate one') is an adjective used as a noun — animate accusative — from «лежать» ('to lie'). It evokes the proverb «лежачего не бьют» ('one doesn't hit a man who's down'), making Dmitri's kicking of the fallen man pointedly dishonourable.
> Instrumental of instrument + «по» + dative: «каблуком» ('with [his] heel') is the instrumental of means, and «по лицу» ('over/across the face') uses «по» + dative for a blow distributed over a surface. Together they give the brutal 'kicked him in the face with his heel.'

Старик пронзительно застонал.  
The old man let out a piercing groan.
> Inceptive «за-» on the groan: «застонал» ('let out a groan / began to groan') uses the inceptive prefix «за-» that marks the sudden onset of a sound, paired with the adverb «пронзительно» ('piercingly'). The perfective captures the single sharp cry.

Иван Федорович, хоть и не столь сильный, как брат Дмитрий, обхватил того руками и изо всей силы оторвал от старика.  
Ivan Fyodorovich, though not as strong as his brother Dmitri, threw his arms around him and dragged him off the old man with all his strength.
> «столь … как» — bookish 'as … as': «не столь сильный, как брат» ('not as strong as his brother') uses the elevated «столь» ('so, to such a degree') where everyday speech says «такой … как» or «настолько». «хоть и» ('though') concedes the point. The whole frame belongs to the literary register.
> «оторвать от» + genitive: «оторвал» ('tore/dragged off', perfective) governs «от» + genitive «от старика» ('off the old man'). «изо всей силы» ('with all his strength') again uses «из» + genitive for the extremity of effort.

Алеша всею своею силенкой тоже помог ему, обхватив брата спереди.  
Alyosha helped him too with what little strength he had, gripping his brother from the front.
> «силёнка» — pitiful little strength: «силёнка» is «сила» ('strength') with the diminutive-pejorative suffix -ёнк-, conveying 'his poor little strength.' Applied to the gentle Alyosha helping pull his giant brother off, it is tender and slightly rueful, which is why the English says 'with what little strength he had.' Note also the archaic instrumental endings «всею своею».
> Perfective gerund of how he gripped: «обхватив» ('having flung his arms around') is a past perfective gerund showing the manner of Alyosha's help, attached to «помог» ('helped'). «брата» is animate accusative; «спереди» ('from the front') specifies the grip.

— Сумасшедший, ведь ты убил его! — крикнул Иван.  
"You madman, you've killed him!" Ivan cried.
> «ведь» dramatizing the accusation: «ведь» appeals to the shared, dawning realization — 'why, you've killed him!' — turning the line into a horrified appeal rather than a flat statement. «убил» is perfective past, the deed seen as accomplished.
> «сумасшедший» — out of one's mind: «сумасшедший» ('madman, lunatic'), literally 'gone off one's mind' (from «с ума сшедший»), is hurled at Dmitri as both insult and diagnosis. It is the adjective used substantively as a vocative-like address.

— Так ему и надо! — задыхаясь, воскликнул Дмитрий. — А не убил, так еще приду убить. Не устережете!  
"Serves him right!" Dmitri exclaimed, panting. "And if I haven't killed him, I'll come again and finish it. You won't keep him safe from me!"
> Dative + «надо» idiom: 'serves him right': «Так ему и надо» ('serves him right') is a fixed impersonal construction: the dative «ему» ('to him') marks the person it befalls, with no nominative subject. It is a textbook dative-experiencer phrase, the «и» adding emphasis ('exactly so').
> Conditional «а … так» without «если»: Russian can build a conditional by simple juxtaposition: «А не убил, так … приду» = 'and if I didn't kill (him), then I'll come.' «так» introduces the apodosis. «приду убить» is perfective future ('I'll come [to] kill'), the prefixed motion verb «прийти».
> Negated perfective future, 2nd pl.: «не устережете» is the negated perfective future of «устеречь» ('to keep/guard safely'): 'you won't manage to keep him safe (from me).' The perfective future here denies the successful completion of guarding.

— Дмитрий! Иди отсюда вон сейчас! — властно вскрикнул Алеша.  
"Dmitri! Get out of here this instant!" Alyosha cried with authority.
> Imperfective imperative of command: «Иди … вон» ('get out!') is the imperfective imperative of the unidirectional motion verb «идти», reinforced by «вон» ('out, away') and «отсюда» ('from here'). The imperfective imperative suits a direct, urgent order to leave at once.
> Inversion: adverb–verb–subject: The speech tag inverts to «властно вскрикнул Алеша» ('cried Alyosha, with authority'), verb before subject as is normal after direct speech. «властно» ('imperiously') is striking for the usually meek Alyosha, marking a rare flash of command.

— Алексей! Скажи ты мне один, тебе одному поверю: была здесь сейчас она или не была?  
"Alexei! You alone tell me — you are the only one I'll believe: was she here just now or was she not?
> Dative object of «верить»: «верить» ('to believe [someone]') governs the dative, so «тебе одному» ('you alone') is dative — to trust a person, not a fact. «поверю» is perfective future ('I will believe'). Dmitri singles Alyosha out as the one person he can trust.
> Yes/no alternative with «или … не»: The double question «была … или не была» ('was she or was she not') sets up a stark yes/no alternative. Note the gendered past «была» (feminine, agreeing with «она») — the past tense marks gender, not person.

Я ее сам видел, как она сейчас мимо плетня из переулка в эту сторону проскользнула.  
I saw her myself just now, how she slipped past the fence from the lane and over to this side.
> Perfective of a single slipping motion: «проскользнула» ('slipped past/through'), perfective with the prefix «про-» of passing-by, names one completed furtive movement Dmitri claims to have seen. The «как»-clause after «видел» reports the perceived event.
> «плетень» and «переулок» — the back-lane setting: «плетень» is a wattle fence of woven branches, a humble rural boundary; «переулок» is a back lane or side-alley. «мимо плетня» ('past the wattle fence') uses «мимо» + genitive. The detail roots the scene in a provincial, half-rustic townscape.

Я крикнул, она убежала…  
I shouted, and she ran off..."
> Two perfectives in sequence: «крикнул» ('shouted') and «убежала» ('ran off') are both perfective past, chained to narrate two quick completed events one after the other — the engine of Russian event-by-event storytelling. The trailing «…» leaves the thought hanging in distress.

— Клянусь тебе, она здесь не была, и никто здесь не ждал ее вовсе!  
"I swear to you, she was not here, and no one here was expecting her at all!"
> Negative concord: «никто … не»: «никто … не ждал» pairs the «ни»-pronoun 'nobody' with verbal «не» — obligatory negative concord ('nobody was-not expecting'), meaning simply 'no one expected her.' «вовсе» ('at all') intensifies the denial, and «ждать» here takes the accusative «ее».
> «клясться» — to swear an oath: «Клянусь» ('I swear') is the reflexive «клясться», a solemn oath verb governing the dative of the person sworn to («тебе»). Alyosha's swearing lends weight to his denial that Grushenka was ever in the house.

— Но я ее видел… Стало быть, она… Я узнаю сейчас, где она… Прощай, Алексей!  
"But I saw her... So she must be... I'll find out at once where she is... Goodbye, Alexei!
> Perfective future masquerading as present: «узнаю» can be present ('I find out') or, as here, the perfective future of «узнать» ('I'll find out [at once]') — only context and «сейчас» ('right now, presently') disambiguate. The perfective stresses he will get the single, definite answer.
> Broken-off inference: «Стало быть, она…» ('So she must…') trails off, the unfinished «она» leaving the conclusion unspoken — Dmitri reasons aloud and stops himself. Such ruptured syntax mirrors his racing, half-coherent mind.

Езопу теперь о деньгах ни слова, а к Катерине Ивановне сейчас же и непременно: «Кланяться велел, кланяться велел, кланяться!  
Not a word to Aesop now about the money, but go to Katerina Ivanovna at once and without fail: 'He bade me bow to you, he bade me bow to you, to bow!
> «ни слова» — genitive 'not a word': «ни слова» ('not a word') is the «ни» + genitive of total negation, the verb 'say' elided: 'not a word about the money.' «о деньгах» uses «о» + prepositional for the topic. The genitive «слова» under «ни» marks the complete absence.

Именно кланяться и раскланяться!» Опиши ей сцену.  
To bow and take my leave, precisely!' Describe the scene to her.
> Perfective imperative + dative addressee: «Опиши» is the perfective imperative of «описать» ('describe!'), calling for a single completed act; «ей» ('to her') is the dative of the person addressed. Dmitri commissions Alyosha to recount the whole scene to Katerina Ivanovna.
> «раскланяться» — to bow and take leave: «раскланяться» ('to exchange bows, take ceremonious leave') intensifies plain «кланяться» with «рас-», meaning a formal bowing-out, a parting. The word-play «кланяться и раскланяться» ('to bow and take my leave') is Dmitri's loaded gesture of final farewell.

