# The Brothers Karamazov, Cana of Galilee

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book VII — Alyosha

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b7-c4. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b7-c4.json.


Было уже очень поздно по-монастырскому, когда Алеша пришел в скит; его пропустил привратник особым путем.  
It was already very late by monastery hours when Alyosha came to the hermitage; the gatekeeper let him in by a special way.
> «по-монастырскому» — by monastery reckoning: The adverbial «по-» + adjective stem in -ому means 'in the … manner / by the … standard' (по-русски, по-нашему). «По-монастырскому» means 'by monastery hours', i.e. late by the early-to-bed rhythm of the cloister, where nine o'clock is already deep night.
> Object-first word order: Russian's free word order lets the object «его» (him) lead the clause, since the case ending already marks it as object, not subject. Fronting the pronoun keeps Alyosha as the continuing topic while «привратник» (the gatekeeper) arrives as the new information at the end.

Пробило уже девять часов — час общего отдыха и покоя после столь тревожного для всех дня.  
Nine o'clock had already struck — the hour of general rest and quiet after a day so distressing for everyone.
> Impersonal «пробило» for the striking clock: «Пробило» (it struck) is a neuter, subjectless past form: there is no grammatical subject, only the impersonal event of the clock striking. «Девять часов» follows the numeral rule — five and above take the genitive plural «часов».
> «столь» — bookish 'so': «Столь» is the elevated, literary equivalent of the everyday «так(ого)» ('so, such'), pairing here with the genitive «тревожного … дня». It belongs to the 19th-century bookish register that colours Dostoevsky's narrative voice.

Алеша робко отворил дверь и вступил в келью старца, в которой теперь стоял гроб его.  
Alyosha timidly opened the door and stepped into the elder's cell, in which his coffin now stood.
> Relative «который» in the prepositional: «В которой» agrees in gender and number with its antecedent «келью» (feminine), but takes the prepositional case demanded by «в» for location: 'in which now stood his coffin'. The comma sets off the relative clause as usual.

Кроме отца Паисия, уединенно читавшего над гробом Евангелие, и юноши послушника Порфирия, утомленного вчерашнею ночною беседой и сегодняшнею суетой и спавшего в другой комнате на полу своим крепким молодым сном, в келье никого не было.  
Apart from Father Paissy, who was reading the Gospel in solitude over the coffin, and the young novice Porfiry, worn out by the conversation of the previous night and by the day's bustle and sleeping his sound young sleep on the floor of the other room, there was no one in the cell.
> Past active participle replacing a clause: «Читавшего» is a past active participle from imperfective «читать» (-вш- + adjective endings), agreeing with «отца Паисия» in the genitive: 'who was reading'. The imperfective stem gives an ongoing-in-the-past sense, condensing a «который»-clause into a single dense modifier — the hallmark of literary description.
> Stacked participles around Porfiry: The novice is wrapped in a chain of participles: passive «утомлённого» (worn out) and active «спавшего» (sleeping), both in the genitive to agree with «послушника Порфирия». Packing several participles into one sentence is a signature of 19th-century literary syntax.
> Genitive of negation in an absence clause: A negated existential takes «не было» plus the genitive: «никого не было» = 'there was no one'. The pronoun «никого» is itself the genitive of «никто», and the negative concord («ни…» + «не») is obligatory in Russian — two negatives, one meaning.

Отец Паисий, хоть и слышал, что вошел Алеша, но даже и не посмотрел в его сторону.  
Father Paissy, though he heard that Alyosha had come in, did not so much as glance in his direction.
> Concessive «хоть… но» with paired «и»: «Хоть (и) … но» is a concessive frame, 'although … (yet)'; Russian keeps the «но» that English would drop. The particle «и» before the verbs ('did even') and «даже и не» ('did not so much as') stack emphasis on the refusal to look.

Алеша повернул вправо от двери в угол, стал на колени и начал молиться.  
Alyosha turned to the right of the door into the corner, knelt down, and began to pray.
> Perfective chain moving the action forward: Three perfective past verbs in a row — «повернул» (turned), «стал» (knelt), «начал» (began) — narrate the scene as a sequence of completed, point-by-point events, the perfective's job against an imperfective background.
> «стать на колени» — to kneel: Literally 'to stand onto the knees', the fixed idiom for kneeling. «Колени» (knees) is in the accusative after «на» because it expresses motion into a position, not rest in one.

Душа его была переполнена, но как-то смутно, и ни одно ощущение не выделялось, слишком сказываясь, напротив, одно вытесняло другое в каком-то тихом, ровном коловращении.  
His soul was brimming over, but somehow vaguely, and not a single sensation stood out, asserting itself too sharply; on the contrary, one displaced the next in a kind of quiet, even revolving.
> Negative concord with «ни… не»: «Ни одно … не выделялось» = 'not a single sensation stood out'. «Ни» intensifies the negation ('not one'), but the verb still carries «не»; Russian requires both. The reflexive «-ся» on «выделялось» makes it intransitive ('stood out of itself').
> Imperfective gerund «сказываясь»: «Сказываясь» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) in -ясь, the reflexive form of «сказываться» ('to make itself felt'). It expresses a simultaneous, attendant circumstance — 'asserting itself (too sharply)' — sharing the subject of the main clause.
> «коловращение» — a revolving, a circling: A bookish, slightly archaic noun from «коло» (an old word for 'circle, wheel') + «вращение» (turning): a slow circular motion, here the gentle revolving of feelings in Alyosha's soul. The elevated coinage suits the contemplative, almost liturgical mood.

Но сердцу было сладко, и, странно, Алеша не удивлялся тому.  
But his heart felt sweet, and, strangely, Alyosha did not wonder at it.
> Dative experiencer + neuter «было» for states: Russian expresses inner states impersonally: the experiencer goes in the dative («сердцу», to the heart) and the predicate is a neuter adverb with «было» («было сладко», it was sweet). There is no grammatical subject; literally 'to the heart it-was sweet'. Compare «мне холодно» (I am cold), «ему было страшно» (he was afraid).
> «удивляться» governs the dative: The reflexive verb «удивляться» (to wonder at) takes its complement in the dative, here «тому» ('at it / at that'). The imperfective «удивлялся» frames the non-wondering as a sustained state rather than a single event.

Опять видел он пред собою этот гроб, этого закрытого кругом драгоценного ему мертвеца, но плачущей, ноющей, мучительной жалости не было в душе его, как давеча утром.  
Again he saw before him that coffin, that precious dead man shut up all around in it, yet there was no weeping, aching, tormenting pity in his soul, as there had been earlier in the morning.
> Genitive of negation with «не было»: The negated existential «не было» forces its subject into the genitive: «жалости … не было» = 'there was no pity'. The whole heaped phrase «плачущей, ноющей, мучительной жалости» stands in the genitive, its participial and adjectival modifiers all agreeing.
> Present active participles as adjectives: «Плачущей» (weeping) and «ноющей» (aching) are present active participles in -щ-, declined here into the genitive to modify «жалости». They function exactly like adjectives, giving the pity a vivid, ongoing quality.
> «давеча» — a while ago, earlier: A colloquial-archaic adverb meaning 'earlier today, a little while ago'. Now distinctly old-fashioned, it recurs through this chapter («давешней тоски», 'the anguish of earlier'), anchoring Alyosha's thoughts to the events of that same dreadful morning.

Пред гробом, сейчас войдя, он пал как пред святыней, но радость, радость сияла в уме его и в сердце его.  
Before the coffin, on coming in just now, he had fallen down as before a holy thing, yet joy, joy shone in his mind and in his heart.
> Perfective gerund «войдя» for a prior action: «Войдя» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) in -я from «войти» ('having entered'). It marks a completed action just before the main verb «пал» (he fell down), sharing its subject: 'on coming in just now, he fell…'.
> «пал» and «пред» — elevated diction: «Пал» (fell down) is the higher, more solemn perfective beside everyday «упал», and «пред» is the bookish/Church-Slavonic form of «перед» (before). Together they lend the prostration a reverent, liturgical weight; «святыня» is a holy object or relic.
> Rhetorical repetition for emphasis: The doubled «радость, радость» (joy, joy) is expressive repetition, a device Dostoevsky uses constantly to render the rising emotional pitch of inner speech. The verb «сияла» (shone) follows its repeated subject in topic-comment flow.

Одно окно кельи было отперто, воздух стоял свежий и холодноватый — «значит, дух стал еще сильнее, коли решились отворить окно», — подумал Алеша.  
One window of the cell stood open, the air was fresh and somewhat cool — "so the smell has grown still stronger, since they decided to open the window," thought Alyosha.
> Periphrastic passive: short participle + «было»: «Было отперто» is the past passive: the short-form neuter participle «отперто» (from «отпереть», to unlock/open) joined to «было», stating the resulting state — 'the window was open / had been opened'. The short participle agrees in gender and number with «окно».
> «коли» — folksy 'if / since': «Коли» is a colloquial, slightly archaic conjunction for «если» / «раз» ('if, since'), here 'since they decided to open the window'. It marks Alyosha's interior speech as plain and homely, against the elevated Slavonic of the Gospel being read aloud.

