# The Brothers Karamazov, Kuzma Samsonov

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book VIII — Mitya

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b8-c1. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b8-c1.json.


А Дмитрий Федорович, которому Грушенька, улетая в новую жизнь, «велела» передать свой последний привет и заказала помнить навеки часок ее любви, был в эту минуту, ничего не ведая о происшедшем с нею, тоже в страшном смятении и хлопотах.  
And Dmitri Fyodorovich, to whom Grushenka, as she flew off into her new life, had "ordered" her last greeting carried, charging him to remember forever the brief hour of her love — at that very moment, knowing nothing of what had befallen her, was likewise in a dreadful turmoil and bustle.
> A relative clause in the dative: «Дмитрий Федорович, которому… велела передать» — «который» agrees with its antecedent in masculine singular but takes the dative «которому» because within its own clause it is the person to whom the greeting is sent. The relative's case is set by its job in the subordinate clause, not by the noun it points back to.
> An imperfective gerund: «as she flew off»: «улетая» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие in -я, naming an action simultaneous with the main verb and sharing its subject (Grushenka). It frames her flight into a new life as the attendant circumstance of her parting message — a hallmark of literary narration.
> Negation plus the genitive of negation, in a gerund: «ведая» (an archaic gerund of «ведать», to know) governs «ничего», the genitive of «ничто» under negation — the verb keeps «не» even with the ни-word. «о происшедшем» is a substantivized past participle, 'about what had happened.'
> «часок» — the diminutive that aches: Not just 'an hour' but a fond, fleeting little hour: «час» + the affectionate suffix -ок. The narrator (echoing Mitya) returns to this image of «часок её любви» — the brief, precious hour of her love — and the diminutive carries the whole pathos of how little she gave him.

В последние два дня он был в таком невообразимом состоянии, что действительно мог заболеть воспалением в мозгу, как сам потом говорил.  
These last two days he had been in such an unimaginable state that he might truly have fallen ill with brain fever, as he himself said afterward.
> Modal «мог» + perfective infinitive: «мог заболеть» pairs the past of «мочь» with the perfective infinitive «заболеть» (to fall ill, a single completed onset). The perfective views the illness as a threatened event reached, not a process — 'might truly have come down with.'

Алеша накануне не мог разыскать его утром, а брат Иван в тот же день не мог устроить с ним свидания в трактире.  
Alyosha had been unable to track him down the previous morning, and his brother Ivan had been unable that same day to arrange a meeting with him at the tavern.
> Repeated «не мог» + perfective infinitive: Both clauses use «не мог» with a perfective infinitive («разыскать» — to track down, «устроить» — to arrange), each naming a single intended result that failed to come off. The parallel structure underscores how everyone is failing to reach Mitya.
> «трактир» — the tavern-inn: A «трактир» is a cheap eating-house and tavern, often with rooms, where men of Mitya's set drink, eat, and transact business. It is the social stage for much of his frantic activity in these two days.

Хозяева квартирки, в которой он квартировал, скрыли по его приказу следы его.  
The people who owned the little lodging where he stayed had, on his orders, concealed his whereabouts.
> Locative «в которой» and a figura etymologica: «в которой» is the relative «который» in the prepositional after «в», marking location, 'in which.' Note the play of cognates: «квартирки» (lodging) and «квартировал» (lodged) share a root, a small stylistic echo lost in English.
> «квартирка» — a poor little flat: The diminutive of «квартира» (flat, lodging) belittles the place — a mean little set of rooms, fitting Mitya's straitened, transient life.

Он же в эти два дня буквально метался во все стороны, «борясь с своею судьбой и спасая себя», как он сам потом выразился, и даже на несколько часов слетал по одному горячему делу вон из города, несмотря на то, что страшно было ему уезжать, оставляя Грушеньку хоть на минутку без глаза над нею.  
And he, during those two days, had literally dashed about in every direction, "wrestling with his fate and saving himself," as he later put it, and even flew out of town for a few hours on one urgent matter, despite its being a terror to him to leave, abandoning Grushenka for even a minute without an eye upon her.
> Topic-shifting «же»: Here «же» is not emphatic but the contrastive/topic particle: 'He, for his part…' It pivots from the others' failed efforts (previous sentences) back to Mitya himself, marking him as the resumed topic.
> Paired imperfective gerunds: «борясь» (struggling) and «спасая» (saving) are present imperfective деепричастия describing the manner of his dashing about. «спасая себя» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» as a full object — saving himself, distinct from the verbal -ся.
> Dative-experiencer impersonal: «страшно было ему»: «страшно было ему уезжать» is an impersonal construction with no nominative subject: the experiencer stands in the dative «ему» and the predicate is the invariable «страшно» — 'it was a terror to him to leave.' This dative-experiencer frame is one of Russian's signature ways of rendering inner states.
> «без глаза» — without an eye on her: An idiomatic genitive after «без»: to leave her «без глаза» is to leave her unwatched, with no one keeping an eye on her. «хоть на минутку» ('even for a little minute') adds the anxious diminutive.

Всё это впоследствии выяснилось в самом подробном и документальном виде, но теперь мы наметим фактически лишь самое необходимое из истории этих ужасных двух дней в его жизни, предшествовавших страшной катастрофе, так внезапно разразившейся над судьбой его.  
All of this came to light afterward in the most detailed and documented form, but for now we shall set down in fact only the most essential parts of the story of those two terrible days in his life, the days preceding the dreadful catastrophe that burst so suddenly over his destiny.
> Reflexive -ся as middle/passive: «выяснилось» (it came to light, became clear) is a -ся verb in its middle sense: the matter clarified itself, with no agent named. Russian constantly prefers this intransitive middle where English reaches for a passive or 'came out.'
> A chain of past active participles: «предшествовавших» (preceding) and «разразившейся» (that burst) are past active participles in -вш-, each declined to agree with its noun (days; catastrophe). They compress two «который»-clauses into modifiers — the dense participial layering typical of Dostoevsky's narratorial sentences.
> «наметить» — to sketch out, mark down: The perfective «наметить» means to outline or set down in rough — the narrator promises only the bare essentials. Paired with «фактически» and «документальном виде», it adopts the pose of a scrupulous chronicler assembling a case.

Грушенька хоть и любила его часочек истинно и искренно, это правда, но и мучила же его в то же время иной раз действительно жестоко и беспощадно.  
Grushenka, though she did love him truly and sincerely for a brief hour — that is the truth — yet at the very same time tormented him at moments quite cruelly and mercilessly.
> Concessive «хоть и… но» with insistent «же»: The frame «хоть и + verb… но» means 'though she did X… yet.' The «же» in «мучила же» is the insistent particle, lending the contrast force: 'yet at the very same time she tormented him.' Both verbs are imperfective past, describing ongoing, habitual behaviour.
> «часочек» — the doubly tender hour: An even softer diminutive than «часок»: «час» with the stacked -очек. The piling of diminutive suffixes intensifies the tenderness — the fleeting little hour of true love, set against the cruelty that follows in the same breath.

Главное в том, что ничего-то он не мог разгадать из ее намерений; выманить же лаской или силой не было тоже возможности: не далась бы ни за что, а только бы рассердилась и отвернулась от него вовсе, это он ясно тогда понимал.  
The chief thing was that he could make out nothing whatever of her intentions; to coax it out of her by tenderness or by force was also impossible: she would yield to nothing, but would only grow angry and turn away from him altogether — this he clearly understood at the time.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» on «ничего»: The hyphenated «-то» here is the emphatic topic clitic, not the indefinite suffix: «ничего-то» drives home 'nothing whatever.' Combined with «не мог» it is negative concord — «ничего… не» — 'he could make out nothing at all.'
> The conditional «бы»: she would not yield: «не далась бы», «рассердилась бы», «отвернулась бы» are all past-tense forms plus the irrealis particle «бы», projecting a hypothetical: were he to try, she would not give in but would only take offence. The mobile «бы» leans on the first stressed word of each clause.
> Genitive of negation with «не было»: «выманить… не было тоже возможности» — under negated existential «не было», the subject «возможность» goes obligatorily into the genitive «возможности»: 'there was no possibility.' The neuter «было» agrees with nothing, as the impersonal default.

Он подозревал тогда весьма верно, что она и сама находится в какой-то борьбе, в какой-то необычайной нерешительности, на что-то решается и всё решиться не может, а потому и не без основания предполагал, замирая сердцем, что минутами она должна была просто ненавидеть его с его страстью.  
He suspected then, quite rightly, that she herself was caught in some struggle of her own, in some extraordinary indecision, that she was about to resolve on something and could never quite resolve it, and so, his heart sinking, he had grounds enough for supposing that at moments she must simply have hated him together with his passion.
> Aspect pair in play: «решается» / «решиться»: The imperfective «решается» (is in the act of resolving) is set against the perfective infinitive «решиться» (to reach a resolution) under «не может» — she keeps trying to decide but can never bring the decision to its completed point. The pair dramatizes her paralysis in two verbs.
> Gerund of accompanying state: «his heart sinking»: «замирая сердцем» is an imperfective gerund (with «сердцем» an instrumental of respect — sinking 'in heart'), giving the inner condition under which Mitya supposed. It shares the main subject, 'he,' as the gerund requires.
> «должна была» + imperfective infinitive: inference: «должна была ненавидеть» here is epistemic — 'she must have hated' — past of «должна» with the imperfective infinitive «ненавидеть» (a state-verb, no perfective). It expresses Mitya's reconstruction of her feeling, not an obligation.