Тем временем Иван и Григорий подняли старика и усадили в кресла.  
Meanwhile Ivan and Grigory lifted the old man and settled him into an armchair.
> Two perfectives + «в» + accusative of motion: «подняли … усадили» ('lifted … settled') are paired perfectives narrating completed acts. «усадить в кресла» uses «в» + accusative for motion into the seat. «кресла» can be read as the plural of a deep armchair (or its 'arms') into which they ease the old man.

Лицо его было окровавлено, но сам он был в памяти и с жадностью прислушивался к крикам Дмитрия.  
His face was covered in blood, but he was conscious and listened greedily to Dmitri's shouting.
> Short passive participle: 'was bloodied': «окровавлено» is the neuter short-form past passive participle of «окровавить» ('to make bloody'), joined to «было» — 'his face was covered in blood', stating the result. It agrees neuter with «лицо».
> «в памяти» — conscious, in one's senses: «быть в памяти» ('to be conscious, in possession of one's senses') is an idiom built on «память» ('memory'); «в памяти» is «в» + prepositional. The detail matters: bloodied but lucid, he keeps eavesdropping greedily on Dmitri.
> «с» + instrumental of manner; imperfective listening: «с жадностью» ('greedily, avidly') is «с» + instrumental forming an adverbial of manner. «прислушивался к крикам» is imperfective ('kept straining to listen'), «прислушиваться к» + dative — the ongoing, hungry attention of the old lecher.

Ему всё еще казалось, что Грушенька вправду где-нибудь в доме.  
He still imagined that Grushenka really was somewhere in the house.
> Dative experiencer of «казаться»: «Ему … казалось, что…» ('it still seemed to him that…') is an impersonal construction: the experiencer «ему» is dative, the verb neuter «казалось» with no nominative subject. This dative-experiencer frame is the natural Russian way into a character's inner conviction.
> «-нибудь» — somewhere, anywhere: «где-нибудь» ('somewhere [or other], anywhere') uses the non-specific indefinite particle «-нибудь»: he imagines Grushenka is in the house, but in no definite place. Contrast «где-то», which would point to a specific-but-unknown spot.

Дмитрий Федорович ненавистно взглянул на него уходя.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich shot him a hateful look as he was leaving.
> Imperfective gerund «уходя» at the clause-end: «уходя» ('as he was leaving') is the present imperfective gerund of «уходить», marking an action ongoing simultaneously with the glance «взглянул». «ненавистно» ('with hatred') colours the look. The gerund floats to the end, framing the parting glare.

— Не раскаиваюсь за твою кровь! — воскликнул он, — берегись, старик, береги мечту, потому что и у меня мечта! Проклинаю тебя сам и отрекаюсь от тебя совсем…  
"I feel no remorse for your blood!" he exclaimed. "Beware, old man, guard your dream, for I too have a dream! I curse you of my own will and renounce you altogether..."
> Reflexive «раскаиваться» — to repent: «раскаиваюсь» is the reflexive imperfective «раскаиваться» ('to repent, feel remorse'), here negated: 'I feel no remorse.' Russian normally pairs it with «в» + prepositional; Dmitri's «за твою кровь» ('for your blood') is heightened, near-biblical phrasing of an unrepented act.
> Reflexive vs plain imperative side by side: «берегись» ('beware, watch out!') is the reflexive imperative of «беречься», while «береги» ('guard, cherish!') is the plain transitive imperative of «беречь» + accusative «мечту». The minimal pair shows how «-ся» flips 'protect yourself' into 'protect [it].'
> «отрекаться» — to renounce, disown: «отрекаюсь от тебя» ('I renounce you'), reflexive «отрекаться» + «от» + genitive, is the grave language of disowning — the same verb used of renouncing one's faith or kin. Dmitri's curse and renunciation of his father carry an almost ritual, theological weight.

Он выбежал из комнаты.  
He ran out of the room.
> Prefixed motion verb of exit: «выбежал» ('ran out'), with the prefix «вы-» of motion out, is a perfective prefixed verb of motion taking «из» + genitive «из комнаты» ('out of the room'). It closes Dmitri's stormy exit in a single completed dash.

— Она здесь, она верно здесь! Смердяков, Смердяков, — чуть слышно хрипел старик, пальчиком маня Смердякова.  
"She is here, she's surely here! Smerdyakov, Smerdyakov," the old man wheezed, scarcely audible, beckoning Smerdyakov with one finger.
> «верно» as a modal 'surely': Here «верно» is not the adverb 'correctly' but a modal particle of probability, 'surely, no doubt' — 'she's surely here.' Context tells the two senses apart. The line has no copula: «она … здесь».
> «пальчик» — a feeble little finger: «пальчиком» is the diminutive of «палец» ('finger'), instrumental of means: he beckons 'with one little finger.' The diminutive plus the imperfective gerund «маня» ('beckoning') paints the dying old man's gesture as faint and pitiful.
> «хрипеть» — to wheeze, rasp: «хрипел» ('wheezed, rasped', imperfective past) names a hoarse, labored sound from a damaged throat. With «чуть слышно» ('barely audible'), it conveys the old man's broken, near-spent voice after the beating.

— Нет ее здесь, нет, безумный вы старик, — злобно закричал на него Иван. — Ну, с ним обморок! Воды, полотенце! Поворачивайся, Смердяков!  
"She's not here, no, you mad old man," Ivan shouted at him spitefully. "There — he's fainting! Water, a towel! Look sharp, Smerdyakov!"
> «нет» + genitive of absence: «Нет её здесь» ('she's not here') is the negative-existential «нет» governing the genitive «её» — Russian's standard way of denying presence: the absent thing stands in the genitive, never the nominative. Compare «нет времени», 'there's no time.'
> Pronoun wedged inside an address: «безумный вы старик» ('you mad old man') inserts «вы» between adjective and noun — an emphatic, scornful Russian vocative pattern (compare «дурак ты этакий»). The intruding pronoun sharpens the abuse Ivan flings at his father.
> «поворачивайся» — colloquial 'look sharp!': Literally 'turn yourself' (reflexive imperative of «поворачиваться»), «поворачивайся!» is a colloquial command meaning 'get a move on, look sharp!' Ivan barks it at the servant to fetch water quickly.

Смердяков бросился за водой.  
Smerdyakov rushed off for water.
> «за» + instrumental of purpose ('to fetch'): «за водой» ('for water') uses «за» + instrumental in its 'to fetch / go after' sense — going after something to bring it back. «бросился» ('dashed', reflexive perfective) conveys Smerdyakov's instant scramble to obey.

Старика наконец раздели, снесли в спальню и уложили в постель.  
At last they got the old man undressed, carried him into the bedroom, and laid him in bed.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural narration: Three perfectives «раздели, снесли, уложили» ('undressed, carried, laid down') run with no stated subject — the impersonal 3rd-person plural 'they' for the helpers acting together. «Старика» ('the old man'), animate accusative, is fronted as the shared object/topic.

Голову обвязали ему мокрым полотенцем.  
They bound his head up with a wet towel.
> Dative of the possessor + instrumental of means: Russian marks the affected body-part's owner with the dative «ему» ('his') rather than a possessive: «обвязали ему голову» = 'they bound his head.' The means «мокрым полотенцем» ('with a wet towel') is instrumental. The fronted «голову» is the topic.

Ослабев от коньяку, от сильных ощущений и от побоев, он мигом, только что коснулся подушки, завел глаза и забылся.  
Weakened by the cognac, by the violent emotions, and by the beating, the moment his head touched the pillow he rolled his eyes back and sank into oblivion.
> Perfective gerund + «от» + genitive of cause: «Ослабев» is the past perfective gerund of «ослабеть» ('having grown weak'), and the repeated «от» + genitive — «от коньяку, от … ощущений, от побоев» — names the three causes of his weakness. «коньяку» shows the old partitive genitive -у beside modern «коньяка».
> «коснуться» + genitive: the moment of touching: «коснулся подушки» ('touched the pillow') — the verb «коснуться» governs the genitive of the thing touched. «только что» ('the moment that') makes it a near-instantaneous trigger: as soon as his head touched the pillow he was gone.
> «забыться» — to sink into oblivion: «забылся» is the reflexive «забыться», not 'forgot' but 'sank into a doze / lost consciousness' — to slip out of awareness. Paired with «завел глаза» ('rolled his eyes back'), it renders his collapse into stupor after the cognac and the beating.