Но и эта мысль о тлетворном духе, казавшаяся ему еще только давеча столь ужасною и бесславною, не подняла теперь в нем давешней тоски и давешнего негодования.  
But even this thought of the corrupting smell, which only a short while before had seemed to him so dreadful and disgraceful, did not now rouse in him the anguish and indignation he had felt earlier.
> Participle with dative experiencer and instrumental predicate: «Казавшаяся» is a past active participle ('which had seemed'), agreeing with «мысль» (fem.). «Казаться» takes the experiencer in the dative («ему», to him) and its predicate in the instrumental — «ужасною … и бесславною» (dreadful and disgraceful), here in the archaic -ою ending.
> Archaic instrumental ending -ою: The feminine instrumental singular here is «-ою» rather than the modern «-ой» («ужасною» = «ужасной»). This longer ending is a 19th-century literary variant, common in Dostoevsky and lending the prose its period cadence.
> «тлетворный» — putrefying, corrupting: A bookish compound from «тлен» (decay, corruption) + «творить» (to make): 'productive of decay'. «Тлетворный дух» is the 'odour of corruption' — the loaded phrase at the heart of the scandal over Zossima's too-quickly-decaying body.

Он тихо начал молиться, но вскоре сам почувствовал, что молится почти машинально.  
He began quietly to pray, but soon felt himself that he was praying almost mechanically.
> Aspect contrast: «почувствовал» vs «молится»: Perfective «почувствовал» (felt — a single completed realization) is set against the present-tense imperfective «молится» (is praying) inside the reported clause. The «что»-clause reports a fact; its present tense reads as simultaneous with the moment of feeling.

Обрывки мыслей мелькали в душе его, загорались, как звездочки, и тут же гасли, сменяясь другими, но зато царило в душе что-то целое, твердое, утоляющее, и он сознавал это сам.  
Fragments of thoughts flickered in his soul, kindling like little stars and going out again at once, giving way to others, yet over his soul there reigned something whole, firm, consoling, and he was aware of it himself.
> Imperfective chain for flickering process: A string of imperfective past verbs — «мелькали» (flickered), «загорались» (kindled), «гасли» (went out) — paints a repeated, ongoing process rather than single events, exactly the imperfective's background-and-iteration role.
> Gerund «сменяясь» of attendant action: «Сменяясь» is an imperfective reflexive gerund ('giving way / being replaced'), describing a simultaneous circumstance of the flickering thoughts: they go out 'giving way to others'. «Другими» is the instrumental complement of «сменяться».
> «звёздочки» — little stars (diminutive): The diminutive of «звезда» (star), formed with -очк-. Here it adds tenderness and smallness to the image of thoughts kindling 'like little stars' — Russian's expressive suffixes carry feeling, not just size.

Иногда он пламенно начинал молитву, ему так хотелось благодарить и любить…  
Now and then he began a prayer ardently, he so longed to give thanks and to love…
> Dative-subject «хотелось»: «Хотелось» is the impersonal reflexive of «хотеть»: the wanter stands in the dative («ему», to him) and the verb is fixed neuter — 'he so longed to…'. This dative-experiencer frame, common in Dostoevsky's inner life, presents desire as something that comes over a person rather than something they actively do.

Но, начав молитву, переходил вдруг на что-нибудь другое, задумывался, забывал и молитву, и то, чем прервал ее.  
But, having begun the prayer, he would suddenly pass to something else, fall to musing, and forget both the prayer and the thing that had broken it off.
> Perfective gerund framing an imperfective habit: «Начав» is a perfective gerund ('having begun'), naming a completed prior act; the main verb «переходил» (would pass over) is imperfective past, here iterative — describing what he would repeatedly do. The pairing reads 'having begun…, he would (each time) suddenly pass to…'.
> Correlative «то, чем…» with instrumental: «То, чем прервал её» = 'the thing with which he had broken it off'. The correlative «то» (that thing) is picked up by the relative «чем», the instrumental of «что», because «прервать» is interrupted 'by means of' that something.

Стал было слушать, что читал отец Паисий, но, утомленный очень, мало-помалу начал дремать…  
He began to listen to what Father Paissy was reading, but, being very tired, little by little he started to doze…
> The particle «было» of an interrupted start: «Было» here is not the past of 'to be' but the special particle marking an action begun and then broken off or reversed: «стал было слушать» = 'he started to listen (but…)'. It signals an intention thwarted by what follows — he grew too tired and dozed instead.
> «мало-помалу» — little by little: A fixed reduplicative adverb, 'little by little, gradually'. The folksy, repetitive shape matches the drowsy, slow slide into sleep that «начал дремать» (began to doze) completes.

''«И в третий день брак бысть в Кане Галилейстей,'' — читал отец Паисий, — ''и бе мати Иисусова ту. Зван же бысть Иисус и ученицы его на брак».''  
"''And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee,''" read Father Paissy, "''and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.''"
> Aorist and imperfect of Church Slavonic: These are old past tenses lost in modern Russian: «бысть» is the aorist 'was/became', «бе» the imperfect 'was'. «Зван бысть» is a Slavonic passive ('was invited'). Modern Russian collapsed all of these into the single -л past, so these forms instantly mark the speech as sacred and ancient.
> Slavonic locative «Галилейстей»: «Галилейстей» is the Church-Slavonic feminine prepositional/locative ending where modern Russian would have «Галилейской». Such -ей/-стей locatives survive only in liturgical citation, one more sign that this register stands apart from the living language.

«Брак? Что это… брак… — неслось, как вихрь, в уме Алеши, — у ней тоже счастье… поехала на пир… Нет, она не взяла ножа, не взяла ножа… Это было только „жалкое“ слово… Ну… жалкие слова надо прощать, непременно.  
"Marriage? What is this… marriage…" raced like a whirlwind through Alyosha's mind, "she too has happiness… she has gone off to a feast… No, she did not take a knife, she did not take a knife… That was only a 'pitiful' word… Well… pitiful words must be forgiven, without fail.
> Reflexive «нестись» — to rush, of itself: «Неслось» is the neuter past of reflexive «нестись» ('to rush, tear along'), here impersonal — the swirl of words 'raced like a whirlwind' through his mind, with «-ся» marking the motion as happening of its own accord, not done to an object.
> Genitive of negation with «не взяла»: The negated object shifts from accusative to genitive: «не взяла ножа» (did not take a knife) rather than «нож». The repetition is expressive, mirroring the agitated, circling rhythm of Alyosha's half-dreaming thought.
> «жалкое слово» — a pitiful word: «Жалкий» means 'pitiful, pathetic, wretched'. A «жалкое слово» is a word spoken out of pain or self-pity — Grushenka's earlier outburst. Alyosha resolves such words 'must be forgiven', a theme the passage turns over tenderly; «непременно» = 'without fail'.

Жалкие слова тешат душу… без них горе было бы слишком тяжело у людей.  
Pitiful words comfort the soul… without them grief would lie too heavy upon people.
> Conditional «было бы» — the unreal: «Было бы тяжело» is the conditional/subjunctive: past-tense «было» plus the particle «бы» yields the hypothetical 'would be'. With «без них» (without them) it states an unreal condition — grief 'would lie too heavy' if pitiful words did not exist.
> «тешить» — to comfort, gladden: «Тешить» is a warm, somewhat folksy verb meaning 'to console, amuse, gladden'. «Жалкие слова тешат душу» — pitiful words 'comfort the soul'; the homely verb suits the gentle, consoling drift of Alyosha's reverie.

Ракитин ушел в переулок.  
Rakitin has gone off into a side-lane.
> «переулок» — a side-lane, literal and figurative: A «переулок» is a narrow side-street or alley. Here it works as a metaphor running through the passage: Rakitin, brooding on his grievances, 'goes off into a side-lane', away from the broad, bright «дорога» (road) of true life that Alyosha sees ahead.

Пока Ракитин будет думать о своих обидах, он будет всегда уходить в переулок… А дорога… дорога-то большая, прямая, светлая, хрустальная, и солнце в конце ее… А?.. что читают?»  
As long as Rakitin broods over his grievances, he will always be going off into a side-lane… But the road… the road is broad, straight, bright, crystalline, and the sun is at the end of it… Eh?.. what are they reading?"
> Compound future with «будет» + imperfective: Both clauses use the imperfective compound future: «будет думать» (will brood), «будет уходить» (will keep going off). The conjunction «пока» ('as long as, while') with this ongoing future frames a lasting, habitual condition, not a single act.
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» in «дорога-то» is an emphasizing particle that highlights a known topic — 'the road, now, (is) broad…'. It is distinct from the indefinite «что-то»; here it gently spotlights 'the road' as Alyosha's mind seizes on it.