Так, может быть, и было, но об чем именно тосковала Грушенька, того он все-таки не понимал.  
Perhaps that was indeed so, but what exactly Grushenka was grieving over, he could not for all that understand.
> Correlative «о чём… того», fronted for emphasis: The clause is reordered topic-first: the indirect question «об чём именно тосковала Грушенька» is set up front, then resumed by the correlative «того» (genitive of «то») as object of «не понимал». «об чём» is a colloquial/archaic variant of «о чём». This inversion throws the weight onto what he failed to grasp.
> «тосковать» — the untranslatable ache: «тоска» is the Russian word Nabokov called untranslatable: a deep spiritual anguish, yearning, melancholy without clear object. «о чём… тосковала» asks after what, exactly, Grushenka was pining for — a longing Mitya cannot name.

Собственно для него весь вопрос, его мучивший, складывался лишь в два определения: «Или он, Митя, или Федор Павлович».  
For him, in essence, the whole question that tormented him came down to just two terms: "Either he, Mitya, or Fyodor Pavlovich."
> A post-posed past active participle: «его мучивший» (which tormented him) is a past active participle agreeing with «вопрос», placed after the noun for rhythmic weight — equivalent to «вопрос, который его мучил». Such participial modifiers are markedly bookish.

Тут, кстати, нужно обозначить один твердый факт: он вполне был уверен, что Федор Павлович непременно предложит (если уж не предложил) Грушеньке законный брак, и не верил ни минуты, что старый сластолюбец надеется отделаться лишь тремя тысячами.  
Here, by the way, one firm fact must be marked down: he was fully convinced that Fyodor Pavlovich would certainly offer Grushenka (if he had not already offered) lawful marriage, and he did not believe for a minute that the old voluptuary hoped to get off with a mere three thousand.
> Perfective future vs perfective past: «предложит» is the simple (perfective) future — a single completed offer he will make; the parenthetical «(если уж не предложил)» is the same verb in the perfective past — 'if he has not already made it.' One aspect pair spans both the anticipated and the possibly-accomplished act.
> «ни» intensifying the negation: «не верил ни минуты» — 'did not believe for a single minute.' «ни» reinforces the «не» (negative concord), and «минуты» is a genitive of measure under negation, sharpening 'not for an instant.'
> «сластолюбец» — the old voluptuary: A bookish compound, 'lover of sweet pleasures' (сласть + любить), meaning a sensualist or voluptuary. «старый сластолюбец» is Mitya's contemptuous label for his father — the moral keynote of Fyodor Pavlovich's character.

Это вывел Митя, зная Грушеньку и ее характер.  
This Mitya had deduced, knowing Grushenka and her character.
> Object-first word order: Normal order would be «Митя вывел это»; fronting «Это» makes the just-stated conclusion the topic and throws the new information — that it was Mitya's own deduction — to the end. Free word order lets Russian foreground 'This' for cohesion.
> Gerund of grounds: «knowing Grushenka»: «зная» is an imperfective gerund giving the basis of the deduction — he reasoned thus on the strength of knowing her and her character. It shares Mitya as subject of the main clause.

Вот почему ему и могло казаться временами, что вся мука Грушеньки и вся ее нерешимость происходит тоже лишь оттого, что она не знает, кого из них выбрать и кто из них будет ей выгоднее.  
That is why it could at times seem to him that all Grushenka's torment and all her irresolution arose merely from her not knowing which of them to choose and which of them would be the more advantageous to her.
> Impersonal «казаться» with dative experiencer: «ему могло казаться» is an impersonal seeming-construction: the experiencer is dative «ему», there is no nominative subject, and the «и» here is an emphasizing particle ('that is precisely why it could seem to him').
> Embedded questions: «кого» vs «кто»: The interrogative «кто» appears in two cases: accusative-from-genitive «кого… выбрать» (whom to choose, animate) and nominative «кто… будет выгоднее» (who would be more advantageous). «выгоднее» is the predicative comparative of «выгодный».

О близком же возвращении «офицера», то есть того рокового человека в жизни Грушеньки, прибытия которого она ждала с таким волнением и страхом, он, странно это, в те дни даже и не думал думать.  
As for the imminent return of the "officer" — that is, of that fateful man in Grushenka's life, whose arrival she awaited with such agitation and dread — he, strange to say, in those days did not even think to think about it.
> Genitive relative «которого» governed by the noun: «прибытия которого она ждала» — «которого» is genitive because «ждать» governs the genitive of its object («ждать прибытия», to await the arrival). The relative agrees with «человека» in masculine singular but takes the case its own clause demands.
> Expressive figura: «didn't even think to think»: «не думал думать» repeats the verb — the conjugated «думал» plus its own infinitive «думать» — to convey 'did not even bring himself to think of it.' «даже и» piles on emphasis. The doubling is a colloquial intensifier, deliberately odd in English too.

Правда, что Грушенька с ним об этом в самые последние дни очень молчала.  
True, in the very last days Grushenka had said very little to him about it.
> Imperfective «молчала» of habitual silence: «молчать» (to keep silent) is an imperfective state-verb; «очень молчала об этом» means she was very silent / said very little on the subject over the last days. Russian can intensify even 'be silent' with «очень».

Однако ему было вполне известно от нее же самой о письме, полученном тою месяц назад от этого бывшего ее обольстителя, было известно отчасти и содержание письма.  
Yet he knew perfectly well, from her own lips, of the letter received a month before from this former seducer of hers, and he knew in part the contents of the letter as well.
> Past passive participle as compact modifier: «полученном» is a past passive participle (from perfective «получить») in the prepositional, agreeing with «письме»: 'the letter received a month ago.' It condenses 'the letter that had been received,' the patient-naming counterpart to the active participles elsewhere.
> Intensifying «же» + «сама»: «от неё же самой» stacks the particle «же» with the intensifier «сама» (her very self) to stress the source: 'from her own lips, from no one but her.' Both are emphatic devices reinforcing the same point.
> «обольститель» — the seducer: A literary, faintly archaic word for a seducer or beguiler (from «обольстить», to beguile). «бывшего её обольстителя» — 'her former seducer' — names the officer's role in Grushenka's history in a single elevated noun.

Тогда, в одну злую минутку, Грушенька ему это письмо показала, но, к ее удивлению, письму этому он не придал почти никакой цены.  
Then, in one spiteful moment, Grushenka had shown him that letter, but, to her surprise, he had attached almost no value to it.
> Dative object and genitive of negation, both fronted: «придать цену чему-либо» (to attach value to) takes a dative; here «письму этому» is dative and fronted as topic, while under «не придал» the object «цену» shifts to genitive «никакой цены» — genitive of negation. Two cases at once, reordered for emphasis.
> «в одну злую минутку» — a spiteful little moment: The diminutive «минутка» (from «минута») here is not tender but ironic, coloured by «злую» (spiteful): a nasty little moment in which Grushenka, half-maliciously, flashed the letter at him. The suffix lends an intimate, almost wheedling tone to the scene.

И очень было бы трудно объяснить почему: может быть, просто потому, что сам, угнетенный всем безобразием и ужасом своей борьбы с родным отцом за эту женщину, он уже и предположить не мог для себя ничего страшнее и опаснее, по крайней мере в то время.  
And it would be very difficult to explain why: perhaps simply because, oppressed as he was by the whole hideousness and horror of his struggle with his own father over this woman, he could no longer imagine for himself anything more terrible or more dangerous — at least at that time.
> Impersonal conditional: «it would be difficult»: «очень было бы трудно объяснить» combines the impersonal predicate «трудно» (no nominative subject) with «бы» on past «было», forming a hypothetical: 'it would be hard to explain.' A subjectless, irrealis frame opening the narrator's speculation.
> Past passive participle + instrumental of cause: «угнетённый» is a past passive participle ('oppressed'), and «всем безобразием и ужасом» is the instrumental naming what oppressed him — the instrumental of the agent/cause governed by the passive. 'Oppressed by the whole hideousness and horror.'
> Comparatives in the genitive of negation: «не мог предположить… ничего страшнее и опаснее» — the predicative comparatives «страшнее», «опаснее» (more terrible, more dangerous) qualify «ничего», genitive under negation. He could imagine nothing worse — the comparison reaching for an absent superlative.

Жениху же, вдруг выскочившему откуда-то после пятилетнего исчезновения, он просто даже не верил, и особенно тому, что тот скоро приедет.  
As for the suitor, who had suddenly popped up from somewhere after five years' disappearance, he simply did not believe in him at all, and least of all that the man would arrive soon.
> Dative object of «верить», fronted with «же»: «верить» governs the dative, so «жениху» (the suitor) is dative; it is fronted as a contrastive topic marked by «же». «и особенно тому, что…» continues the dative with the correlative «тому» — 'and least of all in the fact that…'
> Past active participle + indefinite «-то»: «выскочившему» is a past active participle (from «выскочить», to pop out) in the dative, agreeing with «жениху»: 'who had suddenly popped up.' «откуда-то» uses the indefinite clitic «-то» — from somewhere unknown.