Иван Федорович и Алеша вернулись в залу.  
Ivan Fyodorovich and Alyosha returned to the hall.
> Prefixed motion verb of return + «в» + accusative: «вернулись» ('returned', reflexive perfective of «вернуться») takes «в» + accusative «в залу» ('into the hall') for motion toward. The chapter's frantic action settles as the brothers come back to the room where it began.

Смердяков выносил черепки разбитой вазы, а Григорий стоял у стола, мрачно потупившись.  
Smerdyakov was carrying out the shards of the broken vase, and Grigory stood by the table, scowling at the floor.
> Imperfective for ongoing work: «выносил» is imperfective past — Smerdyakov was in the middle of carrying the shards out, an action still in process as the scene opens. A perfective «вынес» would have meant he had finished and removed them all.
> Contrastive «а»: «а» here is the mild contrastive conjunction that pivots from one subject to another — Smerdyakov doing one thing «а» Grigory doing another. It sets two simultaneous tableaux side by side rather than opposing them, the way English 'while/and' would.
> Gerund «потупившись»: A perfective past gerund («деепричастие») in -вшись from «потупиться» (to cast one's eyes down): 'having lowered his gaze, with eyes downcast'. It compresses a second, attendant action into one indeclinable word sharing Grigory's subject — a hallmark of literary narration.

— Не намочить ли и тебе голову и не лечь ли тебе тоже в постель, — обратился к Григорию Алеша. — Мы здесь за ним посмотрим; брат ужасно больно ударил тебя… по голове.  
"Shouldn't you wet your own head too and lie down as well?" Alyosha said, turning to Grigory. "We'll keep an eye on him here; my brother struck you a terrible blow... on the head."
> «не…ли» as a gentle suggestion: The interrogative particle «ли» attached to a negated infinitive turns the line into a softened proposal — literally 'shouldn't (one) wet your head too?' The dative «тебе» supplies the subject of the impersonal infinitive: it is to/for you that this should perhaps happen.
> Inverted speech tag: The verb «обратился к» (turned to) governs the dative «к Григорию», and the subject «Алеша» is pushed to the very end. Free word order lets the speech-tag verb lead and the speaker's name land last — standard rhythm for Dostoevsky's dialogue attributions.
> «посмотреть за» — to keep an eye on: Here «посмотреть» plus «за» + instrumental «ним» means 'watch over, look after', not simply 'look at'. The preposition «за» with the instrumental is what shifts the plain verb of seeing into one of supervision.

— Он меня дерзнул! — мрачно и раздельно произнес Григорий.  
"He dared lay hands on me!" Grigory pronounced, dark and deliberate.
> «дерзнуть» — to dare, presume: «дерзнуть» is a bookish, indignant verb: 'to have the audacity to'. In Grigory's mouth it is almost a self-quotation — the old servant's outraged word for a son raising his hand to him, and the novel will turn it into a refrain (note the scare-quotes when others throw it back).
> Adverbs of manner on the verb: «мрачно» (darkly) and «раздельно» (separately, deliberately — pronouncing each word apart) are manner adverbs modifying «произнес». Stacking two adverbs before the verb paints how Grigory speaks: grimly and word by word.

— Он и отца «дерзнул», не то что тебя! — заметил, кривя рот, Иван Федорович.  
"He 'dared lay hands' on his own father too, not just on you!" Ivan Fyodorovich remarked, his mouth twisting.
> Emphatic «и» and «не то что»: «и» before «отца» is the emphatic particle 'even' (he 'dared' even his father), and «не то что тебя» means 'let alone / not just you'. Both «отца» and «тебя» are accusative objects of «дерзнул», which Ivan keeps in mocking quotation marks.
> Present gerund «кривя»: An imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») from «кривить»: 'twisting his mouth', an action going on simultaneously with the remark. It modifies Ivan and shares his subject, adding the sneer to his words.

— Я его в корыте мыл… он меня дерзнул! — повторял Григорий.  
"I washed him in the tub when he was a baby... and he dared lay hands on me!" Grigory kept repeating.
> Imperfective of repetition: «повторял» (imperfective past) marks the action as iterative — Grigory 'kept repeating' it, going over the grievance again and again. A perfective «повторил» would name a single repetition; the imperfective gives the obsessive loop.

— Черт возьми, если б я не оторвал его, пожалуй, он бы так и убил. Много ли надо Езопу? — прошептал Иван Федорович Алеше.  
"Devil take it, if I hadn't dragged him off, he'd likely have gone and killed him outright. It wouldn't take much to finish Aesop, would it?" Ivan Fyodorovich whispered to Alyosha.
> Past counterfactual with «бы»: A contrary-to-fact conditional: «если б(ы)» + past «не оторвал» in the if-clause, and the result clause «он бы… убил» also pairs past tense with «бы». Both halves use the past form because Russian's whole irrealis mood is built from past + «бы», regardless of real time.
> Dative experiencer in an impersonal question: Literally 'Is much needed to Aesop?' — «надо» (one needs / it takes) is impersonal, with no nominative subject, and the one for whom little is needed stands in the dative «Езопу». «ли» frames it as a rhetorical yes/no question.

— Боже сохрани! — воскликнул Алеша.  
"God forbid!" Alyosha exclaimed.

— А зачем «сохрани»? — всё тем же шепотом продолжал Иван, злобно скривив лицо. — Один гад съест другую гадину, обоим туда и дорога!  
"And why 'forbid'?" Ivan went on in the same whisper, his face screwed up with spite. "One reptile will eat the other, and good riddance to the pair of them!"
> Instrumental of manner: «тем же шепотом» (in the same whisper) is the instrumental case used adverbially to express the manner of speaking, with «тем же» ('the same') agreeing in the instrumental. «всё» here means 'still, continually'.
> Perfective gerund «скривив»: «скривив» is a perfective past gerund: 'having twisted his face'. It expresses an action completed just before or as he speaks, set off as attendant circumstance to «продолжал». The adverb «злобно» (spitefully) colours it.
> «гад» and «гадина» — vermin, reptile: «гад» is a 'reptile, vermin, vile creature'; «гадина» its feminine/expressive form. Ivan's 'one гад will eat the other гадина' reduces father and son to two repellent animals — the verbal cruelty that makes Alyosha shudder in the next line.
> «туда и дорога» — good riddance: An idiom: «туда им и дорога» = 'that's just where they belong / good riddance to them'. The dative «обоим» ('to both') names who is being consigned to that fate.

Алеша вздрогнул.  
Alyosha shuddered.
> Perfective of a single shudder: «вздрогнул» is perfective past — one sudden, complete flinch. The prefix «вз-» adds the sense of an abrupt upward start; the whole verb names an instantaneous reaction, not a process.

— Я, разумеется, не дам совершиться убийству, как не дал и сейчас. Останься тут, Алеша, я выйду походить по двору; у меня голова начала болеть.  
"I won't let a murder happen, of course — just as I didn't let it happen now. Stay here, Alyosha; I'll go and walk about the yard, my head has begun to ache."
> «дать» + dative + infinitive: «не дам совершиться убийству» = 'I will not let a murder take place'. «дать» here means 'allow', taking a dative «убийству» (to the murder) and the reflexive infinitive «совершиться» (to be accomplished). «дам» is perfective-future — a single resolved future act.
> Perfective imperative «останься»: «Останься» is the singular imperative of perfective «остаться» (to stay), with the reflexive «-сь». A perfective command asks for one concrete act — 'stay (put)' here and now — rather than a general policy.
> «у меня» possession of a state: «у меня голова начала болеть» literally 'by me the head began to hurt' — Russian locates the ache with «у» + genitive «меня» rather than a possessive 'my'. «начала болеть» pairs perfective «начать» (began) with imperfective infinitive «болеть» (to ache, ongoing).

Алеша пошел в спальню к отцу и просидел у его изголовья за ширмами около часа.  
Alyosha went into the bedroom to his father and sat at the head of his bed, behind the screen, for about an hour.
> Chain of perfectives: Two perfective pasts move the narrative forward event by event: «пошел» (set off, went) and «просидел» (sat through). The prefix «про-» on «сидел» means 'spent the whole span sitting', which is why it pairs naturally with «около часа».
> «изголовье» and «ширмы»: «изголовье» is the head of a bed (from «голова»); «ширмы» a folding screen. The detail of sitting 'at the head of the bed, behind the screen' evokes the cramped, partitioned bedrooms of the period and the sickroom intimacy of the vigil.