''«…И не доставшу вину, глагола мати Иисусова к нему: вина не имут…»'' — слышалось Алеше.  
"''…And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him: They have no wine…''" — came to Alyosha's ears.
> Slavonic dative absolute «не доставшу вину»: This is a Church-Slavonic dative absolute: «вину» and the participle «доставшу» both in the dative, meaning 'the wine having run short / when wine was lacking'. The construction, modelled on Greek, has no equivalent in modern Russian and instantly marks the liturgical register.
> Slavonic «глагола» and «не имут»: «Глагола» is the Slavonic aorist 'said/saith' (from «глаголати», to speak); «не имут» is the archaic 3rd-plural 'they have not' (modern «не имеют» / «у них нет»). 'They have no wine' in the old idiom — the verb «иметь» used where modern Russian prefers «у… есть».
> Impersonal «слышалось» + dative: «Слышалось» is the reflexive impersonal 'it could be heard / came to the ears', with the perceiver in the dative («Алеше», to Alyosha). The construction puts Alyosha as the passive recipient of the sound, dissolving as he drifts toward sleep.

«Ах да, я тут пропустил, а не хотел пропускать, я это место люблю: это Кана Галилейская, первое чудо… Ах, это чудо, ах, это милое чудо!  
"Ah yes, I skipped a bit there, and I did not mean to skip it, I love this passage: it is Cana of Galilee, the first miracle… Ah, that miracle, ah, that dear miracle!
> «место» — a passage in a text: Besides 'place', «место» commonly means a 'passage, spot' in a book or piece of music. «Это место люблю» = 'I love this passage' — Alyosha's intimate, possessive love for the Cana story in the Gospel.

Не горе, а радость людскую посетил Христос, в первый раз сотворяя чудо, радости людской помог… „Кто любит людей, тот и радость их любит…“ Это повторял покойник поминутно, это одна из главнейших мыслей его была… Без радости жить нельзя, говорит Митя… Да, Митя… Всё, что истинно и прекрасно, всегда полно всепрощения — это опять-таки он говорил…»  
It was not grief but human joy that Christ visited when he worked his first miracle, he helped human gladness… 'He who loves people loves their joy as well…' The dead man kept repeating this, it was one of his foremost thoughts… One cannot live without joy, says Mitya… Yes, Mitya… Everything that is true and beautiful is always full of all-forgiveness — that, again, was something he used to say…"
> Imperfective gerund «сотворяя»: «Сотворяя» is an imperfective present gerund ('working/while working'), naming the circumstance simultaneous with «посетил» (visited): 'Christ visited human joy when, in working his first miracle…'. «Сотворить/творить» is the elevated verb for 'to create, work (a wonder)'.
> Correlative «кто… тот»: A proverbial correlative frame: «кто…, тот…» = 'whoever…, that one…'. The relative «кто» opens the condition and the demonstrative «тот» answers it — 'He who loves people loves their joy as well'. The particle «и» adds 'as well, too'.
> «покойник» — the departed: «Покойник» means 'the deceased, the dead man', from «покой» (rest, peace) — literally 'the one at rest'. Alyosha uses it for the just-dead Zossima, here lovingly: 'это повторял покойник' — 'the dead man kept repeating this'.
> «всепрощение» — all-forgiveness: A compound of «все-» (all) + «прощение» (forgiveness): total, universal forgiveness. The bookish abstract noun in -ение carries the lofty theological weight of Zossima's teaching that 'everything true and beautiful is full of all-forgiveness'.

''«…Глагола ей Иисус: что есть мне и тебе, жено; не у прииде час мой. Глагола мати его слугам: еже аще глаголет вам, сотворите».''  
"''…Jesus saith unto her: Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants: Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.''"
> Slavonic vocative «жено» and the Hebraism: «Жено» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «жена» (woman), used in direct address: 'O woman'. «Что есть мне и тебе» renders a Semitic idiom literally — 'what is there to me and to thee', i.e. 'what have I to do with thee'. Both mark the verse as ancient, set-apart speech.
> Slavonic «не у прииде» — not yet come: «Не у» is the Slavonic for 'not yet' (modern «ещё не»), and «прииде» is the aorist 'came' (modern «пришёл»). 'Mine hour is not yet come' — the archaic negative-temporal idiom and the aorist together place the line firmly in the liturgical register.

«Сотворите… Радость, радость каких-нибудь бедных, очень бедных людей… Уж конечно, бедных, коли даже на свадьбу вина недостало…  
"Do it… The joy, the joy of some poor folk, very poor folk… Poor, of course, since at the wedding they did not even have wine enough…
> Genitive subject of «недостало»: «Недостать» (to fall short, run out) takes its noun in the genitive: «вина недостало» = 'there was not wine enough'. This is the genitive of an absent/insufficient quantity, kin to the genitive of negation. «Коли» again gives the homely 'since'.
> The particle «уж»: «Уж» here is an intensifying modal particle (not «уже», 'already') reinforcing the assertion: 'poor, of course, to be sure'. Such particles carry the speaker's conviction and colour the texture of Alyosha's eager inner voice.

Вон пишут историки, что около озера Генисаретского и во всех тех местах расселено было тогда самое беднейшее население, какое только можно вообразить…  
Look, the historians write that around Lake Gennesaret and in all those parts there lived in those days the very poorest population one could possibly imagine…
> Periphrastic passive «расселено было»: «Расселено было» is the past passive: short neuter participle «расселено» (from «расселить», to settle/spread) + «было» — 'was settled / there lived'. «Самое беднейшее» piles the superlative particle «самое» onto an already-superlative «беднейшее» for maximal emphasis: 'the very poorest'.

И знало же другое великое сердце другого великого существа, бывшего тут же, матери его, что не для одного лишь великого страшного подвига своего сошел он тогда, а что доступно сердцу его и простодушное немудрое веселие каких-нибудь темных, темных и нехитрых существ, ласково позвавших его на убогий брак их.  
And the other great heart of another great being, who was there as well — his mother — knew that he had come down then not for the sake of his great and dreadful deed alone, but that his heart could also be reached by the simple-hearted, unsophisticated merrymaking of certain obscure, obscure and artless creatures, who had tenderly called him to their humble wedding.
> Inversion + emphatic «же»: The verb «знало» is fronted before its subject «сердце» for rhetorical weight, and the particle «же» drives the emphasis home — 'And the other great heart did know…'. This solemn inversion suits the swelling, almost liturgical cadence of the passage.
> Past active participle «бывшего»: «Бывшего» is the past active participle of «быть» ('who was, being present'), in the genitive to agree with «существа» — 'of another great being, who was there as well'. It folds a whole relative clause into one word, the dense participial style of the chapter.
> Participle «позвавших» governing its own object: «Позвавших» is a past active participle (perfective, 'who had called'), genitive plural agreeing with «существ» (creatures). Like a finite verb it takes its own object «его» (him) and adverb «ласково» (tenderly) — a participle running a small clause of its own.
> Bookish lexis of simplicity: A cluster of elevated words for plainness: «простодушное» (simple-hearted), «немудрое» (unwise/unsophisticated), «нехитрых» (artless, guileless), and «веселие», the Slavonic-flavoured form of «веселье» (merriment). The diction ennobles the humble villagers' joy.

„Не пришел еще час мой“, — он говорит с тихою улыбкой (непременно улыбнулся ей кротко)…  
'Mine hour is not yet come,' he says with a gentle smile (he surely smiled at her meekly)…
> Historic present beside perfective past: Alyosha narrates the dream-scene in the vivid present «говорит» (he says), then slips into the perfective past «улыбнулся» (he smiled) for the imagined completed gesture. The shift between present immediacy and past completion mirrors his mind reconstructing the scene.
> «улыбнуться» + dative: The perfective «улыбнуться» (to smile) takes the person smiled-at in the dative: «улыбнулся ей» — 'smiled at her'. The adverb «кротко» (meekly, gently) is one of the book's keynote words for the spirit of Christ and of Zossima.

В самом деле, неужто для того, чтоб умножать вино на бедных свадьбах, сошел он на землю?  
Was it really to multiply wine at poor weddings that he came down to earth?
> Rhetorical particle «неужто»: «Неужто» (variant of «неужели») introduces an incredulous rhetorical question — 'was it really…?', expecting the answer 'no'. The slightly archaic «неужто» colours Alyosha's astonished wonder that Christ would come down merely to multiply wine.
> Purpose clause «чтоб(ы)» + infinitive: «Чтоб» (clipped «чтобы») expresses purpose: 'in order to multiply wine'. With a single subject it takes the bare infinitive «умножать». The imperfective infinitive suggests a repeated/ongoing action — wine multiplied again and again at poor weddings.