Да и в самом этом первом письме «офицера», которое показали Митеньке, говорилось о приезде этого нового соперника весьма неопределенно: письмо было очень туманное, очень высокопарное и наполнено лишь чувствительностью.  
Besides, in that very first letter from the "officer" that had been shown to Mitenka, the arrival of this new rival was spoken of most indefinitely: the letter was very vague, very high-flown, and filled with nothing but sentimentality.
> Impersonal -ся: «it was spoken of»: «говорилось» is the reflexive -ся used as an impersonal passive — 'it was spoken of, mention was made,' with no agent. Russian routinely renders 'the text said / spoke of' with this subjectless middle.
> «высокопарный» — high-flown: A bookish adjective, lit. 'high-soaring' (высоко + парить, to soar), meaning bombastic, grandiloquent. With «туманное» (foggy, vague) and «чувствительностью» (sentimentality) it skewers the officer's letter as pompous romantic fog.

Надо заметить, что Грушенька в тот раз скрыла от него последние строчки письма, в которых говорилось несколько определеннее о возвращении.  
It must be noted that Grushenka had on that occasion hidden from him the closing lines of the letter, in which the return was spoken of somewhat more definitely.
> Perfective «скрыть» of a single completed act: «скрыла» is perfective past — one decisive act of concealment. «от него» (genitive after «от») marks from whom; «строчки» is the diminutive plural of «строка» (line), 'the little closing lines.' Note the narrator's care to flag what the reader earlier did not know.
> Comparative «определённее» in the impersonal -ся: Again the impersonal «говорилось» (it was spoken of), now with the predicative comparative «определённее» (more definitely) — the hidden lines spoke more plainly of the return. The comparative is the invariable -ее form.

К тому же Митенька вспоминал потом, что в ту минуту уловил как бы некоторое невольное и гордое презрение к этому посланию из Сибири в лице самой Грушеньки.  
Moreover, Mitenka recalled afterward that in that moment he had caught, as it were, a certain involuntary and proud contempt for this missive from Siberia in Grushenka's very face.
> Hedging «как бы»: 'as it were': «как бы» softens and approximates — 'a kind of, as it were' — marking the narrator's (and Mitya's recollected) uncertainty about reading Grushenka's face. It is a pervasive Dostoevskian hedge, not a conditional «бы».

Затем Грушенька о всех дальнейших сношениях с этим новым соперником Митеньке уже ничего не сообщала.  
After that Grushenka told Mitenka nothing further about any later dealings with this new rival.
> Negative concord with imperfective of habit: «ничего… не сообщала» pairs the ни-word «ничего» with «не» (one negation), and the imperfective «сообщала» renders the ongoing state: from then on she told him nothing further. «уже» here marks the shift — 'no longer anything.'
> «сношения» — dealings, intercourse: «сношения» means dealings, communications, relations (here «дальнейших сношениях» — further dealings). In 19th-century usage it is neutral; the modern reader should note its register has since narrowed and coloured. Here it simply means Grushenka's continued contact with the officer.

Таким образом и мало-помалу он совсем даже забыл об офицере.  
And so, little by little, he forgot about the officer altogether.
> Perfective result with piled emphasis: «забыл» is perfective — the completed arrival at forgetting. «совсем даже… вовсе» stacks emphatic adverbs ('utterly, even, altogether') around it, a colloquial intensification of how thoroughly the officer slipped his mind.
> «мало-помалу» — little by little: A set reduplicative adverbial phrase, 'bit by bit, gradually' (lit. 'little-by-little'). Such paired, hyphenated expressions give Russian narration a folk, oral cadence.

Он думал только о том, что что бы там ни вышло и как бы дело ни обернулось, а надвигавшаяся окончательная сшибка его с Федором Павловичем слишком близка и должна разрешиться раньше всего другого.  
He thought only of this: that whatever might come of it and however the matter might turn out, the looming, decisive collision between him and Fyodor Pavlovich was too near at hand and had to be settled before anything else.
> Concessive «что бы ни / как бы ни»: 'whatever / however': The pattern «что бы ни + verb» and «как бы ни + verb» builds universal concessives — 'whatever might come of it, however the matter might turn out.' The «бы» is the irrealis particle and «ни» the concessive intensifier; the verbs are perfective past forms.
> Present-sense past active participle: «надвигавшаяся» (from imperfective «надвигаться», to loom/advance) is a past active participle agreeing with «сшибка», giving the still-approaching collision an ongoing, menacing aspect — 'the looming clash.' «разрешиться» that follows is the perfective of resolution.
> «сшибка» — a violent collision: A vivid, slightly colloquial noun for a clash or smash-up (from «сшибить», to knock together). «окончательная сшибка» — the final collision with his father — is more physical and brutal than a neutral 'conflict,' priming the reader for violence.

Замирая душой, он ежеминутно ждал решения Грушеньки и всё верил, что оно произойдет как бы внезапно, по вдохновению.  
His soul sinking, he awaited Grushenka's decision every minute and kept on believing that it would come about, as it were, all at once, by inspiration.
> Opening gerund: «his soul sinking»: The sentence opens with the imperfective gerund «замирая» plus instrumental «душой» (sinking in soul) — the same image as «замирая сердцем» earlier, now with the soul. Fronting the gerund sets the emotional key before the main verb.
> Imperfective «верил» vs perfective «произойдёт»: «всё верил» — imperfective with «всё» ('kept on believing') — frames the durative state; the embedded «произойдёт» is the perfective future of a single event ('it would come about'). Aspect distinguishes the ongoing hope from the imagined sudden resolution.

Вдруг она скажет ему: «Возьми меня, я навеки твоя», — и всё кончится: он схватит ее и увезет на край света тотчас же.  
Suddenly she would say to him: "Take me, I am yours forever" — and it would all be over: he would seize her and carry her off to the ends of the earth that very instant.
> Perfective futures staging the daydream: A chain of perfective simple futures — «скажет», «кончится», «схватит», «увезёт» — each a single completed act, conjures Mitya's fantasy as a swift sequence of decisive events. This is free indirect discourse: the narrator slips into Mitya's imagined future.
> Zero-copula nominative predicate: «я… твоя» has no verb 'to be' — the present-tense copula is zero in Russian, and the predicate «твоя» (yours) stands in the nominative agreeing with «я». 'I am yours forever,' bare and absolute.

О, тотчас же увезет как можно, как можно дальше, если не на край света, то куда-нибудь на край России, женится там на ней и поселится с ней incognito, так чтоб уж никто не знал об них вовсе, ни здесь, ни там и нигде.  
Oh, that very instant he would carry her away as far, as far as possible — if not to the ends of the earth, then somewhere to the ends of Russia, would marry her there and settle down with her incognito, so that no one at all should know of them, neither here, nor there, nor anywhere.
> A Latin loanword: Dostoevsky keeps the Latin word incognito ("in secret, under a hidden identity") in the Latin alphabet inside the Russian text; the original even footnotes it as тайно ("secretly"). Educated 19th-century Russians peppered their speech with such foreign tags, and Mitya's dream of vanishing 'incognito' marks the romantic, theatrical cast of his mind.
> Purpose «чтоб(ы)» with past-form irrealis: «так чтоб… не знал» is a purpose clause: «чтоб(ы)» (a clipped «чтобы») demands the past-tense form «знал» in its irrealis function — 'so that no one should know.' «никто… не» is negative concord; «ни здесь, ни там и нигде» piles on the ни-negators.

Тогда, о, тогда начнется тотчас же совсем новая жизнь!  
Then, oh, then a completely new life would begin at once!
> Perfective future + reflexive inception: «начнётся» is the perfective future of «начаться» (-ся middle): a new life 'will begin,' starting of itself. The exclamatory «о, тогда» and free indirect voice make it the climax of Mitya's reverie.

Об этой другой, обновленной и уже «добродетельной» жизни («непременно, непременно добродетельной») он мечтал поминутно и исступленно.  
Of this other, renewed, and now "virtuous" life ("virtuous without fail, without fail") he dreamed every minute and in a frenzy.
> Prepositional object fronted; «мечтать о»: «мечтать» governs «о» + prepositional, so «об этой… жизни» is the prepositional object, fronted as topic before the verb «мечтал». The long string of agreeing modifiers («другой, обновлённой, добродетельной») all sit in the prepositional with the noun.
> «исступлённо» — in a frenzy: From «исступление» (frenzy, ecstatic transport), this adverb means 'frenziedly, in a transport.' It is one of Dostoevsky's signature words for the overwrought, ecstatic-distracted state his characters fall into — Mitya dreams not calmly but «исступлённо».

Он жаждал этого воскресения и обновления.  
He thirsted for this resurrection and renewal.
> «жаждать» + genitive object: The bookish verb «жаждать» (to thirst for) governs the genitive: «жаждал… воскресения и обновления» — thirsted for resurrection and renewal. The genitive after verbs of desiring/seeking is the abstract-object pattern.