Старик вдруг открыл глаза и долго молча смотрел на Алешу, видимо припоминая и соображая.  
The old man suddenly opened his eyes and looked a long while at Alyosha in silence, evidently trying to remember and to collect his thoughts.
> Imperfective for sustained gaze: «смотрел» (imperfective past) with «долго» (a long while) presents the looking as a drawn-out process. «молча» is itself a frozen gerund of «молчать» ('being silent'), used adverbially — 'in silence'.
> Paired present gerunds: Two imperfective present gerunds, «припоминая» (recalling) and «соображая» (figuring out, collecting his wits), describe what the old man is doing as he stares. Chaining gerunds to layer simultaneous mental activity onto a main verb is classic 19th-century literary style.

Вдруг необыкновенное волнение изобразилось в его лице.  
Suddenly an extraordinary agitation showed in his face.
> Reflexive «изобразилось» — middle voice: «изобразилось» is the «-ся» (here «-сь») form of «изобразить»: the agitation 'depicted itself / showed' in his face, an intransitive middle. The new information «необыкновенное волнение» leads, and the «-ся» verb avoids naming any outside agent.

— Алеша, — зашептал он опасливо, — где Иван?  
"Alyosha," he whispered apprehensively, "where is Ivan?"
> Inceptive prefix «за-»: «зашептал» is perfective: the prefix «за-» marks the onset of an action — 'began to whisper, broke into a whisper'. Russian routinely lexicalises 'starting to X' this way rather than with a separate verb 'begin'.
> «опасливо» — warily, fearfully: An adverb from «опасливый» (apprehensive, on guard): he whispers 'warily', as one afraid of being overheard. It plants the old man's fear of Ivan before he even names him.

— На дворе, у него голова болит. Он нас стережет.  
"Out in the yard, his head aches. He's keeping watch over us."
> «на дворе» — locative with «на»: «на дворе» (out in the yard) uses «на» + prepositional for location. «двор» (yard, courtyard) is one of the nouns that idiomatically take «на» rather than «в», and «на дворе» also colloquially means 'outside'.
> Present tense «стережёт»: «стережёт» (he is guarding/watching over) is the present of imperfective «стеречь», a verb with consonant mutation in its stem. Only imperfectives have a true present; it pictures Ivan keeping watch right now.

— Подай зеркальце, вон там стоит, подай!  
"Hand me the little mirror, it's standing over there, hand it here!"
> Perfective imperative «подай»: «Подай» is the imperative of perfective «подать» (to hand, pass) — a request for one specific act, 'hand it here'. The repetition «подай!» at the end gives the old man's fretful insistence.
> Diminutive «зеркальце»: «зеркальце» is the diminutive of «зеркало» (mirror) — a 'little mirror'. The suffix «-це» here is mostly literal (it is small) but, in this querulous, intimate scene, also colours the request with the old man's fussy tenderness.

Алеша подал ему маленькое складное кругленькое зеркальце, стоявшее на комоде.  
Alyosha handed him a small, round, folding mirror that stood on the chest of drawers.
> Stacked agreeing adjectives: Three neuter singular adjectives — «маленькое», «складное», «кругленькое» — all agree with «зеркальце» in gender, number, and (here accusative) case. «кругленькое» carries the affectionate diminutive «-еньк-», echoing «зеркальце» itself.
> Past active participle «стоявшее»: «стоявшее» is a past active participle from «стоять» (to stand), agreeing with neuter «зеркальце» in the accusative: 'the mirror that was standing on the chest'. It packs a whole «которое стояло» relative clause into one declining word.
> «комод» — chest of drawers: A «комод» is a low chest of drawers, a standard piece of bedroom furniture in a 19th-century Russian household — a small, telling prop in Fyodor Pavlovich's sickroom.

Старик погляделся в него: распух довольно сильно нос, и на лбу над левою бровью был значительный багровый подтек.  
The old man examined himself in it: his nose was rather badly swollen, and on his forehead, above his left eyebrow, was a sizable crimson bruise.
> Comment-first word order: The new information — that the nose «распух» (had swollen up) 'довольно сильно' — leads, and the topic «нос» lands last. Russian's free order lets the result be announced before the noun it describes, mirroring the old man's gaze finding the damage.
> Archaic instrumental «-ою»: «над левою бровью» = 'above the left eyebrow', with «над» governing the instrumental. «левою» uses the older, fuller feminine instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой») — a bookish, 19th-century flavour very common in Dostoevsky.
> «багровый подтёк» — a livid bruise: «багровый» is a dark crimson-purple (the colour of dried blood under the skin), and «подтёк» a bruise or contusion where blood has seeped (from «течь», to flow). Together a vivid 'crimson bruise' — the physical mark of Dmitri's blow.

— Что говорит Иван? Алеша, милый, единственный сын мой, я Ивана боюсь; я Ивана больше, чем того, боюсь. Я только тебя одного не боюсь…  
"What is Ivan saying? Alyosha, my dear, my only son, I'm afraid of Ivan; I'm more afraid of Ivan than of the other one. You're the only one I'm not afraid of..."
> «бояться» + genitive of the feared thing: «бояться» (a verb existing only in the «-ся» form) governs the genitive of what is feared, so «Ивана» is genitive: 'I'm afraid of Ivan'. The repeated fronting of «Ивана» before the verb hammers home the object of his dread.
> Comparative «больше, чем»: «больше, чем того» is the suppletive comparative of «много/большой» used adverbially — 'more than the other one'. «того» (genitive of «тот») both feeds «бояться» and stands for Dmitri, 'that one', kept at a wary distance by the demonstrative.
> «единственный» — only, sole: «единственный» means 'one and only, sole'. Fyodor Pavlovich's calling Alyosha 'my only son' is pure sentiment in the moment (he has three sons) — the maudlin, manipulative affection that colours the whole deathbed-style scene.

— Не бойтесь и Ивана, Иван сердится, но он вас защитит.  
"Don't be afraid of Ivan either; Ivan is angry, but he will protect you."
> Negated imperative «не бойтесь»: «Не бойтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of «бояться»; Alyosha addresses his father with «вы». Negated commands in Russian strongly favour the imperfective, as here — 'don't be afraid', a general state rather than one act. «и» = 'either, even'.
> Perfective future «защитит»: «защитит» is the perfective verb «защитить» conjugated like a present, which yields future meaning: 'he will protect (you)'. «вас» is the accusative object. The perfective promises a single, decisive act of protection.

— Алеша, а тот-то? К Грушеньке побежал! Милый ангел, скажи правду: была давеча Грушенька али нет?  
"Alyosha, but what about the other one? He ran off to Grushenka! My dear angel, tell me the truth: was Grushenka here just now or not?"
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: In «тот-то» the hyphenated clitic «-то» highlights a known topic — 'but that one (you know the one)?' — singling out Dmitri without naming him. This is the topic-emphasising «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то». «а» opens with a contrastive turn.
> Prefixed motion verb «побежать»: «побежал» is perfective: «по-» on «бежать» marks the setting-off, 'he ran off / took off running'. «к Грушеньке» (to Grushenka) is the dative of direction governed by «к» — the destination of that flight.
> Colloquial «давеча» and «али»: «давеча» is a folksy, old-fashioned 'a while ago, earlier today', and «али» a rustic variant of «или» ('or'). Both mark Fyodor Pavlovich's lapse into a homelier, peasant-tinged register as he wheedles Alyosha — a recurring texture in his speech this chapter.

— Никто ее не видал. Это обман, не была!  
"No one saw her. It was a delusion, she wasn't here!"
> Negative concord: «Никто… не видал» is double negation working as a single 'no one saw her': the negative pronoun «никто» still requires «не» on the verb. «ее» is the accusative object. «видал» is a colloquial iterative-flavoured past of «видеть».
> «обман» — deception, illusion: «обман» is 'a deception, a trick, an illusion'. Here Alyosha uses it for a phantom of the old man's overheated mind — 'it was a delusion' — soothing rather than accusing.

— Ведь Митька-то на ней жениться хочет, жениться!  
"You know, Mitka wants to marry her, to marry her!"
> «ведь» + «-то» appeal: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, you know' — and the clitic «-то» on «Митька» again spotlights a known figure. Together they give the old man's confiding, you-realise-of-course tone as he frets over Mitya's plans.
> «Митька» — pejorative diminutive of Dmitri: «Митька» is a diminutive of Dmitri with the «-ка» suffix that, applied to an adult, carries scorn or rough familiarity (vs the affectionate «Митя/Митенька»). Fyodor Pavlovich belittles his rival-son even while fearing him.
> «жениться на» + prepositional: «жениться» (of a man, to marry) is a «-ся» verb that takes «на» + prepositional for the bride — «на ней» (her). The bare repetition «жениться, жениться!» conveys the old man's agitation; «хочет» governs the imperfective infinitive.