А вот пошел же и сделал же по ее просьбе… Ах, он опять читает».  
And yet he went and did it, at her request… Ah, he is reading again."
> Concessive «а … же»: The contrastive conjunction «а» plus the repeated emphatic particle «же» make a strong 'and yet he did go and do it after all'. «Вот» adds pointing emphasis. This stacking of little particles is exactly the spoken texture Dostoevsky builds his inner monologue from.

''«…Глагола им Иисус: наполните водоносы воды, и наполниша их до верха. И глагола им: почерпите ныне и принесите архитриклинови, и принесоша. Якоже вкуси архитриклин вина бывшаго от воды, и не ведяше, откуду есть: слуги же ведяху почерпшии воду: пригласи жениха архитриклин. И глагола ему: всяк человек прежде доброе вино полагает, и егда упиются, тогда хуждшее: ты же соблюл ecu доброе вино доселе».''  
"''…Jesus saith unto them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them: Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the wine that was made of water, and knew not whence it was — but the servants which drew the water knew — the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. And saith unto him: Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.''"
> Slavonic aorist and imperfect plurals: These are old Slavonic past tenses: aorist plurals «наполниша» (they filled) and «принесоша» (they bore), set beside imperfects «ведяше / ведяху» (knew); «почерпшии» ('those who had drawn') is a nominative-plural past active participle, not a finite aorist. Modern Russian replaced this whole array with one -л past, so the verbs alone announce the sacred text.
> Slavonic participle «бывшаго»: «Бывшаго» is the Church-Slavonic genitive of the past active participle of «быть» ('having been'), with the old -аго ending where modern Russian writes «-его» («бывшего»). 'The wine that had been made from water' — the antique participial form and spelling mark the verse.
> «архитриклин» — the governor of the feast: A Greek loanword (ἀρχιτρίκλινος, 'master of the three-couch dining room') preserved from the Slavonic Gospel: the steward or master of ceremonies at the wedding. Alyosha will fasten on the «премудрый архитриклин» ('the all-wise governor of the feast') as the dream unfolds.
> Slavonic perfect «соблюл еси»: «Соблюл еси» is the old compound perfect: participle «соблюл» + the 2nd-person auxiliary «еси» ('thou hast kept'). Modern Russian dropped the auxiliary, leaving just «соблюл». The surviving «еси» is a pure marker of the liturgical-archaic register.

«Но что это, что это? Почему раздвигается комната… Ах да… ведь это брак, свадьба… да, конечно.  
"But what is this, what is this? Why is the room widening out… Ah yes… for this is a marriage, a wedding… yes, of course.
> Reflexive «раздвигаться» — opening of itself: «Раздвигается» is the imperfective reflexive of «раздвигать» (to push apart): with «-ся» it is intransitive, 'the room is widening out / spreading apart' on its own. The present tense gives the dream its eerie, unfolding immediacy.
> The appeal-particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to shared, suddenly-recalled knowledge — 'for, you see, after all'. Here Alyosha reassures himself in the dream: «ведь это брак» — 'for this is a marriage, after all'. The particle carries the very texture of Dostoevsky's interior voice.

Вот и гости, вот и молодые сидят, и веселая толпа и… где же премудрый архитриклин?  
Here are the guests, here sit the bride and groom, and the merry crowd, and… where, then, is the all-wise governor of the feast?
> Presentative «вот и…»: «Вот и» is the presentative 'here are / there now are', pointing out each thing as it appears in the vision: «вот и гости, вот и молодые…». The repeated «вот и» builds the dream's mounting wonder as the wedding materialises before Alyosha.
> «молодые» and «премудрый»: «Молодые» (lit. 'the young ones') is the standard word for the bride and groom, the newlyweds. «Премудрый» ('all-wise, most wise'), with the intensive prefix «пре-», is a half-ironic, bookish epithet for the «архитриклин», the wine-steward who marvels at the miraculous vintage.
> Emphatic «же» in a question: In a wh-question, «же» adds urgency and engagement — «где же…?» = 'where, then, is…?'. It conveys Alyosha's eager searching of the dream-scene for the wine-steward.

Но кто это? Кто? Опять раздвинулась комната… Кто встает там из-за большого стола?  
But who is that? Who? Again the room has widened out… Who is rising there from behind the great table?
> «вставать из-за стола» + genitive: «Из-за» ('from behind') governs the genitive «(большого) стола» — rising 'from behind the great table'. The present «встаёт» keeps the dream in the urgent now as the mysterious figure stands up.

Как… И он здесь? Да ведь он во гробе… Но он и здесь… встал, увидал меня, идет сюда… Господи!..  
What… is he here too? But he is in the coffin… Yet he is here too… he has stood up, he has seen me, he is coming this way… Lord!..
> «да ведь» and Slavonic «во гробе»: «Да ведь» pairs the affirmative «да» with appeal-particle «ведь»: 'but he is, after all, in the coffin'. «Во гробе» uses the Slavonic-flavoured «во» (for «в») and prepositional «гробе» for location — a faintly solemn touch fitting the holy dread of the moment.
> Perfective bursts into the present: Two perfective pasts — «встал» (has stood up), «увидал» (has seen) — register completed shocks, then the imperfective present «идёт» (is coming) holds the terrifying ongoing approach. The aspect shifts dramatise Alyosha's rising awe, sealed by «Господи!» (Lord!).

Да, к нему, к нему подошел он, сухенький старичок, с мелкими морщинками на лице, радостный и тихо смеющийся.  
Yes, it was to him, to him that he came over, the dried-up little old man, with fine little wrinkles on his face, joyful and softly laughing.
> Prefixed motion verb «подойти» + «к» + dative: «Подошёл» (perfective of «подходить/подойти», to approach) governs «к» plus the dative «нему» — 'came over to him'. The fronted, repeated «к нему» throws the emphasis onto its goal: it was to Alyosha that the elder came.
> A cluster of tender diminutives: Three diminutives in a breath: «сухенький» (-еньк-, 'dried-up, frail little'), «старичок» (-ок, 'little old man'), «морщинками» (-к-, 'fine little wrinkles'). The suffixes flood the image of the dead Zossima with affection and tenderness — Russian's emotional shorthand.
> Present active participle «смеющийся»: «Смеющийся» is the present active participle of reflexive «смеяться» (to laugh), keeping its «-ся» — 'softly laughing'. Used predicatively alongside «радостный» (joyful), it pictures the elder in continuous, gentle laughter.

Гроба уж нет, и он в той же одежде, как и вчера сидел с ними, когда собрались к нему гости.  
There was no coffin now, and he was in the same robe in which he had sat with them yesterday, when the guests had gathered to him.
> Genitive with «нет»: Present-tense absence uses «нет» plus the genitive: «гроба … нет» = 'there is no coffin (now)'. «Уж» (=уже) adds 'now, already'. The coffin's grammatical absence enacts its vanishing from the dream.
> «тот же» — the same: «Тот же» means 'the very same', the demonstrative «тот» plus identity-particle «же»: «в той же одежде» — 'in the same robe'. The relative «как» ('as, in which') opens the comparison to how he had sat with them the day before.

Лицо всё открытое, глаза сияют.  
His whole face was open, his eyes were shining.
> Zero copula in the present: Both clauses omit the verb 'to be', as Russian does in the present: «лицо всё открытое» ('his whole face [is] open'), «глаза сияют» ('his eyes shine'). The bare nominatives and present verb give a vivid, snapshot immediacy.

Как же это, он, стало быть, тоже на пире, тоже званный на брак в Кане Галилейской…  
How can this be — he too, then, is at the feast, he too has been bidden to the marriage in Cana of Galilee…
> Zero copula + parenthetical «стало быть»: «Он … тоже на пире» needs no verb — 'he too [is] at the feast' in the copula-less present. «Стало быть» ('so, then, that means') is a fixed parenthetical inference, threading Alyosha's wondering logic.
> Past passive participle «званный»: «Званный» is the past passive participle of «звать» (to call/invite) — 'invited, bidden'. Used predicatively, 'he too has been bidden to the marriage'. It echoes the Gospel's «зван бысть Иисус», binding Zossima's fate to Christ's wedding-feast.