Гнусный омут, в котором он завяз сам своей волей, слишком тяготил его, и он, как и очень многие в таких случаях, всего более верил в перемену места: только бы не эти люди, только бы не эти обстоятельства, только бы улететь из этого проклятого места и — всё возродится, пойдет по-новому!  
The vile mire into which he had sunk himself by his own will weighed on him too heavily, and, like very many men in such circumstances, he put his faith above all in a change of place: if only it were not these people, if only it were not these circumstances, if only he could fly away from this accursed spot — and everything would be reborn, would set off in a new way!
> Locative relative «в котором»: «омут, в котором он завяз» — «в котором» is prepositional after «в», marking location within the relative clause: the mire in which he had got stuck. «завяз» is the perfective past of «завязнуть» (to get bogged down).
> Optative «только бы»: 'if only': The repeated «только бы» + (noun or infinitive) is the desiderative use of «бы»: 'if only it were not these people… if only he could fly away.' The particle alone, without a verb in the first phrases, carries the whole wish — a yearning anaphora.
> «омут» — the whirlpool, the mire: An «омут» is a deep pool or whirlpool in a river; figuratively, a vortex one is sucked into. «гнусный омут» (vile whirlpool) names the moral morass Mitya feels himself drowning in — the proverbial «тихий омут» (still waters) lurking behind it.

Вот во что он верил и по чем томился.  
That was what he believed in and what he pined for.
> Prepositions splitting от their pronouns: «во что», «по чём»: «верить во что» (believe in) takes «в» + accusative «что»; «томиться по чём» (pine for) takes «по» + an old prepositional «чём». The correlative interrogatives «что/чём» here function as relatives ('that which'). «по чём» is the archaic spelling of what is now «по чем».

Но это было лишь в случае первого, счастливого решения вопроса.  
But this was only in the event of the first, the happy resolution of the question.
> Genitive chain after «в случае»: «в случае» (in the event of) governs the genitive, pulling the whole phrase «первого, счастливого решения вопроса» into the genitive, with «вопроса» a further genitive of 'of the question.' A tidy example of stacked genitives.

Было и другое решение, представлялся и другой, но ужасный уже исход.  
There was another resolution too, another outcome presented itself — but a terrible one.
> Reflexive -ся with subject-final word order: «представлялся… исход» uses the -ся verb «представляться» (to present itself, appear) with the subject «исход» (outcome) held to the end — 'another outcome too presented itself.' The new, dreaded element lands last, in the stressed comment position.

Вдруг она скажет ему: «Ступай, я порешила сейчас с Федором Павловичем и выхожу за него замуж, а тебя не надо», — и тогда… но тогда…  
Suddenly she would say to him: "Be off — I have just now settled things with Fyodor Pavlovich and am marrying him, and you are not wanted" — and then… but then…
> Idiom «выходить замуж»: a woman's marrying: «выходить/выйти замуж за кого» (lit. 'go out behind a husband for') is the fixed expression for a woman marrying a man; «за него» is «за» + accusative. Russian uses entirely separate idioms for a woman marrying («выйти замуж») and a man marrying («жениться»).
> «Ступай» — Be off, go: «ступай» is the imperative of «ступать» (to step, go), a brusque, folksy 'go / be off with you.' In Grushenka's imagined dismissal it has a curt, dismissive snap that 'go' alone would miss. «тебя не надо» — 'you are not needed' — uses the impersonal «надо».

Митя, впрочем, не знал, что будет тогда, до самого последнего часу не знал, в этом надо его оправдать.  
Mitya, however, did not know what would happen then; right up to the very last hour he did not know — and in this he must be vindicated.
> Embedded question with «что будет»: «не знал, что будет тогда» — the future «будет» (of «быть») in an indirect question, 'did not know what would be / happen then.' The repetition «до самого последнего часу не знал» (note the old genitive «часу») hammers his ignorance.
> Impersonal «надо» + perfective infinitive: «надо его оправдать» is the impersonal-necessity construction: invariable «надо» plus the perfective infinitive «оправдать» (to vindicate), with no nominative subject — 'in this he must be vindicated.' The narrator steps in to defend his hero.

Намерений определенных у него не было, преступление обдумано не было.  
He had no definite intentions; no crime had been thought out.
> Genitive of negation with «не было»: «определённых намерений… не было» — under «не было», the logical subject «намерения» (intentions) drops to genitive «намерений»: 'he had no definite intentions.' «у него» (genitive after «у») supplies the possessor. A textbook negated existential.
> Short passive participle: «no crime had been thought out»: «обдумано не было» is the short form of the past passive participle «обдуманный» joined to «было»: the periphrastic passive stating a result — 'the crime had not been thought out.' The short predicative form is the bookish, result-naming construction.

Он только следил, шпионил и мучился, но готовился все-таки лишь к первому, счастливому исходу судьбы своей.  
He only watched, spied, and tormented himself, but for all that he was preparing only for the first, the happy turn of his fate.
> Imperfective triad + reflexive «мучился»: Three imperfectives in a row — «следил», «шпионил», «мучился» — paint the protracted, repeated activity of those days. «мучился» is the -ся form ('tormented himself / suffered'), the middle-reflexive counterpart of transitive «мучить».
> «готовиться к» + dative: «готовиться к чему» (to prepare for) governs «к» + dative, so «к первому, счастливому исходу судьбы своей» sits in the dative. «своей» is the reflexive possessive — his own fate, referring back to the subject.

Даже отгонял всякую другую мысль.  
He even drove off every other thought.
> Imperfective of repeated effort: «отгонял» (imperfective past of «отгонять», to drive off) renders the recurring, effortful act — he kept driving off every other thought. The accusative «всякую другую мысль» is the direct object; the imperfective signals the habitual struggle, not one act.

Но здесь уже начиналась совсем другая мука, вставало одно совсем новое и постороннее, но тоже роковое и неразрешимое обстоятельство.  
But here a quite different torment began, here rose up something altogether new and extraneous, yet likewise fateful and insoluble.
> Subject-final, verb-initial inversion: Both clauses put the imperfective verb first and the subject last («начиналась мука», «вставало обстоятельство»). This presentational order — verb of appearing, then the new thing appearing — heightens the sense of something rising up unbidden before him.
> A pile-up of neuter adjectives in agreement: Four adjectives — «новое, постороннее, роковое, неразрешимое» — all take neuter singular endings to agree with «обстоятельство» (circumstance). The accumulation of qualifiers, balanced by «но тоже», is Dostoevsky's way of weighting the new dread.

Именно, в случае если она скажет ему: «Я твоя, увези меня», то как он ее увезет?  
Namely, in the event that she should say to him: "I am yours, carry me off" — then how was he to carry her off?
> Conditional «в случае если» + perfective future: «в случае если она скажет» frames a real conditional ('in the event that she should say'), with the perfective future «скажет» of a single act. «как он её увезёт?» follows with another perfective future — the practical question that ambushes his daydream.
> Perfective imperative «увези»: «увези» is the imperative of perfective «увезти» (to carry off) — a single decisive command, 'carry me off.' Perfective imperatives urge one completed action; the answering «увезёт» echoes the same verb in the future.

Где у него на то средства, деньги?  
Where had he the means for it, the money?
> Verbless possessive question: «Где у него на то средства, деньги?» has no verb — the zero-copula present plus the «у него» possessive frame ('where had he the means?'). Russian readily drops 'to be' in such present-tense existential-possessive questions.

У него как раз к этому сроку иссякли все до сих пор не прерывавшиеся в продолжение стольких лет его доходы от подачек Федора Павловича.  
Just at this juncture all his income had run dry — the income from Fyodor Pavlovich's handouts that had not once been interrupted over so many years.
> Negated past active participle as modifier: «не прерывавшиеся в продолжение стольких лет… доходы» — «прерывавшиеся» is a -ся past active participle ('that had not been interrupted'), negated by «не» and agreeing with «доходы». It packs a whole relative clause into one long pre-nominal modifier.
> «подачки» — handouts, doled-out scraps: «подачка» (genitive plural «подачек») is a handout or sop — money tossed contemptuously, like a scrap to a dog. Calling Fyodor Pavlovich's payments «подачки» captures the humiliation of Mitya's dependence on his father.

Конечно, у Грушеньки были деньги, но в Мите на этот счет вдруг оказалась страшная гордость: он хотел увезти ее сам и начать с ней новую жизнь на свои средства, а не на ее; он вообразить даже не мог, что возьмет у нее ее деньги, и страдал от этой мысли до мучительного отвращения.  
Grushenka, of course, had money, but in Mitya there suddenly arose a fearful pride on this score: he wanted to carry her off himself and to begin a new life with her on his own means, not on hers; he could not even conceive of taking her money from her, and he suffered from the thought to the point of an agonizing revulsion.
> Locative-of-person + subject-final reflexive: «в Мите… оказалась страшная гордость» localizes the feeling inside the man («в Мите», prepositional) and holds the subject «гордость» to the end after the -ся verb «оказаться» (to turn out, prove). 'In Mitya there suddenly arose a fearful pride.'
> Reflexive «свои» vs the frozen «её»: The contrast turns on possessives: «свои средства» (his own means, reflexive «свой» pointing to the subject) against «её» (hers, the invariable third-person form). Mitya's pride is exactly this distinction — his own money, not her money.
> Perfective future inside reported thought: «не мог вообразить… что возьмёт» embeds the perfective future «возьмёт» ('that he would take') under a verb of imagining — a single hypothetical act he recoils from. «страдал… до мучительного отвращения» then uses «до» + genitive to mark the extreme he suffered to.