— Она за него не пойдет.  
"She won't have him."
> «пойти за» — to marry (of a woman): «пойти за» + accusative «него» idiomatically means 'to marry (a man)', of the woman's side — the counterpart to «жениться на». «не пойдет» is perfective future: 'she won't marry him'. The whole exchange neatly pairs the two gendered verbs for 'to wed'.

— Не пойдет, не пойдет, не пойдет, не пойдет, ни за что не пойдет!.. — радостно так весь и встрепенулся старик, точно ничего ему не могли сказать в эту минуту отраднее.  
"She won't, she won't, she won't, she won't, not for anything will she have him!.." the old man fairly quivered all over with joy, as though nothing could have been said to him more gratifying at that moment.
> «ни за что» — not for anything: «ни за что» ('not for anything, on no account') is built on intensifying «ни» and reinforces the «не» on «пойдет» — negative concord again. After the four-fold «не пойдет», it caps the old man's gleeful certainty.
> Emphatic «и» + perfective start: «встрепенулся» (perfective, «-ся») is to give a sudden start, to rouse oneself with a quiver; «весь» means 'all over', «и» here is the emphatic 'fairly, just'. Together: 'the old man fairly quivered all over' — one vivid burst of motion.
> Dative experiencer + comparative: Impersonal-flavoured construction: nothing 'could be said to him' «ему» (dative) that was «отраднее» ('more gratifying', comparative of «отрадный»). The dative marks Fyodor Pavlovich as the one delighted, and «точно» introduces the simile 'as though'.

В восхищении он схватил руку Алеши и крепко прижал ее к своему сердцу.  
In his rapture he seized Alyosha's hand and pressed it hard to his heart.
> Perfectives of seizing and pressing: «схватил» (seized) and «прижал» (pressed) are both perfective pasts — two abrupt, completed gestures. «к своему сердцу» uses «к» + dative for direction, and reflexive-possessive «своему» specifies it is his own heart.
> «восхищение» — rapture: «восхищение» is 'rapture, delight, ecstasy' (from a root of being 'carried away'). «в восхищении» — 'in his rapture' — marks the theatrical, almost ecstatic swing of the old sensualist's mood from fear to bliss.

Даже слезы засветились в глазах его. — Образок-то, божией-то матери, вот про который я давеча рассказал, возьми уж себе, унеси с собой.  
Tears even glistened in his eyes. "That little icon, the one of the Mother of God, the one I told you about earlier — take it for yourself, carry it away with you.
> Archaic genitive «божией»: «божией матери» is genitive 'of the Mother of God'; «божией» shows the older bookish/Church feminine genitive ending «-ией» (vs everyday «-ьей»). The interleaved «-то» clitics give the old man's coaxing, sing-song rhythm.
> Relative «который» after «вот»: «про который… рассказал» is a relative clause: «который» (accusative governed by «про», 'about which') refers back to «образок». «вот» points to it deictically — 'this very one I told you about earlier'.
> Twin perfective imperatives: «возьми» (take) and «унеси» (carry away) are both perfective singular imperatives — single completed acts. «уж» before «возьми себе» is a softening, persuasive particle ('go on, do take it for yourself').

И в монастырь воротиться позволяю… давеча пошутил, не сердись.  
And I give you leave to go back to the monastery... I was joking earlier, don't be angry.
> Perfective «пошутил» + negated imperative: «пошутил» (perfective, 'I had a joke, I was joking') treats the earlier teasing as a single past act. «не сердись» is the negated imperfective imperative of «сердиться» — 'don't be angry', a state-command, with the reflexive «-сь».

Голова болит, Алеша… Леша, утоли ты мое сердце, будь ангелом, скажи правду!  
My head aches, Alyosha... Lyosha, soothe my heart, be an angel, tell me the truth!"
> «Лёша» — the intimate name: Within one line the father slides from «Алеша» to the still shorter «Лёша» — the most intimate rung of the diminutive ladder for Alexei. The contraction itself is the tenderness, signalling how he leans on the boy.
> Imperatives «утоли» and «будь»: «утоли» is the imperative of bookish «утолить» (to soothe, slake — usually thirst or grief), and «будь» the irregular imperative of «быть». «будь ангелом» ('be an angel') takes the predicate noun in the instrumental «ангелом» after «быть».

— Вы всё про то: была ли она или не была? — горестно проговорил Алеша.  
"You're still on about the same thing: was she here or wasn't she?" Alyosha said mournfully.
> Embedded «ли» — whether: «была ли она или не была» is an embedded yes/no question after «про то» ('about that'): «ли» = 'whether', and «была/не была» are the gendered past of «быть» (she was / was not [here]). The whole construction is the old man's looping obsession.
> «горестно» — sorrowfully: «горестно» (from «горесть», grief) means 'mournfully, with distress'. It marks Alyosha's pained weariness at the father's circling fixation, not anger — a small tonal cue in the speech tag.

— Нет, нет, нет, я тебе верю, а вот что: сходи ты к Грушеньке сам аль повидай ее как; расспроси ты ее скорей, как можно скорей, угадай ты сам своим глазом: к кому она хочет, ко мне аль к нему? Ась? Что? Можешь аль не можешь?  
"No, no, no, I believe you — but here's the thing: go to Grushenka yourself, or see her somehow; question her quickly, as quickly as you can, and judge with your own eyes which of us she wants — me or him. Eh? Well? Can you do it or can't you?"
> Volley of perfective imperatives: Four perfective imperatives in a row — «сходи» (go and), «повидай» (see), «расспроси» (question), «угадай» (guess) — fire off discrete tasks. The emphatic «ты» tucked after each ('you, you do it') makes the commands urgent and personal.
> Instrumental of means «своим глазом»: «угадай своим глазом» — 'judge with your own eye': the instrumental «глазом» expresses the means/instrument, and reflexive «своим» ties it to the subject 'you'. The singular «глаз» here is idiomatic for 'eye / discernment'.
> «Ась?» — Eh? What?: «Ась?» is a folksy, old-style interjection meaning 'Eh? What's that?', the speech of an older or peasant speaker asking for a reply. It deepens the homely register Fyodor Pavlovich slips into when pleading.
> Rustic «аль» for «или»: «аль» (as in «ко мне аль к нему») is a colloquial, dialectal 'or', a variant of «али/или». Its repetition keeps the old man's speech in a familiar, almost sing-song peasant key.

— Коль ее увижу, то спрошу, — пробормотал было Алеша в смущении.  
"If I see her, I'll ask," Alyosha mumbled, embarrassed.
> Conditional with «коль… то»: «Коль» is an archaic/colloquial 'if' (for «если»), answered by correlative «то» ('then'). Both verbs are perfective future — «увижу» (I'll see) and «спрошу» (I'll ask) — a real (not hypothetical) condition about the future, so no «бы» appears.
> The particle «было»: «было» after a perfective past marks an action just begun and then checked or undone — 'started to mutter (but…)'. It is a subtle 19th-century device: Alyosha began his embarrassed reply, only to be cut off in the next line.

— Нет, она тебе не скажет, — перебил старик, — она егоза.  
"No, she won't tell you," the old man broke in, "she's a sly little thing.
> Dative role + perfective future: «не скажет» is perfective future, 'she won't tell'; «тебе» is the dative indirect object (tell to you). «перебил» in the tag is perfective, 'interrupted, cut in' — one sharp completed act.
> «егоза» — a fidget, a sly minx: «егоза» is a colloquial, expressive word for a restless, wriggling, can't-sit-still person (originally a fidgety child), here aimed at Grushenka as a 'slippery, sly little thing'. It is dismissive and intimate at once.

Она тебя целовать начнет и скажет, что за тебя хочет.  
She'll start kissing you and tell you it's you she wants.
> «начнёт» + imperfective infinitive: «начнет целовать» pairs perfective future «начнёт» (will begin) with the imperfective infinitive «целовать» (to kiss, as an ongoing activity). After phase verbs like «начать/кончить», Russian requires the imperfective infinitive.
> «за тебя» — for/on your side: «за тебя хочет» here means 'wants you / is for you (in marriage)', echoing «пойти за» — «за» + accusative «тебя». «что» introduces the reported content ('will say that…'). The ellipsis of «пойти/выйти» is colloquial.