— Тоже, милый, тоже зван, зван и призван, — раздается над ним тихий голос. — Зачем сюда схоронился, что не видать тебя… пойдем и ты к нам.  
"Yes, my dear, you too have been bidden, bidden and called," sounds a quiet voice above him. "Why have you hidden yourself away here, where you cannot be seen… come and join us as well."
> «зван и призван» — bidden and called: A deliberate wordplay on the root «-зв-»: «зван» (invited, from «звать») beside the loftier «призван» (called, summoned, with a vocational ring, from «призвать»). The pairing fuses the literal wedding-invitation with a spiritual calling — invited to the feast and called to a vocation.
> Reflexive «раздаваться» + inverted order: «Раздаётся» (imperfective reflexive, 'rings out, sounds') is intransitive through «-ся». The subject «тихий голос» comes last, after «над ним» (above him): a quiet voice 'sounds above him'. End-weight delivers the voice as the new, arresting information.
> «схорониться» and «не видать»: «Схорониться» is a folksy perfective 'to hide oneself away' (from the root of «хоронить», to bury — a quiet resonance by the coffin). «Что не видать тебя» = 'so that you are not to be seen', the impersonal «(не) видать» meaning 'one can(not) see'.

Голос его, голос старца Зосимы… Да и как же не он, коль зовет?  
His voice, the voice of the elder Zossima… And how could it not be he, when he is calling?
> «как же не он» — rhetorical certainty: An elliptical rhetorical question: «(да) как же не он?» = 'how could it not be he?'. «Же» drives the insistence and «коль» (clipped «коли», 'since/if') gives the homely ground — 'when/since he is calling'. Together they affirm with full conviction.

Старец приподнял Алешу рукой, тот поднялся с колен.  
The elder raised Alyosha up with his hand, and he rose from his knees.
> Demonstrative «тот» as 'the latter / he': Here «тот» stands alone as a pronoun, 'he, the latter (Alyosha)', neatly distinguishing him from the elder who is the subject of the first clause. Russian uses «тот» this way to track which of two people is meant. «Поднялся» is reflexive 'rose'.

— Веселимся, — продолжает сухенький старичок, — пьем вино новое, вино радости новой, великой; видишь, сколько гостей?  
"Let us make merry," the dried-up little old man goes on, "let us drink new wine, the wine of a new and great gladness; do you see how many guests there are?
> 1st-person plural present as exhortation: «Веселимся» and «пьём» are present-tense 1st-plural forms used hortatively — 'let us make merry, let us drink' — a common Russian way to urge joint action without «давайте». «Веселиться» is the reflexive 'to make merry'.
> Adjective after noun + genitive of quality: «Вино новое» places the adjective after the noun for solemn, Scripture-like weight ('wine new'). Then «вино радости новой» layers a genitive of quality — 'the wine of a new … gladness', «радости новой» itself in the genitive. The 'new wine' alludes to the Gospel and the joy of the Kingdom.

Вот и жених и невеста, вот и премудрый архитриклин, вино новое пробует.  
Here are the bridegroom and the bride, here is the all-wise governor of the feast, tasting the new wine.
> Object-fronting before «пробует»: The object «вино новое» (the new wine) precedes its verb «пробует» (is tasting), throwing focus on what the steward marvels at. The free word order, licensed by the case system, lets the new wine sit in the spotlight.

Чего дивишься на меня? Я луковку подал, вот и я здесь.  
Why do you marvel at me? I gave an onion, and so here I am too.
> 'An onion' — the diminutive and the legend: «Луковка» is the affectionate diminutive of «лук/луковица» (onion). It refers to the folk legend told earlier in the book (Book VII, ch. 3): a wicked woman is nearly pulled out of hell by the single onion she once gave to a beggar. To «подать луковку» here means a tiny act of charity that can save a soul. Russian loves such diminutives (-к-, -очк-) to add warmth and tenderness.
> Genitive object «чего» with «дивиться»: «Дивиться» (to marvel, an elevated near-synonym of «удивляться») here takes «на» + accusative for the thing wondered at, while «чего» is the genitive 'at what / why' — colloquially 'what are you marvelling at me for?'. The verb «дивиться» lends an old-fashioned, folk-tale tone.

И многие здесь только по луковке подали, по одной только маленькой луковке… Что наши дела?  
And many here gave only an onion, only one little onion apiece… What are our deeds?
> Distributive «по» + dative/accusative: Distributive «по» means 'one apiece, each': «по луковке» = 'an onion each'. With the singular «луковка» it governs the accusative/dative-shaped «луковке» — everyone gave just one onion apiece. The repetition «по одной только маленькой луковке» heaps on the pathos of how little each gave.
> Copula-less rhetorical question: «Что наши дела?» — 'what are our deeds?' — has no verb, the present copula being zero. The bare nominative question turns Zossima's teaching humbly inward: our works count for so little, yet even an onion can save.

И ты, тихий, и ты, кроткий мой мальчик, и ты сегодня луковку сумел подать алчущей.  
And you, gentle one, and you, my meek boy, you too today managed to give an onion to one who hungered.
> Direct address with appositive adjectives: The elder addresses Alyosha in a tender vocative-like apposition: «ты, тихий … ты, кроткий мой мальчик» — 'you, gentle one … you, my meek boy'. Modern Russian uses the nominative for such address; the heaped epithets «тихий», «кроткий» are the book's keywords for the Christlike spirit.
> Present active participle «алчущей» as a noun: «Алчущей» is the dative of the present active participle of «алкать» (to hunger), used substantively — 'to one who hungers'. Bookish and biblical in flavour, it echoes the Beatitude 'those who hunger'; «подать … алчущей» = 'give to one hungering'. «Сумел подать» = 'managed to give'.

Начинай, милый, начинай, кроткий, дело свое!.. А видишь ли солнце наше, видишь ли ты его?  
Begin, dear one, begin, meek one, your work!.. And do you see our sun, do you see it?
> Imperfective imperative + reflexive possessive «свое»: «Начинай» is the imperfective imperative ('begin, set about'), its repetition urging Alyosha on. «Дело своё» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» — 'your own work', referring back to the addressee — the calling Zossima now lays upon him.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Видишь ли…?» is a yes/no question formed with the enclitic «ли» after the fronted verb — 'do you see…?'. More literary than mere intonation, «ли» lends the elder's question a solemn, searching quality.

— Боюсь… не смею глядеть… — прошептал Алеша.  
"I am afraid… I dare not look…" whispered Alyosha.
> Dropped subject; «бояться» as a -ся verb: Both verbs drop the pronoun «я», since the 1st-singular endings already show it: «боюсь» (I fear), «не смею глядеть» (I dare not look). «Бояться» exists only in the reflexive «-ся» form — there is no «бою» without it.

— Не бойся его.  
"Do not be afraid of him.
> Negated imperfective imperative + genitive: «Не бойся» is the negated imperative of reflexive «бояться» — 'do not be afraid'. Russian standardly uses the imperfective for negative commands. «Бояться» governs the genitive of what is feared, here «его» (of him): 'do not be afraid of him'.

Страшен величием пред нами, ужасен высотою своею, но милостив бесконечно, нам из любви уподобился и веселится с нами, воду в вино превращает, чтобы не пресекалась радость гостей, новых гостей ждет, новых беспрерывно зовет и уже на веки веков.  
Terrible is he in his greatness before us, awesome in his loftiness, yet boundlessly merciful, out of love he has made himself like unto us and makes merry with us, turning water into wine that the guests' joy may not be cut short, awaiting new guests, ceaselessly calling new ones, and now for ever and ever.
> Short adjectives with instrumental of respect: «Страшен» and «ужасен» are short-form predicate adjectives ('[he is] terrible / awesome'), the bookish form for an absolute state. Each pairs with an instrumental telling in what respect — «величием» (in his greatness), «высотою» (in his loftiness, archaic -ою) — the instrumental of measure or respect.
> «уподобиться» + dative: «Уподобиться» (perfective, 'to make oneself like, become like') governs the dative of what one is likened to: «нам уподобился» — 'he made himself like unto us'. The reflexive «-ся» and the elevated verb carry the theology of the Incarnation: God become like man out of love.
> Purpose «чтобы» with reflexive verb: «Чтобы не пресекалась радость» = 'so that the joy might not be cut short'. «Чтобы» takes a past-form irrealis here folded into the reflexive «пресекалась» (from «пресекаться», to break off), whose «-ся» makes it intransitive — the joy ceasing of itself.

Вон и вино несут новое, видишь, сосуды несут…»  
There, they are bringing the new wine, do you see, they are bringing the vessels…"
> Subjectless «несут» — the indefinite 'they': «Несут» is 3rd-plural with no stated subject, the Russian indefinite 'they bring / are bringing' (cf. English 'they say'). Twice repeated, it conjures unseen servants bearing the new wine and the vessels; «вино … новое» is again split for solemn weight.
> «сосуд» — a vessel: «Сосуд» is the elevated word for a vessel or container, recalling the Gospel's «водоносы» (waterpots) of Cana. In Orthodox and biblical resonance a «сосуд» can also figure a human soul as a vessel of grace, fitting the dream's sacramental glow.