Не распространяюсь здесь об этом факте, не анализирую его, а лишь отмечаю: таков был склад души его в ту минуту.  
I do not enlarge here upon this fact, nor analyze it, but merely note it: such was the cast of his soul at that moment.
> First-person present: the narrator steps forward: A triad of first-person present-tense verbs — «распространяюсь» (-ся, 'I enlarge'), «анализирую», «отмечаю» — drops the pronoun «я» (the endings show person) and lets the chronicler-narrator address us directly. The present tense gives the aside its buttonholing immediacy.
> «склад души» — the cast of his soul: «склад» is a make-up, cast, or bent; «склад души» (or «склад ума») means the inner constitution or disposition. 'Such was the cast of his soul at that moment' — a phrase reaching for the whole shape of Mitya's character in one stroke.

Могло всё это происходить косвенно и как бы бессознательно даже от тайных мук его совести за воровски присвоенные им деньги Катерины Ивановны: «Пред одной подлец и пред другой тотчас же выйду опять подлец, — думал он тогда, как сам потом признавался, — да Грушенька коли узнает, так и сама не захочет такого подлеца».  
All this might come about indirectly and, as it were, even unconsciously, out of the secret pangs of his conscience over the money of Katerina Ivanovna's that he had thievishly appropriated: "Before one woman I am a scoundrel, and before the other I shall at once turn out a scoundrel again," he thought then, as he himself afterward confessed, "and besides, if Grushenka finds out, she will not herself want such a scoundrel."
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «присвоенные им деньги» — «присвоенные» is a past passive participle (from «присвоить», to appropriate) agreeing with «деньги», and «им» is the instrumental of the agent: 'the money appropriated by him.' «воровски» ('thievishly') is the damning adverb.
> Archaic «пред» and predicate «подлец»: «пред» is the bookish/elevated form of «перед» (before), governing the instrumental «одной»/«другой» (women understood). «выйду… подлец» uses «выйти» idiomatically ('I shall turn out [to be]') with a bare nominative «подлец» — he will prove a scoundrel.
> Folk conditional «коли»: «коли» is a colloquial/folk conjunction for «если» (if): «да Грушенька коли узнает» — 'and besides, if Grushenka finds out.' Dostoevsky gives Mitya this homely 'if' in his self-tormenting inner monologue. «узнает» is the perfective future.

Итак, где же взять средства, где взять эти роковые деньги?  
And so, where was he to get the means, where was he to get this fateful money?
> Infinitive question with insistent «же»: «где же взять?» uses a bare infinitive «взять» (to get) in a deliberative question — 'where is one to get?' — with «же» adding exasperated insistence. The dative subject is unexpressed but understood (where is *he* to get); the repetition «где… где» drives the anguish.

Иначе всё пропадет и ничего не состоится, «и единственно потому, что не хватило денег, о позор!»  
Otherwise everything would be lost and nothing would come about, "and solely because there was not money enough — oh, the shame of it!"
> Perfective futures of ruin: «пропадёт» (will be lost) and «состоится» (will come off, -ся) are perfective simple futures, each a single irreversible outcome. «ничего не состоится» is negative concord — 'nothing will come about.'
> Impersonal «не хватило» + genitive: «не хватило денег» is the impersonal 'there was not enough': the neuter «хватило» takes no nominative subject, and «денег» stands in the genitive (genitive of negation / partitive shortfall) — 'money was not enough.' A very common idiom of lack.

Забегаю вперед: то-то и есть, что он, может быть, и знал, где достать эти деньги, знал, может быть, где и лежат они.  
I run ahead of myself: the thing is precisely that he, perhaps, did know where to get this money, knew, perhaps, where it even lay.
> «то-то и есть» — 'that's just the thing': A set colloquial phrase meaning 'that's precisely the point / that's just it.' The narrator uses it to flag the crux. «Забегаю вперёд» ('I run ahead [of myself]') likewise signals the chronicler tipping his hand about what is to come.
> Embedded «где» with aspect contrast: «где достать» (perfective infinitive — where to get it, one act) sits beside «где… лежат они» (imperfective present — where they lie, an ongoing state). The hedging «может быть» repeated, and «и» before «лежат» ('where they even lie'), build the narrator's teasing suspense.

Подробнее на этот раз ничего не скажу, ибо потом всё объяснится; но вот в чем состояла главная для него беда, и хотя неясно, но я это выскажу; чтобы взять эти лежащие где-то средства, чтобы иметь право взять их, надо было предварительно возвратить три тысячи Катерине Ивановне — иначе «я карманный вор, я подлец, а новую жизнь я не хочу начинать подлецом», — решил Митя, а потому решил перевернуть весь мир, если надо, но непременно эти три тысячи отдать Катерине Ивановне во что бы то ни стало и прежде всего.  
I shall say nothing more about it this time, for it will all be explained later; but here is what his chief trouble consisted in, and though obscurely, I will speak it out: in order to take this money that lay somewhere, in order to have the right to take it, he had first to return the three thousand to Katerina Ivanovna — otherwise "I am a pickpocket, I am a scoundrel, and I do not wish to begin a new life as a scoundrel," Mitya decided, and so he resolved to turn the whole world upside down if need be, but without fail to give these three thousand back to Katerina Ivanovna whatever it might cost, and before all else.
> Archaic «ибо» + reflexive future: «ибо» is the bookish/archaic conjunction for «потому что / так как» (for, because), a marker of elevated 19th-century prose. «объяснится» is the -ся perfective future, 'it will be explained / will become clear' of itself.
> Purpose «чтобы» + impersonal necessity: Two parallel «чтобы» + infinitive purpose clauses ('in order to take… in order to have the right') feed into the impersonal «надо было… возвратить» (it was necessary to return). The whole logical scaffold of Mitya's resolve is built on purpose and necessity.
> The idiom «во что бы то ни стало»: A frozen concessive idiom, lit. 'whatever it might come to,' meaning 'at all costs, come what may.' It preserves the irrealis «бы» and concessive «ни» fossilized into a single set phrase — Mitya will repay Katerina Ivanovna 'whatever it might cost.'

Окончательный процесс этого решения произошел с ним, так сказать, в самые последние часы его жизни, именно с последнего свидания с Алешей, два дня тому назад вечером, на дороге, после того как Грушенька оскорбила Катерину Ивановну, а Митя, выслушав рассказ о том от Алеши, сознался, что он подлец, и велел передать это Катерине Ивановне, «если это может сколько-нибудь ее облегчить».  
The final working out of this decision came to him, so to speak, in the very last hours of his life — namely, from the time of his last meeting with Alyosha, two days before, in the evening, on the road, after Grushenka had insulted Katerina Ivanovna, and Mitya, having heard the account of it from Alyosha, confessed himself a scoundrel and bade him pass this on to Katerina Ivanovna, "if it can ease her in any way."
> Perfective past gerund «выслушав»: prior action: «выслушав» (having heard out) is a perfective past gerund in -в, marking an action completed before the main verbs «сознался»/«велел» — the standard way Russian stacks 'having done X, he did Y.' It shares Mitya as subject.
> «велеть» + infinitive: an order relayed: «велел передать» — «велеть» (to bid, order) plus the perfective infinitive «передать» (to pass on): he bade [Alyosha] convey it. Subordinate «если это может… её облегчить» softens the command with a perfective infinitive of result.

Тогда же, в ту ночь, расставшись с братом, почувствовал он в исступлении своем, что лучше даже «убить и ограбить кого-нибудь, но долг Кате возвратить».  
Then too, on that very night, having parted from his brother, he felt in his frenzy that it would be better even "to kill and rob somebody, but to pay back the debt to Katya."
> Comparative «лучше» framing the moral choice: «лучше… убить… но… возвратить» — the predicative comparative «лучше» (better) governs a string of perfective infinitives: better to kill and rob than fail to repay. The aspect makes each a single imagined deed; the structure stages Mitya's terrible logic.
> «Катя» — the intimate name: Inside his frenzied thought Mitya shrinks the formal «Катерина Ивановна» to the bare diminutive «Катя» (dative «Кате»). The slide from full name-and-patronymic in the narration to «Катя» in his interior cry marks how close, and how guiltily, he holds her.

«Пусть уж лучше я пред тем, убитым и ограбленным, убийцей и вором выйду и пред всеми людьми, и в Сибирь пойду, чем если Катя вправе будет сказать, что я ей изменил, и у нее же деньги украл, и на ее же деньги с Грушенькой убежал добродетельную жизнь начинать!  
"Let me rather stand before that man, killed and robbed, as a murderer and a thief, and before all people, and go off to Siberia, than that Katya should have the right to say that I betrayed her, and stole her money, and ran off on her own money with Grushenka to begin a virtuous life!
> Hortative «пусть» + perfective future comparison: «пусть… я… выйду… и… пойду… чем» — «пусть» ('let, may') introduces a third-person/first-person concession with perfective futures «выйду», «пойду», set against «чем» ('than'). 'Let me rather turn out a murderer… than that Katya should have the right…' — the whole self-sentencing built on let-X-rather-than-Y.
> Past passive participles and predicate instrumentals: «убитым и ограбленным» are past passive participles in the instrumental (qualifying «пред тем», the man), while «убийцей и вором» are predicate instrumentals after «выйду» — the roles Mitya would 'come out as.' Both leverage the instrumental: of state and of assumed role.