Она обманщица, она бесстыдница, нет, тебе нельзя к ней идти, нельзя!  
She's a cheat, she's a shameless creature — no, you mustn't go to her, you mustn't!"
> Feminine agent nouns of reproach: «обманщица» (a [female] cheat, deceiver) and «бесстыдница» (a shameless woman, from «стыд», shame, with negating «без-») are feminine «-ица» agent nouns. The old man heaps them on Grushenka — fascination curdled into abuse.
> «нельзя» + dative — prohibition: «тебе нельзя… идти» is an impersonal construction: «нельзя» (it is not allowed / one must not), with the affected person in the dative «тебе» and no nominative subject — 'you mustn't go'. The repeated «нельзя!» drives home the ban.

— Да и нехорошо, батюшка, будет, нехорошо совсем.  
"And it wouldn't be right, father, it wouldn't be right at all."
> «нехорошо» as impersonal predicate: «нехорошо будет» is an impersonal future — 'it won't be good / right', with the invariable predicative «нехорошо» (neuter/adverbial) and «будет» as the future of «быть». No subject is named; the judgement is left general.
> «батюшка» — father (respectful/affectionate): «батюшка» is a warm, deferential 'father, dear sir' (diminutive-augmentative of «батя»). Alyosha uses it to his real father here; the same word is the standard reverent address to an Orthodox priest — a resonance Dostoevsky's readers feel.

— Куда он посылал-то тебя давеча, кричал: «Сходи», когда убежал?  
"Where was it he was sending you earlier, when he shouted 'Go!' as he ran off?"
> Imperfective «посылал» + topic «-то»: «посылал» (imperfective past) views the sending as the situation/process — 'where was he sending you'. The clitic «-то» on the verb foregrounds the known act being asked about. «Куда» fronts the question of destination.
> Imperfective vs perfective in the clause: «кричал» (imperfective, was shouting) sets the background, while the quoted command «сходи» and «убежал» (ran off) are perfective single acts. The pairing shows aspect's narrative division of labour within one breath.

— К Катерине Ивановне посылал.  
"He was sending me to Katerina Ivanovna."

— За деньгами? Денег просить?  
"For money? To ask for money?"
> Two cases of «деньги»: «за деньгами» uses «за» + instrumental for going 'after/for money' (to fetch it), while «денег просить» puts «деньги» in the genitive — «просить» governs the genitive of the thing requested. Same noun, two cases, two grammatical jobs in one breath.

— Нет, не за деньгами.  
"No, not for money."
> Negated «за» + instrumental: «не за деньгами» echoes the previous line in the negative: «за» + instrumental 'for money', negated by «не». The terse reply leaves the real errand (to Katerina Ivanovna, about something else) pointedly unsaid.

— У него денег нет, нет ни капли. Слушай, Алеша, я полежу ночь и обдумаю, а ты пока ступай. Может, и ее встретишь… Только зайди ты ко мне завтра наверно поутру; наверно.  
"He has no money, not a drop. Listen, Alyosha, I'll lie here through the night and think it over, and you go along for now. Maybe you'll even run into her... Only be sure to come to me tomorrow in the morning, be sure of it.
> Genitive of absence with «нет»: «нет» (there is no) forces the absent thing into the genitive: «денег нет» (no money), «ни капли» (not a drop). «ни» intensifies the negation. «У него» + genitive expresses 'he has' — so 'he has no money, not a drop'.
> Aspect across the planning: «полежу» (perfective future, 'I'll lie a while'), «обдумаю» (perfective, 'think it through') and «встретишь» (perfective, 'you'll run into') name completed future acts, while imperative «ступай» (an old-style 'go along') sends Alyosha off. «ступать» is a bookish, slightly archaic verb of going.
> «поутру» and «наверно» (= for sure): «поутру» is a bookish 'in the morning' (with the old prefix «по-» + locative «утру»). Note that «наверно» here means 'for certain, without fail' (its older sense), not the modern 'probably' — 'be sure to come, for certain'.

Я тебе завтра одно словечко такое скажу; зайдешь?  
Tomorrow I'll tell you a certain little something; will you come?"
> Diminutive «словечко»: «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» (word) — 'a little word, a certain something'. The diminutive plus «такое» ('a certain such') makes it teasingly intimate and conspiratorial, baiting Alyosha to come back.
> Perfective future as a question: «зайдёшь?» is the perfective «зайти» (to drop by) in its future-meaning conjugation — 'will you come by?' The prefix «за-» on the motion verb adds 'drop in / call round on the way'.

— Зайду.  
"I'll come."
> One-word perfective future: Alyosha's whole answer is the single perfective future «Зайду» — 'I'll come by'. The subject pronoun «я» is dropped because the «-у» ending already marks first-person; the perfective promises one definite future visit.

— Коль придешь, сделай вид, что сам пришел, навестить пришел. Никому не говори, что я звал. Ивану ни слова не говори.  
"When you come, make it look as though you came on your own, came to visit. Don't tell anyone I called for you. Not a word to Ivan."
> «сделать вид, что» — to pretend: «сделай вид, что…» is the idiom 'make it look as if / pretend that…', here followed by «сам пришел» — «сам» ('on your own, of your own accord') stressing the pretence. «коль» reprises the colloquial 'if'.
> Negative concord, twice over: «Никому не говори» ('don't tell anyone') chains negative «никому» (dative) with «не» on the verb; «Ивану ни слова не говори» adds «ни слова» ('not a word', genitive) for emphasis. Negated imperatives stay imperfective («говори»).

— Хорошо.  
"All right."
> «Хорошо» — all right: A bare «Хорошо» ('good, all right, fine') serves as a full-sentence assent. As a one-word reply it carries Alyosha's tired, patient agreement to the old man's scheming.

— Прощай, ангел, давеча ты за меня заступился, век не забуду. Я тебе одно словечко завтра скажу… только еще подумать надо…  
"Goodbye, angel; you stood up for me earlier, I'll never forget it. I'll tell you that little something tomorrow... only I still need to think it over..."
> «век не забуду» — I'll never forget: «век» literally 'an age/century', used adverbially with negation to mean 'never (in my life)'. «век не забуду» = 'I'll never forget it' — a warm, slightly folksy hyperbole of gratitude.
> «заступиться за» — to stand up for: «заступился за меня» (perfective «-ся») = 'you stood up / interceded for me', with «за» + accusative «меня» for the person defended. It recalls Alyosha pulling the brothers apart earlier in the scene.

— А как вы теперь себя чувствуете?  
"And how are you feeling now?"
> Reflexive «чувствовать себя»: «чувствовать себя» ('to feel [a certain way]') pairs the verb with the reflexive object pronoun «себя» — distinct from the bound clitic «-ся». «вы» is the polite address Alyosha keeps for his father; «как» asks 'how'.

— Завтра же, завтра встану и пойду, совсем здоров, совсем здоров, совсем здоров!..  
"Tomorrow, yes, tomorrow I'll be up and about, perfectly well, perfectly well, perfectly well!.."
> Insistent particle «же»: «же» after «завтра» insists and pins it down — 'tomorrow, yes, this very tomorrow'. It adds the speaker's emphatic certainty, exactly the texture English supplies only with stress.
> Perfective future + short adjective: «встану» (I'll get up) and «пойду» (I'll go) are perfective futures of resolve. «совсем здоров» uses the short predicative adjective «здоров» ('well, healthy'), the bookish form reserved for predicates and for temporary states — fitting the boast of recovery.

Проходя по двору, Алеша встретил брата Ивана на скамье у ворот: тот сидел и вписывал что-то в свою записную книжку карандашом.  
Crossing the yard, Alyosha came upon his brother Ivan on the bench by the gate: he was sitting there writing something in his notebook with a pencil.
> Present gerund «проходя»: «Проходя по двору» ('crossing the yard') is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») setting the simultaneous frame for the main clause. «по двору» uses «по» + dative for movement over/across a surface.
> «тот» as 'he' + imperfective pair: «тот» ('that one') resumes Ivan as the topic. «сидел» and «вписывал» are imperfective pasts giving a held, ongoing scene — Ivan sitting and writing. «вписывать» (to enter/inscribe into) is the «в-»-prefixed verb of putting words into a book.

Алеша передал Ивану, что старик проснулся и в памяти, а его отпустил ночевать в монастырь.  
Alyosha told Ivan that the old man had woken and was in his right mind, and had let him go to spend the night at the monastery.
> «в памяти» — in one's right mind: «в памяти» (literally 'in [his] memory') is the idiom 'conscious, in one's right senses', the opposite of «без памяти». Alyosha reports that the old man had come to himself after the blow.
> «отпустить» + infinitive of purpose: «отпустил его ночевать» = 'let him go to spend the night', with «отпустить» (release, let go) plus the imperfective infinitive «ночевать» (to stay/sleep the night). «его» is the accusative object; «в монастырь» is «в» + accusative of destination.