Что-то горело в сердце Алеши, что-то наполнило его вдруг до боли, слезы восторга рвались из души его…  
Something was burning in Alyosha's heart, something suddenly filled him to the point of pain, tears of rapture were tearing themselves from his soul…
> Indefinite «что-то» and aspect contrast: «Что-то» = 'something' (specific but unidentified), the indefinite particle «-то» attached to «что». Note the aspect: imperfective «горело» (was burning, ongoing) gives way to perfective «наполнило» (suddenly filled, a completed surge) — process turning into sudden event.
> Reflexive «рваться» — tearing themselves: «Рвались» is the imperfective reflexive of «рвать» (to tear): with «-ся» the tears 'tore themselves / burst' from his soul, intransitive and self-propelled. The middle voice renders the overwhelming, involuntary force of his rapture.

Он простер руки, вскрикнул и проснулся…  
He stretched out his arms, cried aloud, and woke…
> Three perfectives sealing the awakening: A chain of perfective pasts — «простёр» (stretched out), «вскрикнул» (cried out), «проснулся» (woke) — clicks the climax shut as three completed events. «Простёр» is the elevated, archaic perfective beside everyday «протянул», fitting the visionary register; «проснулся» is reflexive.

Опять гроб, отворенное окно и тихое, важное, раздельное чтение Евангелия.  
Again the coffin, the open window, and the quiet, solemn, measured reading of the Gospel.
> Stacked agreeing adjectives + verbal noun: Three neuter adjectives — «тихое, важное, раздельное» (quiet, solemn, measured) — agree with the abstract verbal noun «чтение» (the reading, from «читать»). Such -ение nouns let Russian name an action as a thing; the asyndetic list (no «и») gives a hushed, ceremonial rhythm.

Но Алеша уже не слушал, что читают.  
But Alyosha was no longer listening to what was being read.
> «уже не» + subjectless «читают»: «Уже не слушал» = 'was no longer listening', the imperfective for an ongoing (non-)state. The subordinate «что читают» again uses subjectless 3rd-plural «читают» — 'what they were reading / was being read', the indefinite 'they'.

Странно, он заснул на коленях, а теперь стоял на ногах, и вдруг, точно сорвавшись с места, тремя твердыми скорыми шагами подошел вплоть ко гробу.  
Strangely, he had fallen asleep on his knees, and now he was standing on his feet, and suddenly, as though torn from the spot, with three firm, swift steps he went right up to the coffin.
> Contrastive «а» marking the shift: «А» is the mild contrastive conjunction hinging two states — 'he had fallen asleep on his knees, and yet/while now he stood on his feet'. Not full opposition like «но», «а» simply marks the surprising shift the narrator points out with «странно» (strangely).
> Perfective gerund «сорвавшись» with «точно»: «Сорвавшись» is a perfective past gerund of reflexive «сорваться» ('having torn loose'), and «точно» ('as if') frames it as a simile — 'as though torn from the spot'. The gerund compresses the manner of his sudden movement into a single phrase.
> Numeral «три» + genitive singular, all instrumental: «Три» governs the genitive singular «шага», but the whole phrase here stands in the instrumental of manner — «тремя … шагами» ('with three … steps') — so numeral and noun re-decline together, the adjectives «твёрдыми, скорыми» agreeing in instrumental plural.
> «вплоть к» — right up to: «Вплоть к» means 'right up close to, all the way to'. With the Slavonic-tinged «ко гробу» (dative, 'to the coffin'), it marks Alyosha's sudden, decisive approach to the dead elder — the dream resolving into resolute action.

Даже задел плечом отца Паисия и не заметил того.  
He even brushed Father Paissy's shoulder and did not notice it.
> Instrumental of the body part «плечом»: «Задел плечом» — 'brushed with his shoulder'. The body part doing the touching goes in the instrumental «плечом» (the means), while the person touched, «отца Паисия», is the animate accusative (= genitive). So lost in feeling is Alyosha that «не заметил того» — he did not notice it.

Тот на мгновение поднял было на него глаза от книги, но тотчас же отвел их опять, поняв, что с юношей что-то случилось странное.  
For a moment the latter raised his eyes to him from the book, but at once turned them away again, perceiving that something strange had happened to the young man.
> The «было» particle of the interrupted act: Placed after a perfective past, the particle «было» marks an action just begun or attempted and then at once undone or reversed — he started to raise his eyes «but at once turned them away». It is a distinctively Russian aspectual nuance, an action cancelled almost in the same breath.
> «Тот» = 'the latter, that one': Here the demonstrative «тот» (literally 'that one, the far one') tracks the other person in the room — Paissy, who had been reading — without naming him. Russian leans on «тот / этот» to keep two referents apart where English would repeat a name or say 'the latter'.
> Perfective gerund «поняв» — 'having perceived': «Поняв» is a perfective past «деепричастие» (from «понять»), the indeclinable verb-adverb meaning 'having understood/perceived'. It compresses a prior, completed action sharing the main subject — he turned his eyes away, having grasped that something was wrong — a hallmark of literary narration.

Алеша глядел с полминуты на гроб, на закрытого, недвижимого, протянутого в гробу мертвеца, с иконой на груди и с куколем с восьмиконечным крестом на голове.  
For half a minute Alyosha gazed at the coffin, at the shrouded, motionless dead man stretched out within it, with an icon on his breast and the cowl with its eight-pointed cross upon his head.
> A chain of past passive participles: Three participles in the accusative pile onto «мертвеца» (the dead man): «закрытого» (covered/shrouded), «недвижимого» (motionless — a bookish form), «протянутого» (stretched out). «закрытого» and «протянутого» are past passive participles, but «недвижимого» is an adjective (from the present-passive «движимый», suffix -им-, 'immovable'), not a past passive participle; all are declined to agree with the animate masculine object, a dense participial layering typical of Dostoevsky's prose.
> Animate accusative = genitive: «Гляде́л на… мертвеца́»: the animate masculine noun takes an accusative identical to the genitive («мертвец» → «мертвеца»), so the corpse is still grammatically 'animate'. The whole train of preceding participles copies that ending, which is how Russian keeps the object marked across a long phrase.
> «Гроб» — coffin, not grave: A false friend for English ears: «гроб» is the coffin (the box), not the grave; the grave is «моги́ла». Alyosha gazes into the open coffin where Zosima lies in the cell before burial.

Сейчас только он слышал голос его, и голос этот еще раздавался в его ушах.  
Only just now he had heard his voice, and that voice was still ringing in his ears.
> Noun before demonstrative for emphasis: «Голос этот» inverts the usual «этот голос», placing the demonstrative after its noun. The order picks up the just-mentioned voice as the topic and gives it weight — 'that voice of his' — a rhythmic, slightly emphatic turn that Russian's free word order allows.
> Imperfective «раздавался» — the lingering sound: The imperfective past «раздавался» (was resounding) views the ringing as an ongoing process still filling his ears, against the just-bounded perception «сейчас только… слышал» ('had just heard'); both «слышал» and «раздавался» are imperfective (the perfective of «слышать» is «услышать»). Imperfective aspect supplies all such durative, background description.

Он еще прислушивался, он ждал еще звуков… но вдруг, круто повернувшись, вышел из кельи.  
He listened still, he waited still for the sounds… but suddenly, turning sharply, he went out of the cell.
> Gerund «повернувшись» — 'having turned': «Кру́то поверну́вшись» is a perfective gerund with the reflexive «-сь»: 'having turned sharply'. It packs the attendant, prior action into one adverbial phrase before the main verb «вышел», so the turn and the exit read as one swift motion.
> Prefixed motion verb «вышел»: «Вы́шел» is the perfective of «выходить/выйти», the prefix «вы-» (out) added to the motion root, governing «из» + genitive «из ке́льи» — 'out of the cell'. The prefix both fixes the direction and makes the verb a clean perfective of completed motion.
> «Келья» — the monk's cell: A «ке́лья» is a monk's small private room in the monastery; here the elder Zosima's cell, where his body lies. The word, like much monastic vocabulary, is a Greek borrowing (from κελλίον).

Он не остановился и на крылечке, но быстро сошел вниз.  
He did not stop even on the little porch, but went quickly down.
> «И» as 'even': Here «и» is not 'and' but the focusing particle 'even': «не останови́лся и на крыле́чке» — 'he did not stop even on the little porch'. The same small word coordinates clauses elsewhere but, before a stressed element, throws emphasis onto it.
> «Крылечко» — the dear little porch: «Крыле́чко» is the affectionate diminutive of «крыльцо́» (the porch/front steps of a Russian house or monastery building). The «-ечк-» suffix softens and warms the word, in keeping with the tender mood of the scene rather than implying mere smallness.