Этого не могу!»  
That I cannot do!"
> Genitive of negation with a clipped verb: «Этого не могу!» — the object «это» becomes genitive «этого» under the negated «не могу» (with «сделать», to do, understood). Genitive of negation plus the dropped infinitive give the line its abrupt, broken-off force: 'That I cannot [do]!'

Так со скрежетом зубов изрек Митя и действительно мог представить себе временами, что кончит воспалением в мозгу.  
So Mitya pronounced, grinding his teeth, and at times he could indeed picture himself ending in brain fever.
> Inversion and the Slavonic verb «изрёк»: «изрёк» is an elevated, Church-Slavonic-flavoured verb 'pronounced, uttered' (cf. «речь», «рече»), lending Mitya's outburst a mock-scriptural solemnity. The verb-before-subject order «изрёк Митя» is the standard inversion after direct speech.

Но пока боролся…  
But meanwhile he kept struggling…
> «пока» + imperfective of ongoing struggle: «пока боролся» — «пока» ('while, meanwhile') with the imperfective past «боролся» (was struggling, -ся) names the durative background. The trailing ellipsis leaves the struggle unresolved, suspended mid-action.

Странное дело: казалось бы, что тут при таком решении, кроме отчаяния, ничего уже более для него не оставалось; ибо где взять вдруг такие деньги, да еще такому голышу, как он?  
A strange thing: one would have thought that, with such a decision, nothing was left for him but despair; for where was he suddenly to get such money, and a pauper like him at that?
> «казалось бы» — 'one would have thought': «казалось бы» fuses the impersonal «казалось» (it seemed) with «бы», a fixed expression introducing an expectation about to be overturned: 'one would have thought…' It signals the narrator setting up a surprise (his persisting hope despite all reason).
> Infinitive question with dative subject: «где взять… такому голышу, как он?» — the deliberative infinitive «взять» with its logical subject in the dative «такому голышу» (such a pauper). The dative-plus-infinitive is the classic frame for 'where is X to get?'; «да ещё» adds 'and on top of that.'
> «голыш» — a stark pauper: «голыш» (dative «голышу»), from «голый» (naked, bare), is a vivid colloquial word for a penniless, stripped-bare wretch. 'A pauper like him' — but more pungent: a man with literally nothing.

А между тем он до конца всё то время надеялся, что достанет эти три тысячи, что они придут, слетят к нему как-нибудь сами, даже хоть с неба.  
And yet, to the very end, all that time, he kept hoping that he would obtain these three thousand, that they would come, would fly down to him of themselves somehow, even from the sky.
> Imperfective hope, perfective-future arrivals: «надеялся» (imperfective, durative 'kept hoping') frames embedded perfective futures «достанет», «придут», «слетят» — the single hoped-for events. The aspectual play sets ongoing hope against imagined sudden windfall.
> Prefixed motion verb + intensifier «сами»: «слетят» is a prefixed perfective of motion (с- + лететь, 'fly down'), giving precise direction; «к нему» is «к» + dative ('toward him'). «сами» ('of themselves') personifies the money, fluttering down on its own «даже хоть с неба» (even from the sky) — Mitya's magical thinking laid bare.

Но так именно бывает с теми, которые, как и Дмитрий Федорович, всю жизнь свою умеют лишь тратить и мотать доставшиеся по наследству деньги даром, а о том, как добываются деньги, не имеют никакого понятия.  
But that is exactly how it is with those who, like Dmitri Fyodorovich, know all their lives only how to spend and squander money that has come down to them by inheritance, for nothing, and who have no notion at all of how money is got.
> Correlative demonstrative + relative: «с теми, которые…» pairs the demonstrative «тот» (here instrumental plural «теми» after «с») with the relative «который», meaning 'with those who…'. The demonstrative is the antecedent inside the main clause; «которые» then opens its own clause taking nominative because it is the subject of «умеют».
> Past active participle as modifier: «доставшиеся» is a past active participle from perfective «достаться» ('to fall to one's lot'), agreeing with «деньги» — literally 'the money that had come down [to them]'. Such a participle compresses a «который»-clause into one bookish adjective-like word, a hallmark of Dostoevsky's narration.
> -ся as imperfective passive: «добываются» (from «добывать», 'to obtain, extract') carries the clitic «-ся» to form an impersonal/passive 'how money gets got'. The «-ся» passive is reserved for the imperfective and frames a general process with no named agent.
> Negative concord and genitive of negation: The ни-word «никакого» reinforces the verbal «не» (negative concord — two negatives, one meaning), and the negated object «понятия» stands in the genitive, the genitive of negation. The idiom «не иметь понятия» means 'to have no idea'.

Самый фантастический вихрь поднялся в голове его сейчас после того, как он третьего дня расстался с Алешей, и спутал все его мысли.  
The most fantastic whirlwind rose up in his head right after he parted from Alyosha two days before, and tangled all his thoughts.
> A whirlwind of the mind: «вихрь» is a whirlwind or vortex; paired with «фантастический» it figures the chaotic, fantastical swirl of Mitya's thoughts. «Фантастический» is a favourite Dostoevskian word for the wild, near-delirious, larger-than-life quality of his characters' inner states.
> 'The day before yesterday': «третьего дня» is a fixed genitive-of-time phrase meaning 'two days ago / the day before yesterday' (literally 'of the third day'). It is somewhat dated and literary, exactly the register of 1860s prose.
> Perfective pair moving the action: Both verbs are perfective («подняться», «спутать»), narrating two single completed events — the whirlwind rose up and tangled his thoughts — that push the story forward against the imperfective background.

Таким образом вышло, что начал он с самого дикого предприятия.  
Thus it came about that he began with the wildest of undertakings.
> Impersonal 'it came about that': «вышло, что…» is an impersonal neuter-past construction ('it turned out / came about that'), with no nominative subject, introducing a «что»-clause. Inside it the inverted order «начал он» (verb before pronoun) is normal narrative rhythm.
> Genitive after с and superlative weight: «с» here governs the genitive «дикого предприятия» ('with the wildest of undertakings'). «самого» is the intensifier 'the very' reinforcing the elative force of «дикого» — 'the wildest of all'.

Да, может быть, именно в этаких положениях у этаких людей самые невозможные и фантастические предприятия представляются первыми возможнейшими.  
Yes, perhaps it is precisely in such predicaments, and with such people, that the most impossible and fantastic undertakings present themselves as the first to seem the most feasible.
> Colloquial 'such': «этакий» is a folksy, expressive variant of «такой» ('such, that sort of'). Repeated here («в этаких положениях у этаких людей») it lends the narrator a chatty, knowing tone.
> -ся middle + bookish superlative: «представляются» ('present themselves, appear', a middle «-ся» verb) takes the instrumental predicates «первыми… возможнейшими». «возможнейшими» is the bookish suffixal superlative in «-ейш-» ('the most feasible'), characteristic of elevated 19th-century style.
> Instrumental of the predicate: After «представляться» the predicate nouns/adjectives go in the instrumental, not the nominative — «первыми возможнейшими» frames how the undertakings appear (as the most feasible), the instrumental of the predicate.

Он вдруг порешил пойти к купцу Самсонову, покровителю Грушеньки, и предложить ему один «план», достать от него под этот «план» разом всю искомую сумму; в плане своем с коммерческой стороны он не сомневался нисколько, а сомневался лишь в том, как посмотрит на его выходку сам Самсонов, если захочет взглянуть не с одной только коммерческой стороны.  
He suddenly resolved to go to the merchant Samsonov, Grushenka's protector, and to lay before him a certain "plan," to get from him, on the strength of this "plan," the whole sum he was after at one stroke; of his plan on the commercial side he had not the slightest doubt — he doubted only how Samsonov himself would look upon his escapade, should he choose to view it from any side but the commercial one.
> Perfective verb governing infinitives: The perfective «порешил» ('resolved') governs a chain of perfective infinitives — «пойти», «предложить», «достать» — each naming a single intended completed act. The prefixed «по-» on «решить» adds a sense of finally making up one's mind.
> Reflexive свой and contrastive а: «в плане своем» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('his own [plan]'), pointing back to the subject. The hinge «а» ('but, whereas') sets the antithesis: he doubted nothing on the commercial side, whereas he doubted only how Samsonov would view it — a gentle contrast, not flat opposition.
> 'Escapade, antic': «выходка» is an outburst, prank, or unseemly stunt — a deed that breaks decorum. Mitya wryly applies it to his own scheme, anticipating that Samsonov may see it as just such a piece of effrontery.