— Алеша, я с большим удовольствием встретился бы с тобой завтра поутру, — привстав, приветливо проговорил Иван — приветливость даже совсем для Алеши неожиданная.  
"Alyosha, I would very much like to meet with you tomorrow morning," said Ivan, rising and speaking cordially — a cordiality quite unexpected from him, to Alyosha's mind.
> Conditional «бы» for politeness: «встретился бы» (past «-ся» form + «бы») is the conditional used here as soft, courteous wishing — 'I would very much like to meet'. «встретиться с» takes «с» + instrumental «с тобой» for the person met. The irrealis softens the request.
> Gerund «привстав»: «привстав» is a perfective past gerund: 'having half-risen / rising a little'. The prefix «при-» gives the partial movement (not fully standing). It sets the action attendant on Ivan's cordial speech, «приветливо проговорил».
> Long adjective as detached appositive: «неожиданная» (unexpected) is a long-form adjective agreeing with feminine «приветливость» (cordiality), here trailing the noun as an afterthought-modifier — 'a cordiality quite unexpected for Alyosha'. «для Алеши» (for/to Alyosha) gives the vantage point.

— Я завтра буду у Хохлаковых, — ответил Алеша. — Я у Катерины Ивановны, может, завтра тоже буду, если теперь не застану…  
"I'll be at the Khokhlakovs' tomorrow," Alyosha answered. "I may be at Katerina Ivanovna's tomorrow too, if I don't find her in now..."
> Compound future «буду» + «у» + genitive: «буду» here is the simple future of «быть» meaning 'I will be (at)'. «у Хохлаковых» = «у» + genitive plural of the family name 'at the Khokhlakovs'' — the Russian way of saying 'at someone's place'.
> «застать» — to catch in / find at home: «застать» (perfective) means 'to find someone in, catch them at home'. «если… не застану» is a real future condition with perfective future «застану» — 'if I don't find her in now'. The object «её» is understood.

— А теперь все-таки к Катерине Ивановне! Это «раскланяться-то, раскланяться»? — улыбнулся вдруг Иван.  
"So it's off to Katerina Ivanovna after all! To 'take your leave, take your leave'?" Ivan suddenly smiled.
> «раскланяться» — to take formal leave with bows: «раскланяться» (and the variant «откланяться» in the next exchange) means to take one's leave with bows and courtesies — and figuratively to break off relations politely. Ivan's mocking quotation of it skewers Dmitri's grandiose way of 'releasing' Katerina Ivanovna.
> Mocking topic «-то»: The clitic «-то» on «раскланяться-то» foregrounds the very word as a quoted, loaded term — 'this "taking-your-leave" business'. Ivan repeats it inside quotation marks to needle Alyosha's errand.

Алеша смутился.  
Alyosha grew flustered.
> Reflexive change of state «смутился»: «смутился» is the «-ся» form of «смутить»: he 'became flustered / embarrassed' — an intransitive change of inner state. The «-ся» turns the transitive 'to disconcert' inward onto the subject himself.

— Я, кажется, всё понял из давешних восклицаний и кой из чего прежнего. Дмитрий, наверно, просил тебя сходить к ней и передать, что он… ну… ну, одним словом, «откланивается»?  
"I think I've understood everything from the things shouted just now and a little from what came before. Dmitri probably asked you to go to her and tell her that he... well... well, in a word, that he 'takes his leave'?"
> «из» + genitive of source: «из давешних восклицаний» ('from the earlier exclamations') uses «из» + genitive plural to mark the source of his inference. «давешних» is the adjective from colloquial «давеча» (earlier today) — 'just-now, recent'.
> «просить» + infinitives: «просил тебя сходить… и передать» = 'asked you to go… and to convey', with «просить» governing accusative «тебя» plus perfective infinitives. «передать» (to pass on, deliver a message) is the verb for relaying words to someone.
> «откланиваться» — to bow oneself out: «откланивается» is the imperfective of «откланяться» — 'he is taking his (formal) leave, bowing himself off'. Ivan again wraps Dmitri's chivalric word in quotation marks to mark its inflated theatricality.

— Брат! Чем весь этот ужас кончится у отца и Дмитрия? — воскликнул Алеша.  
"Brother! How will all this horror between father and Dmitri end?" Alyosha exclaimed.
> «кончиться» + instrumental of outcome: «кончится чем» — 'will end in/with what' — uses the instrumental «чем» (interrogative «что» in the instrumental) for the result something ends in. «кончиться» is the «-ся» intransitive 'to come to an end'.
> «у» + genitive of the parties: «у отца и Дмитрия» here means 'between / with father and Dmitri' — «у» + genitive locating the conflict among them. The horror «весь этот ужас» is set as their shared, festering situation.

— Нельзя наверно угадать. Ничем, может быть: расплывется дело. Эта женщина — зверь. Во всяком случае, старика надо в доме держать, а Дмитрия в дом не пускать.  
"There's no telling for certain. In nothing, perhaps: the whole thing may just dissolve. That woman is a beast. In any case, the old man must be kept indoors, and Dmitri must not be let into the house."
> Impersonal «нельзя» + instrumental «ничем»: «Нельзя угадать» is impersonal — 'one cannot guess', no subject. The reply «Ничем» ('in nothing') answers the earlier «чем kончится» with the negative instrumental «ничем», requiring negative concord whenever a verb is present.
> Zero copula in the present: «Эта женщина — зверь» ('that woman is a beast') has no verb 'to be' in the present; Russian leaves the copula empty and (in writing) marks the gap with a dash. Both subject and predicate noun stand in the bare nominative.
> «надо» + infinitive, contrastive «а»: Impersonal «надо» (one must) governs the infinitives «держать» (keep) and «не пускать» (not let in), with the accusatives «старика» and «Дмитрия» as their objects. «а» pivots between the two opposite measures — keep one in, keep the other out.

— Брат, позволь еще спросить: неужели имеет право всякий человек решать, смотря на остальных людей, кто из них достоин жить и кто более недостоин?  
"Brother, let me ask you one more thing: can it really be that every man has the right to decide, looking at the rest of mankind, which of them is worthy to live and which is the more unworthy?"
> The particle «неужели»: «неужели» opens an incredulous question — 'can it really be that…?', expecting a troubled 'surely not'. It frames Alyosha's challenge as moral astonishment, not neutral inquiry. «всякий человек» = 'every / any man'.
> Gerund «смотря на»: «смотря на остальных людей» is a present gerund ('looking at the rest of mankind'), the simultaneous circumstance of deciding. «на» + accusative «остальных людей» gives the object looked at; «остальных» is the animate accusative/genitive plural.
> Indirect question + comparative: Two embedded «кто»-questions ('who is worthy… and who more unworthy') depend on «решать». «достоин/недостоин» are short adjectives governing the infinitive «жить»; «более недостоин» builds the comparative analytically with «более» ('more').

— К чему же тут вмешивать решение по достоинству? Этот вопрос всего чаще решается в сердцах людей совсем не на основании достоинств, а по другим причинам, гораздо более натуральным. А насчет права, так кто же не имеет права желать?  
"Why bring worthiness into the deciding at all? That question is most often settled in people's hearts on grounds that have nothing to do with worthiness, but for other reasons, far more natural ones. And as for the right — well, who hasn't the right to wish?"
> Passive «-ся» + prepositional: «решается» is the imperfective «-ся» passive/middle — 'is decided / gets settled', with no named agent. «в сердцах людей» ('in people's hearts') uses «в» + prepositional plural «сердцах» for location.
> Reinforced comparative «гораздо более»: «гораздо более натуральным» — 'far more natural ones' — stacks «гораздо» ('by far') onto the analytic comparative «более натуральным». The ending «-ным» is dative plural here: «по» governs the dative «(другим) причинам», with «натуральным» agreeing in the dative ('for reasons far more natural'); the instrumental plural would be «причинами… натуральными».
> «же» + genitive of negation: «кто же не имеет права желать?» — 'who, then, has not the right to wish?' «же» sharpens the rhetorical thrust; under the negated «не имеет» the object «право» goes genitive «права» (genitive of negation), governing the infinitive «желать».

— Не смерти же другого?  
"Not for another man's death, surely?"
> Genitive of negation + insistent «же»: An elliptical horrified question — '(But) not the death of another, surely?' «смерти» is genitive (continuing the negated 'right to wish' of the prior line), «другого» genitive 'of another (man)', and «же» presses the appalled appeal.