Полная восторгом душа его жаждала свободы, места, широты.  
His soul, brimming with rapture, craved freedom, space, openness.
> Genitive after «жаждала»: The verb «жа́ждать» (to thirst for, crave) governs the genitive of its object: «жа́ждала свобо́ды, ме́ста, широты́» — craved freedom, space, openness. This object-genitive belongs to a class of verbs of desiring and seeking that demand the genitive rather than the accusative.
> Instrumental of fullness, framing the subject: The phrase «по́лная восто́ргом» — 'full of rapture' — uses the instrumental «восто́ргом» to name what fills, the standard complement of «полный» and 'to fill'. Fronted before its noun «душа́», the adjective phrase wraps the soul in rapture before we even reach the verb.

Над ним широко, необозримо опрокинулся небесный купол, полный тихих сияющих звезд.  
Above him the vault of heaven stretched wide and immeasurable, full of quiet, shining stars.
> Subject held to the end for effect: The sentence opens with the place «над ним» and the adverbs, delaying the grammatical subject «небе́сный ку́пол» (the vault of heaven) to the very end. This inversion lets the image unfurl — over him, wide, immeasurable, there arched… the dome of the sky — exploiting Russian's freedom to order by emphasis.
> Reflexive «-ся» of change of state: «Опроки́нулся» carries the middle/intransitive «-ся»: the vault 'turned/tipped over' of itself, with no external agent — the sky inverts itself like an overturned bowl above him. The reflexive here marks a self-contained change of state rather than a true reflexive action.

С зенита до горизонта двоился еще неясный Млечный Путь.  
From the zenith to the horizon the still-faint Milky Way ran in its double band.
> «С… до…» framing, verb before subject: The paired prepositions «с… до…» (both governing the genitive: «с зени́та до горизо́нта») span the sky from zenith to horizon, and the verb «двои́лся» again precedes its subject «Мле́чный Путь» for descriptive flow. The «-ся» gives a reflexive 'doubled itself / ran in a double band'.

Свежая и тихая до неподвижности ночь облегла землю.  
A night fresh and still to the point of motionlessness had enfolded the earth.
> Long adjectives front-loaded onto «ночь»: The two long-form adjectives «све́жая и ти́хая» (fresh and still) lead the sentence, agreeing with feminine «ночь» in nominative; the verb «облегла́» (enfolded) and object «зе́млю» follow. The expressive intensifier «до неподви́жности» — 'to the point of motionlessness' — uses «до» + genitive.
> «Облечь / облегла» — to enfold, lie about: «Обле́чь» (here past «облегла́») is a bookish, elevated verb meaning to wrap, clothe, or lie all around — the night 'enfolded' the earth. It belongs to the same solemn register as «облачи́ть» (to vest) and lifts the description above plain «покры́ла» (covered).

Белые башни и золотые главы собора сверкали на яхонтовом небе.  
The white towers and golden domes of the cathedral sparkled against the sapphire sky.
> «Главы» — the cupolas (and a Slavonic doublet): «Гла́вы» here means the domes/cupolas of the cathedral — a church 'head'. The word «глава́» is the Church-Slavonic non-pleophonic doublet of everyday «голова́» (head), surviving in elevated senses like cupola, chapter, and chief; its sacred ring suits the cathedral.
> «Яхонтовый» — sapphire-blue: «Я́хонт» is an archaic, poetic word for a precious stone — sapphire or ruby — so «я́хонтовое не́бо» is a 'sapphire sky'. The term is bookish and old, lending the night a jewel-like, folktale colour against which the white towers and golden domes gleam.

Осенние роскошные цветы в клумбах около дома заснули до утра.  
The lush autumn flowers in the beds around the house had fallen asleep until morning.
> Perfective «заснули» — the flowers fell asleep: «Засну́ли» is perfective (the inceptive prefix «за-» + 'sleep'), naming a single completed event: the flowers 'fell asleep' (closed). With «до утра́» ('until morning', «до» + genitive) it frames the result as lasting through the night — a quiet personification of the closing autumn blooms.
> Two prepositions, two cases: «В клу́мбах» uses «в» + prepositional for location (in the beds), while «о́коло до́ма» uses «о́коло» + genitive for 'near the house'. The pair shows how each preposition fixes its own case, locating the flowers precisely in the monastery garden.

Тишина земная как бы сливалась с небесною, тайна земная соприкасалась со звездною… Алеша стоял, смотрел и вдруг как подкошенный повергся на землю.  
The stillness of the earth seemed to merge with the stillness of the heavens, the mystery of the earth touched the mystery of the stars… Alyosha stood, gazed, and suddenly, as though cut down, threw himself upon the earth.
> «Как бы» — 'as it were' softening: «Как бы» (literally 'as if') hedges the verb: the earthly stillness 'seemed, as it were, to merge' with the heavenly. This «как бы» recurs throughout the passage, marking Alyosha's vision as something felt on the edge of words — a key tonal device of the whole mystical scene.
> Instrumental of accompaniment after «с»: «Слива́лась с небе́сною», «соприкаса́лась со звёздною» — the preposition «с» (with) governs the instrumental, here on substantivised adjectives ('with the heavenly [stillness]', 'with the starry [mystery]'). The noun is dropped and understood from the parallel clause, a compact poetic ellipsis.
> «Как подкошенный» — as if cut down: A set comparison from «подкоси́ть» (to mow/scythe down): «как подко́шенный» means to fall suddenly and helplessly, 'as though mown down', the legs giving way. Alyosha throws himself to the earth as if scythed — the idiom carries both collapse and the harvest imagery suited to this fertile, life-affirming moment.

Он не знал, для чего обнимал ее, он не давал себе отчета, почему ему так неудержимо хотелось целовать ее, целовать ее всю, но он целовал ее плача, рыдая и обливая своими слезами, и исступленно клялся любить ее, любить во веки веков.  
He did not know why he was embracing it, he could give himself no account of why he so irresistibly longed to kiss it, to kiss the whole of it, but he kissed it weeping, sobbing, and drenching it with his tears, and in a frenzy he vowed to love it, to love it for ever and ever.
> Dative-experiencer «ему хотелось»: «Ему́… хоте́лось целова́ть» is the impersonal experiencer construction: no nominative subject, the person in the dative «ему́» and the reflexive «хоте́лось» ('it was wanted to him' = he longed). This dative-subject frame, so unlike English, is exactly how Dostoevsky renders an urge welling up beyond the self's control.
> Reflexive «себе» in the idiom: «Не дава́л себе́ отчёта» — 'gave himself no account', i.e. could not explain to himself. The reflexive pronoun «себе́» (dative) points back to the subject, distinct from the verbal «-ся»; the set phrase «дава́ть себе́ отчёт» means to be consciously aware.
> A triple chain of present gerunds: Three imperfective present «деепричастия» — «пла́ча» (weeping), «рыда́я» (sobbing), «облива́я… слеза́ми» (drenching with tears) — all hang off the main verb «целова́л», each a simultaneous attendant action. The accumulation enacts the overflowing, breathless emotion of the moment.
> «Во веки веков» — for ever and ever: A liturgical formula, 'unto the ages of ages', the standard close of Orthodox prayer (Slavonic «во ве́ки веко́в»). Its appearance in Alyosha's vow gives his earthly love the cadence and absoluteness of a doxology.

«Облей землю слезами радости твоея и люби сии слезы твои…» — прозвенело в душе его.  
"Water the earth with the tears of your joy, and love those tears of yours…" rang out in his soul.
> Two imperatives: «облей», «люби»: The remembered words come as commands: «обле́й» (water/drench! — perfective imperative of «обли́ть») and «люби́» (love! — imperfective of «люби́ть»). The aspect split is telling: «облей» asks for the one decisive act, «люби» for the ongoing, lifelong disposition.
> Archaic «твоея» and «сии»: «Твоея́» is the old Church-Slavonic feminine genitive of «твой» (modern «твое́й»), and «сии́» is the archaic demonstrative 'these' (modern «э́ти»). Both mark the sentence as scriptural-solemn speech — the elder Zosima's teaching echoing in a sacred register.
> «Прозвенело» — it rang out: «Прозвене́ло» (perfective of «звене́ть», to ring/chime, + «про-» of a sound passing through) is used impersonally: the words 'rang out' in his soul. Dostoevsky returns to this verb as a refrain (again at s78), figuring Zosima's teaching as a bell sounding within Alyosha.

О чем плакал он?  
What was he weeping over?
> «О чём» + prepositional, and inverted subject: The interrogative «что» appears as «о чём» — «о» (about) governing the prepositional case — meaning 'about/over what'. Placing «он» after the verb «пла́кал» gives the short question a falling, reflective close: 'What was he weeping over?'