Митя хоть и знал этого купца в лицо, но знаком с ним не был и даже ни разу не говорил с ним.  
Though Mitya knew this merchant by sight, he was not acquainted with him and had never once even spoken with him.
> Concessive 'though… yet': «хоть и… но…» is a paired concessive frame ('though X, yet Y'): though Mitya knew the merchant by sight, still he was not acquainted with him. «хоть» is a reduced «хотя».
> Short adjective + instrumental of accompaniment: «знаком» is the short predicative form of «знакомый» ('acquainted'), used here as a predicate with «быть» in the past. It governs «с ним» (instrumental of the person one is acquainted with).
> Emphatic negation 'not even once': «ни разу… не» is negative concord intensified to 'not a single time'; «даже» piles on 'even'. The cumulative negatives sharpen how complete a stranger Mitya is to Samsonov.

Но почему-то в нем, и даже уже давно, основалось убеждение, что этот старый развратитель, дышащий теперь на ладан, может быть, вовсе не будет в настоящую минуту противиться, если Грушенька устроит как-нибудь свою жизнь честно и выйдет за «благонадежного человека» замуж.  
But for some reason there had taken root in him, and indeed long since, the conviction that this old debauchee, now breathing his last, would perhaps not at the present moment oppose it in the least, if Grushenka were somehow to arrange her life honorably and marry "a trustworthy man."
> -ся middle: a conviction 'took root': «основалось» (perfective «основаться» + «-ся») is the middle/intransitive 'became established, took root', with «убеждение» ('conviction') as its grammatical subject. Russian favours this agentless framing for inner states that seem to settle of themselves.
> Idiom: 'breathing his last': «дышать на ладан» literally 'to breathe upon the incense' — an idiom from Orthodox funeral practice (incense, «ладан», burned over the dying and dead) meaning to be at death's door. «дышащий» is its present active participle, modifying «развратитель».
> Perfective future in a real condition: In the «если»-clause the perfective verbs «устроит» and «выйдет» are conjugated like the present but carry future meaning — the simple (perfective) future. They name single completed hypotheticals: 'if she should arrange… and marry'.
> 'A trustworthy / reliable man': «благонадёжный» means 'dependable, of good standing' — and in the period also carried the bureaucratic sense of 'politically reliable'. Mitya's ironic quotation marks flag it as the respectable label he hopes to wear.

И что не только не будет противиться, но что и сам желает того и, навернись только случай, сам будет способствовать.  
And that he would not only not oppose it, but would himself even desire it and, should the occasion only present itself, would himself lend a hand.
> Correlative 'not only… but': «не только… но (и)…» coordinates a rising pair: not only would he not oppose it, but he himself even wishes it. «не будет противиться» is the compound (imperfective) future with «быть».
> Imperative form as condition: «навернись… случай» uses an imperative-shaped form («навернись», from «навернуться») in a conditional sense — 'should the occasion only turn up'. This use of a bare imperative to mean 'if it happens that…' is an idiomatic, expressive turn.

По слухам ли каким или из каких-нибудь слов Грушеньки, но он заключил тоже, что старик, может быть, предпочел бы его для Грушеньки Федору Павловичу.  
Whether from some rumors or from certain words of Grushenka's, he had also concluded that the old man would perhaps prefer him to Fyodor Pavlovich for Grushenka.
> Disjunctive ли… или and indefinite -нибудь: «ли… или…» frames an alternative ('whether from… or from…'). «каким» and «каких-нибудь» are indefinite: «-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'some words or other'.
> Conditional бы + comparison in the dative: «предпочёл бы» is the conditional (past form + «бы»), 'would prefer'. «предпочесть» takes the preferred thing in the accusative («его») and the thing set below it in the dative («Фёдору Павловичу») — 'prefer him to Fyodor Pavlovich'.

Может быть, многим из читателей нашей повести покажется этот расчет на подобную помощь и намерение взять свою невесту, так сказать, из рук ее покровителя слишком уж грубым и небрезгливым со стороны Дмитрия Федоровича.  
Perhaps to many of the readers of our tale this reckoning on such help, and the intention of taking his bride, so to speak, from the hands of her protector, will seem all too coarse and unscrupulous on the part of Dmitri Fyodorovich.
> Dative experiencer with покажется: «покажется» ('will seem') takes a dative of the one to whom it seems — «многим из читателей» ('to many of the readers') — with the thing that seems («расчёт… и намерение») as nominative subject. This dative-experiencer framing is pervasive in the novel.
> Instrumental predicate after покажется: The qualities the scheme 'will seem' stand in the instrumental — «грубым и небрезгливым» — the instrumental of the predicate after «показаться». «уж» is an intensifying particle reinforcing «слишком».

Могу заметить лишь то, что прошлое Грушеньки представлялось Мите уже окончательно прошедшим.  
I can only remark that to Mitya, Grushenka's past appeared by now to be definitively past.
> -ся verb + double dative/instrumental: «представлялось» ('appeared, presented itself', «-ся» middle) takes the experiencer in the dative («Мите») and the predicate in the instrumental («прошедшим», 'as past'). The wordplay «прошлое… прошедшим» ('the past… as having passed') is deliberate.

Он глядел на это прошлое с бесконечным состраданием и решил со всем пламенем своей страсти, что раз Грушенька выговорит ему, что его любит и за него идет, то тотчас же и начнется совсем новая Грушенька, а вместе с нею и совсем новый Дмитрий Федорович, безо всяких уже пороков, а лишь с одними добродетелями: оба они друг другу простят и начнут свою жизнь уже совсем по-новому.  
He looked upon that past with boundless compassion and decided, with all the flame of his passion, that once Grushenka had told him she loved him and was going with him, then at that very instant a completely new Grushenka would begin, and along with her a completely new Dmitri Fyodorovich as well, free now of every vice, with virtues alone: the two of them would forgive each other and would begin their life in a wholly new way.
> Conditional 'раз… то' with perfective future: «раз… то…» means 'once / as soon as… then…'. The perfective futures «выговорит» and «начнётся» name single completed events to come — once she has spoken, a wholly new Grushenka will begin. The «и» after «то» is emphatic ('then at once shall begin').
> Idiom: 'is going with / marrying him': «идти за кого» (here «за него идёт») is short for «выходить замуж за кого» — 'to marry [a man]', said of the woman. The bare present «идёт» reads as a vivid near-future in Mitya's imagining.
> Vices and virtues: «пороки» (vices) versus «добродетели» (virtues) frames Mitya's fantasy of moral rebirth in a near-religious, all-or-nothing register. «безо» is the expanded form of «без» before a consonant cluster; «с одними добродетелями» = 'with virtues alone'.
> Adverb 'in a new way': «по-новому» ('anew, in a new way') is the «по-…-ому» adverbial pattern (cf. «по-немецки», «по-русски»). Mitya's hope to begin life «совсем по-новому» distils the novel's theme of moral regeneration.

Что же до Кузьмы Самсонова, то считал он его, в этом прежнем провалившемся прошлом Грушеньки, за человека в жизни ее рокового, которого она, однако, никогда не любила и который, это главное, уже тоже «прошел», кончился, так что и его уже нет теперь вовсе.  
As for Kuzma Samsonov, he regarded him, in this former, failed past of Grushenka's, as a man fateful in her life whom she had nevertheless never loved and who — this was the chief thing — had already "passed" too, was finished, so that now he no longer existed at all.
> Topic frame 'as for…': «что (же) до… то…» is a set topicalising frame, 'as for X…, [then]…', lifting Kuzma Samsonov out as the new topic before the comment follows. The particle «же» lends it a contrastive, here's-the-next-point feel.
> Idiom считать за + accusative: «считать кого за кого» ('to regard someone as…') governs the accusative — «его… за человека… рокового». The animate-masculine accusative «человека» borrows the genitive ending, by animacy.
> Two relatives, two cases: A single antecedent («человека») feeds two «который»-clauses: «которого» is accusative/genitive (the object of «любила» under negation), while «который» is nominative (subject of «прошёл»). Each relative takes the case its own clause demands.

Да к тому же Митя его даже и за человека теперь считать не мог, ибо известно было всем и каждому в городе, что это лишь больная развалина, сохранившая отношения с Грушенькой, так сказать, лишь отеческие, а совсем не на тех основаниях, как прежде, и что это уже давно так, уже почти год как так.  
And besides, Mitya could no longer even count him a man now, for it was known to everyone in town that he was only an ailing wreck, who kept up relations with Grushenka, so to speak, of a merely fatherly sort, on quite different terms than before — and that it had been so for a long while now, for nearly a year.
> Negated 'could not count him a man': «не мог считать его за человека» — the negated modal «не мог» governs the imperfective infinitive «считать». The imperfective fits the ongoing inability; «за человека» again is the идиом «считать за».
> Bookish ибо + dative of the knower: «ибо» is the archaic, elevated conjunction 'for, because', a marker of 19th-century literary register. «известно (было)» is an impersonal predicate with the daters «всем и каждому» ('to one and all') — a dative-experiencer construction.
> 'An ailing wreck': «развалина» is literally a ruin or pile of rubble; applied to a person it means a physical wreck. With «больная» ('sick') it paints Samsonov as a crumbling old ruin of a man.
> Past active participle 'who had kept up': «сохранившая» (from perfective «сохранить») is a past active participle agreeing with «развалина» (fem.) — 'who had preserved / kept up relations'. It folds a relative clause into one word.