— А хотя бы даже и смерти? К чему же лгать пред собою, когда все люди так живут, а пожалуй, так и не могут иначе жить. Ты это насчет давешних моих слов о том, что «два гада поедят друг друга»? Позволь и тебя спросить в таком случае: считаешь ты и меня, как Дмитрия, способным пролить кровь Езопа, ну, убить его, а?  
"And what if it were death itself? Why lie to oneself, when everyone lives this way — and perhaps cannot live otherwise? You say this on account of my words earlier, that 'two vipers will devour each other'? Then let me ask you in turn: do you reckon me too, like Dmitri, capable of shedding Aesop's blood — of killing him, well?"
> «хотя бы» — even if, were it only: Ivan picks up Alyosha's unspoken word with «хотя бы даже и смерти» — 'even were it death itself'. The «бы» is the irrealis particle in its concessive use, here governing the genitive «смерти» carried over from the prior verb; the cluster «хотя бы… даже и» piles up concessive force.
> Rhetorical «к чему же» and the particle «же»: «К чему лгать?» is 'what's the use of lying?' — dative-flavoured к + interrogative что for purpose. The inserted «же» is the insistent modal particle, sharpening the question to 'why on earth lie to oneself', the texture of spoken exasperation.
> Bookish «пред» for «перед»: «пред собою» uses the elevated, shortened «пред» rather than everyday «перед» ('before, in front of'), and the archaic instrumental ending «-ою» for «-ой». Both are 19th-century literary touches that lend Ivan's confession a slightly solemn cadence.
> Reflexive «себя» as object, not «-ся»: 'To lie to oneself' uses the full reflexive pronoun «собою» (instrumental of «себя»), which points back to the subject and has no nominative. Contrast the verbal clitic «-ся»: here the reflexive is an independent object governed by «пред».
> Negated modal «не могут»: «а пожалуй, так и не могут иначе жить» — 'and perhaps cannot even live otherwise'. The basic negator «не» sits before the verb it denies; «пожалуй» ('perhaps, I dare say') and «и» here ('even') hedge and intensify the concession.
> «давешний» — earlier, just now's: «насчёт давешних моих слов» means 'about my words from earlier today'. «давешний» is a colloquial-archaic adjective meaning 'of a little while ago', built on «даве/давеча'; it has largely dropped out of modern speech and flavours the dialogue as 19th-century.
> «гад» — viper, reptile, vile creature: «гад» literally means a reptile or creeping thing, but figuratively a loathsome person — 'two vipers will devour each other'. Ivan quotes his own earlier image of Dmitri and their father as mutually destructive predators. «поедят» is perfective future ('will eat up').
> Object + instrumental complement «способным»: 'Do you reckon me too… capable of shedding blood' — «считать кого-л. каким-л.» takes the accusative object «меня» and an instrumental predicative complement «способным», the case of a quality ascribed through a linking verb of judgment.

— Что ты, Иван! Никогда и в мыслях этого у меня не было! Да и Дмитрия я не считаю…  
"What are you saying, Ivan! Such a thing has never even entered my mind! And Dmitri I do not consider…"
> «Что ты!» — an idiom of protest: Not a literal question ('what are you?') but a fixed exclamation of dismay or remonstrance — 'what are you saying!', 'how can you!'. Alyosha recoils at the very suggestion; the bare «ты» marks the close, brotherly register.
> Negative concord and genitive of negation: 'Such a thing never even entered my mind.' «Никогда… не было» is obligatory double negation (the «ни-»word still needs «не»). Under the negated existential «не было», the subject «этого» stands in the genitive — the genitive of negation at work.
> Possession with «у» + genitive: Russian frames 'I had (it)' as «у меня было» — literally 'by me there was'. The possessor «меня» follows «у» in the genitive, and the existential verb agrees with the thing possessed, not with the person.
> Fronted object «Дмитрия» — topic before comment: The animate accusative object «Дмитрия» (= genitive form, by animacy) is moved to the front for emphasis: 'And Dmitri — I don't consider [him capable] either.' Free word order lets Alyosha foreground the brother he is defending; «Да и» links it as 'and besides'.

— Спасибо хоть за это, — усмехнулся Иван. — Знай, что я его всегда защищу. Но в желаниях моих я оставляю за собою в данном случае полный простор. До свидания завтра. Не осуждай и не смотри на меня как на злодея, — прибавил он с улыбкою.  
"Thank you at least for that," Ivan said with a wry smile. "Know that I will always defend him. But as for my wishes, in this matter I reserve full latitude for myself. Until tomorrow, then. Do not condemn me, and do not look upon me as a villain," he added with a smile.
> «усмехнуться» — to smile wryly: Not a warm smile but a one-sided, ironic or sardonic smirk. The perfective «-нуть» stem and reflexive «-ся» give a single, momentary facial movement; Dostoevsky uses it repeatedly for Ivan's cool, distancing irony.
> Imperative «знай» — 'know this': The singular imperative of imperfective «знать», formed by adding «-й» to the present stem. Used absolutely ('Know that…'), it has a solemn, almost admonitory ring, fitting Ivan's pledge to defend his brother.
> Perfective future «защищу»: «защищу» is the perfective verb conjugated with present-tense endings — which, in the perfective, yields the simple future: 'I will (always) defend him.' The choice frames the defence as a settled, resolved commitment rather than an ongoing process.
> Reflexive «за собою» — 'for myself': 'I reserve full latitude for myself.' «оставлять за собой» is an idiom 'to reserve (a right) to oneself'; «собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive «себя» governed by «за», pointing back to the subject «я». The archaic «-ою» ending adds bookish weight.
> «простор» — open space, free rein: Literally 'open expanse, broad space'; figuratively 'free scope, latitude'. Ivan keeps for himself «полный простор» 'in his wishes' (в желаниях) — chillingly conceding the desire for his father's death while denying the deed.
> Negated imperatives — imperfective for prohibition: 'Do not condemn me and do not look upon me…' Both are imperfective imperatives, the normal aspect for a negative command (a general prohibition, not a single act). «смотреть на кого как на» — 'to look on someone as' — takes «на» + accusative twice.
> Instrumental of manner «с улыбкою»: 'With a smile' — «с» + instrumental «улыбкою» (the archaic «-ою» for «-ой»). The instrumental after «с» here expresses accompaniment/manner. Note the narrator's repetition of the smile bracketing Ivan's unsettling words.

Они крепко пожали друг другу руки, как никогда еще прежде.  
They clasped hands firmly, as they never had before.
> «пожать руку» — to shake hands; «друг другу»: The idiom for a handshake is «пожать руку (кому)» — literally 'to press the hand to someone', hence the dative «друг другу» ('to one another') and accusative «руки'. «крепко» ('firmly') marks the warmth of a gesture between estranged brothers.
> Reciprocal «друг друга» — 'each other': The reciprocal phrase «друг друга» declines its second element for the case the verb demands; here the dative «друг другу» ('to each other') is governed by «пожать руку». The first «друг» stays frozen.
> Negated comparison «как никогда»: 'As never before' — the «ни-»word «никогда» again triggers the negative-concord pattern across the clause, intensified by «ещё прежде» ('ever before'). The brief, unadorned sentence lands the emotional weight of a first true contact between the brothers.

Алеша почувствовал, что брат сам первый шагнул к нему шаг и что сделал он это для чего-то, непременно с каким-то намерением.  
Alyosha felt that his brother had been the first to take a step toward him, and that he had done so for some reason, unquestionably with some intention behind it.
> Reported clause with «что» + perfective past: «почувствовал, что…» opens an indirect-statement clause with the subordinator «что» ('that'), set off by a comma. The chain of perfective pasts («почувствовал… шагнул… сделал») narrates discrete completed events, moving the moment forward step by step.
> Intensifier «сам» and cognate object «шагнул шаг»: «сам первый» — '(he) himself, first of all' — uses the intensive pronoun «сам» to stress that the initiative was the brother's own. «шагнул… шаг» is a cognate-object figure ('took a step a step'), and «к нему» is «к» + dative for direction toward a person.
> Inverted «сделал он это» — verb before subject: Within the second «что»-clause the verb «сделал» precedes the subject «он», a stylistic inversion that throws focus onto the act. Russian's free word order allows this re-weighting without changing who did what.
> Indefinite «-то» — a specific but unknown reason: Both «чего-то» and «каким-то» carry the clitic «-то», marking a referent that is real and definite but unidentified to Alyosha — 'for some reason', 'with some intention'. The «-то» series (vs. «-нибудь») signals 'a particular one, though I can't say which'.
> «непременно» — without fail, surely: An emphatic adverb meaning 'unfailingly, certainly'. Set between the two indefinites, it conveys Alyosha's intuitive conviction: the gesture was vague in motive yet unmistakably deliberate — 'for some reason, but certainly with some intention'.
---

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.