О, он плакал в восторге своем даже и об этих звездах, которые сияли ему из бездны, и «не стыдился исступления сего».  
Oh, in his rapture he was weeping even over those stars that shone down on him out of the abyss, and "he was not ashamed of this frenzy."
> Relative «которые» and «об» before a vowel: The relative pronoun «кото́рые» opens the clause 'which shone', agreeing with plural «звёзды» but taking nominative as the clause's own subject. Note «об э́тих» — the preposition «о» becomes «об» before the vowel of «э́тих» — governing the prepositional 'about/over these stars'.
> Archaic «сего» — 'of this': «Сего́» is the genitive of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'), placed after its noun: «исступле́ния сего́» = 'of this frenzy'. The phrase is in quotation marks because it echoes Zosima's own solemn diction; «сей» is pure 19th-century-and-scriptural register.
> «Бездна» — the abyss: «Бе́здна» is the abyss or bottomless deep, with biblical resonance (the «бе́здна» of Genesis and the Psalms). The stars shining 'out of the abyss' set Alyosha's small earthly act against cosmic, even divine, depths.

Как будто нити ото всех этих бесчисленных миров божиих сошлись разом в душе его, и она вся трепетала, «соприкасаясь мирам иным».  
It was as though threads from all those countless worlds of God came together at once in his soul, and it trembled all over, "touching other worlds."
> «Как будто» + perfective «сошлись»: «Как бу́дто» ('as though') introduces the simile, and the perfective «сошли́сь» (came together, from «сойти́сь», with reflexive «-ся») names the single completed convergence of the threads. The reflexive here is reciprocal — the threads meet one another.
> Gerund «соприкасаясь» with archaic case: «Соприкаса́ясь» is a present gerund ('touching, being in contact'). In modern Russian «соприкаса́ться» takes «с» + instrumental, but the quoted phrase «соприкаса́ясь мира́м ины́м» uses a bare dative — an archaic, scriptural-sounding government that, with post-posed «ины́м» ('other'), marks Zosima's elevated speech.

Простить хотелось ему всех и за всё и просить прощения, о! не себе, а за всех, за всё и за вся, а «за меня и другие просят», — прозвенело опять в душе его.  
He longed to forgive everyone for everything and to beg forgiveness — oh, not for himself, but for everyone, for everything and for all, while "others are begging it for me," rang out again in his soul.
> Fronted infinitive, dative experiencer: The infinitive «прости́ть» is thrown to the very front, before the impersonal «хоте́лось ему́» ('he longed'): 'To forgive everyone… he longed.' The dative-experiencer frame returns, and the inversion makes the act of forgiving the emotional headline of the sentence.
> Archaic «вся» in the triad: After «за всех» (for all people) and «за всё» (for everything) comes «за вся» — an archaic, Church-Slavonic accusative meaning 'for all things'. Modern Russian would not use «вся» so; the old form crowns the triad with a liturgical, all-encompassing sweep.
> «И» as 'also / others too': In the quoted «за меня́ и други́е про́сят», «и» again means 'also/too': 'others too are praying for me.' It is the Orthodox idea, central to Zosima, of mutual intercession — each soul answerable for all, and prayed for by all.

Но с каждым мгновением он чувствовал явно и как бы осязательно, как что-то твердое и незыблемое, как этот свод небесный, сходило в душу его.  
But with each passing moment he felt clearly and as it were palpably how something firm and unshakable, like this vault of heaven, was descending into his soul.
> Imperfective «сходило» — the slow descent: The imperfective past «сходи́ло» (was descending, from «сходи́ть») renders a gradual, ongoing process — something firm 'was coming down' into his soul moment by moment, matched by «с ка́ждым мгнове́нием» ('with every instant'). Imperfective aspect is what makes the descent feel continuous rather than a single drop.
> «Как бы» hedging an adverb: Again «как бы» softens — here the adverb «осяза́тельно» ('palpably, tangibly'): he felt it 'clearly and, as it were, palpably'. The hedge keeps the experience just shy of the literal, fitting for a mystical certainty that is felt more than seen.
> «Незыблемый» — unshakable: «Незы́блемый» (from «зы́бать», to rock/sway, + negative «не-») means immovable, unshakable — that which cannot be made to waver. A bookish, weighty adjective, it names the new, granite certainty settling into Alyosha against the swaying of his grief.

Какая-то как бы идея воцарялась в уме его — и уже на всю жизнь и на веки веков.  
Some kind of idea, as it were, was taking dominion in his mind — and now for his whole life and for ever and ever.
> «Какая-то» — 'some kind of': «Кака́я-то» is «какой» + the indefinite clitic «-то», marking a specific but unnamed thing: 'some (particular) idea', one Alyosha cannot yet name. Stacked with «как бы», the phrase keeps the dawning conviction deliberately vague — an idea he feels taking hold before he can define it.
> Imperfective «воцарялась» — was taking dominion: «Воцаря́лась» (imperfective of «воцари́ться», to begin to reign) is reflexive «-ся» and durative: the idea 'was enthroning itself, taking dominion' in his mind — a slow, regal settling. The royal metaphor (from «царь») dignifies the new conviction.

Пал он на землю слабым юношей, а встал твердым на всю жизнь бойцом и сознал и почувствовал это вдруг, в ту же минуту своего восторга.  
He had fallen upon the earth a weak youth, but rose up a fighter, firm for his whole life, and he knew it and felt it suddenly, in that very moment of his rapture.
> Instrumental of the predicate: «юношей», «бойцом»: «Пал… ю́ношей» / «встал… бойцо́м» — the instrumentals «слабым юношей» (a weak youth) and «твёрдым… бойцо́м» (a firm fighter) are predicate instrumentals after verbs of motion/becoming, naming the state in which he fell and rose. The case frames each role as one assumed at that moment: he fell as a weakling, rose as a fighter.
> Contrastive «а» and fronted verbs: The pivot of the sentence is the contrastive conjunction «а», setting the falling against the rising. Both verbs «пал» and «встал» (perfective, completed) are fronted before their subject, giving the antithesis a terse, almost epigrammatic balance.
> «Пал» — the elevated 'fell': «Пал» is the perfective of «пасть», a higher, more solemn doublet of everyday «упа́л» (from «упа́сть»). Its archaic, almost biblical tone ('he fell to earth') matches the gravity of Alyosha's transformation, well above neutral narration.

И никогда, никогда не мог забыть Алеша во всю жизнь свою потом этой минуты.  
And never, never afterward, in all his life, could Alyosha forget that moment.
> Negative concord: «никогда… не»: The negative adverb «никогда́» ('never') still requires the verbal «не»: «никогда́… не мог забы́ть». Russian uses negative concord, so the doubled (here tripled, with the repetition) negation reinforces rather than cancels — 'never, never could he forget'.
> Reflexive «свою» and weight-bearing inversion: The subject «Алёша» sits inside the predicate, after «не мог забы́ть», and «жизнь свою́» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('his own life'), pointing back to Alyosha himself. The inversion suspends his name amid the emphatic 'never, never… in all his life'.

«Кто-то посетил мою душу в тот час», — говорил он потом с твердою верой в слова свои…  
"Someone visited my soul in that hour," he would say afterward, with firm faith in his words…
> «Кто-то» — a definite, unnamed someone: «Кто-то» is «кто» + the clitic «-то»: a specific but unidentified person — 'someone (in particular)'. Alyosha deliberately leaves the visitant unnamed; the «-то» (not «-нибудь») insists it was a real Someone, not just anybody, who touched his soul.
> Imperfective «говорил» — 'he would say': The imperfective past «говори́л» here is iterative: not 'he said once' but 'he would say, used to say' afterward, over the years. Imperfective aspect carries this habitual, repeated retelling — the moment became something Alyosha returned to again and again.
> Archaic adjective ending «-ою»: «С твёрдою ве́рой» uses the older feminine instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»: «твёрдой»). Common in 19th-century literary prose and verse, the longer form lends a deliberate, rounded solemnity — 'with firm faith' — fitting Alyosha's settled conviction.

Через три дня он вышел из монастыря, что согласовалось и со словом покойного старца его, повелевшего ему «пребывать в миру».  
Three days later he left the monastery, which accorded too with the word of his dead elder, who had bidden him to "dwell in the world."
> Past active participle «повелевшего»: «Повеле́вшего» is a past active participle (from «повеле́ть», to command), in the genitive agreeing with «ста́рца»: 'the elder, who had bidden him…'. It condenses a «который»-clause into one modifier and governs the dative «ему́» — a dense, bookish construction typical of the narrator's voice.
> Locative «в миру́» — 'in the world': «Мир» here means the secular world outside the monastery, and it takes the special stressed locative ending «-у́»: «в миру́» (not «в ми́ре»). This idiomatic locative is reserved precisely for the monastic sense — 'to live in the world', among ordinary people — exactly Zosima's charge to Alyosha.
---

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.