Во всяком случае тут было много и простодушия со стороны Мити, ибо при всех пороках своих это был очень простодушный человек.  
In any case there was much simplehearted naivety in this on Mitya's part, for, with all his vices, he was a very simplehearted man.
> Quantifier много + genitive: «много простодушия» — the quantifier «много» governs the genitive «простодушия» ('of naivety'). With «было» it forms the existential 'there was much…', a partitive-quantity use of the genitive.
> 'Simple-heartedness': «простодушный» (lit. 'simple-souled') means guileless, naive, open-hearted — a key, sympathetic term for Mitya. Dostoevsky returns to it insistently here («простодушия… простодушный…») to fix it as Mitya's defining trait beneath all his vices.

Вследствие этого-то простодушия своего он, между прочим, был серьезно убежден, что старый Кузьма, собираясь отходить в другой мир, чувствует искреннее раскаяние за свое прошлое с Грушенькой, и что нет теперь у нее покровителя и друга более преданного, как этот безвредный уже старик.  
As a consequence of this very naivety of his, he was, among other things, seriously convinced that old Kuzma, about to depart for the other world, felt sincere repentance for his past with Grushenka, and that she had now no protector and friend more devoted than this by now harmless old man.
> Present gerund 'being about to': «собираясь» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) from «собираться» ('to be about to, prepare to'), expressing circumstance simultaneous with the main verb — 'old Kuzma, being on the point of departing… felt repentance'. It shares the main clause's subject.
> Genitive of negation in existential нет: With «нет» ('there is no'), the thing that is absent stands in the genitive: «нет… друга более преданного» — 'there is no more devoted friend'. «более преданного» is the analytic comparative ('more devoted').

На другой же день после разговора своего с Алешей в поле, после которого Митя почти не спал всю ночь, он явился в дом Самсонова около десяти часов утра и велел о себе доложить.  
The very next day after his conversation with Alyosha in the field — after which Mitya had scarcely slept all night — he presented himself at Samsonov's house at about ten in the morning and asked to be announced.
> Genitive after после + relative: «после» governs the genitive twice: «после разговора» and «после которого», where the relative «который» itself sits in the genitive demanded by the preposition. «своего» is the reflexive possessive 'his own'.
> Reflexive себя in oblique case: «о себе» is the prepositional of the reflexive pronoun «себя», pointing back to Mitya — 'ordered [them] to announce about himself'. «велеть» + infinitive ('to order to…') governs the impersonal «доложить».

Дом этот был старый, мрачный, очень обширный, двухэтажный, с надворными строениями и с флигелем.  
The house was old, gloomy, very spacious, of two stories, with outbuildings and a wing.
> Postposed demonstrative as topic marker: «Дом этот» (noun before the demonstrative «этот») marks the house as the established topic — 'the house [in question]' — typical of Russian's topic-first ordering. A string of long-form adjectives then predicates its qualities.
> Outbuildings and a wing: «надворные строения» are the outbuildings around a courtyard («двор»); a «флигель» is a detached side-wing or annex of a large house. Both belong to the architecture of a substantial provincial merchant's estate.

В нижнем этаже проживали два женатые сына Самсонова со своими семействами, престарелая сестра его и одна незамужняя дочь.  
On the lower floor lived Samsonov's two married sons with their families, his aged sister, and one unmarried daughter.
> Genitive singular after два: After «два» the counted noun takes the genitive singular «сына», by the rule that 2–4 govern the genitive singular. The accompanying adjective here appears in «-ые» («женатые»), an older/literary plural option beside modern «женатых».
> 'Aged' and 'unmarried': «престарелый» is 'very aged, advanced in years'; «незамужняя» (of a woman) is 'unmarried' (lit. 'not behind a husband'). The cluster sketches the dependent household ranged below Samsonov.

Во флигеле же помещались два его приказчика, из которых один был тоже многосемейный.  
In the wing lived his two clerks, one of whom likewise had a large family.
> Partitive из + relative: «из которых один» ('one of whom') uses «из» + genitive of the relative «который» for the partitive 'of whom'. «многосемейный» ('having a large family') is a compound adjective, lit. 'many-family-ed'.

И дети, и приказчики теснились в своих помещениях, но верх дома занимал старик один и не пускал к себе жить даже дочь, ухаживавшую за ним и которая в определенные часы и в неопределенные зовы его должна была каждый раз взбегать к нему наверх снизу, несмотря на давнишнюю одышку свою.  
And the children and the clerks were all cramped into their quarters, but the upper part of the house was occupied by the old man alone, who would not even let his daughter live with him — though she nursed him and, at appointed hours and at unappointed summonses, had each time to run up to him from below, despite the shortness of breath she had long suffered.
> Past active participle in agreement: «ухаживавшую» (imperfective past active participle from «ухаживать за», 'to tend, nurse') agrees with «дочь» in feminine accusative — 'the daughter who nursed him'. «к себе» is the reflexive 'to his own [place]'.
> Obligation 'had to' + imperfective: «должна была… взбегать» expresses repeated obligation; the imperfective «взбегать» ('to run up') fits the habitual 'each time'. Note the paired directional adverbs «наверх» (upward) and «снизу» (from below).
> 'Shortness of breath': «одышка» is breathlessness, dyspnea. «давнишнюю одышку свою» — 'her long-standing shortness of breath' — underscores the old man's casual cruelty in making the ailing daughter climb to him.

Этот «верх» состоял из множества больших парадных комнат, меблированных по купеческой старине, с длинными скучными рядами неуклюжих кресел и стульев красного дерева по стенам, с хрустальными люстрами в чехлах, с угрюмыми зеркалами в простенках.  
This "upper part" consisted of a multitude of large state rooms, furnished in the old merchant style, with long, dreary rows of clumsy armchairs and mahogany chairs along the walls, with crystal chandeliers in dust-covers, and with grim mirrors set in the piers between the windows.
> Past passive participle 'furnished': «меблированных» is a past passive participle (from «меблировать», 'to furnish') agreeing with «комнат» in genitive plural — 'rooms furnished…'. Such passive participles describe the thing acted upon.
> Mahogany and piers: «красное дерево» is mahogany; «простенок» is the stretch of wall (pier) between two windows. The «угрюмые зеркала в простенках» (grim mirrors set between the windows) are part of the dreary state-room inventory.

Все эти комнаты стояли совсем пустыми и необитаемыми, потому что больной старик жался лишь в одной комнатке, в отдаленной маленькой своей спаленке, где прислуживала ему старуха служанка, с волосами в платочке, да «малый», пребывавший на залавке в передней.  
All these rooms stood quite empty and uninhabited, for the sick old man kept squeezed into a single little room, into his remote little bedchamber, where an old serving-woman with her hair in a kerchief waited on him, along with a "lad" who took up his post on a bench-chest in the entryway.
> стоять + instrumental predicate: «стоять» here means 'to stand [in a state]' and takes its predicate in the instrumental — «пустыми и необитаемыми» ('empty and uninhabited'). The instrumental frames the state the rooms remain in.
> Diminutives of pity and smallness: «спаленка» (little bedchamber, from «спальня») and «комнатка» (little room) are diminutives that both shrink the space and lend a tender, slightly pitying note — the great house dwindling to one snug cell where the sick old man huddles.
> The 'lad' on the bench-chest: «малый» here is a young male servant or errand-boy. A «залавок» is a long chest-bench (storage box doubling as a seat) in the «передняя» (entrance hall). «пребывавший» is a past active participle, 'who stayed / had his post'.

Ходить старик из-за распухших ног своих почти совсем уже не мог и только изредка поднимался со своих кожаных кресел, и старуха, придерживая его под руки, проводила его раз-другой по комнате.  
Because of his swollen legs the old man could scarcely walk at all anymore and only rarely rose from his leather armchair, and the old woman, supporting him under the arms, would lead him once or twice across the room.
> Causal из-за + negated ability: «из-за» ('because of') governs the genitive «распухших ног» ('swollen legs'); «распухших» is a past active participle. The piled-up adverbs «почти совсем уже не» ('almost altogether no longer') soften the negation of «мог ходить» into near-total incapacity.
> Present gerund of manner: «придерживая» (imperfective present gerund of «придерживать», 'to support, hold up') gives the simultaneous manner of the main verb — 'the old woman, supporting him under the arms, would lead him'. The gerund shares the main subject (the old woman).

Был он строг и неразговорчив даже с этою старухой.  
He was stern and taciturn even with this old woman.
> Short adjectives as predicate: «строг» and «неразговорчив» are short-form adjectives, used here predicatively after «был» — 'he was stern and taciturn'. The short form is the bookish, predicative choice favoured in literary prose. Inverted «Был он…» foregrounds the verb.

Когда доложили ему о приходе «капитана», он тотчас же велел отказать.  
When the arrival of the "captain" was announced to him, he at once gave orders to refuse him.
> Impersonal 'they announced': «доложили» (3rd person plural, no subject) is the impersonal 'one/they announced' — Russian's way of leaving an indefinite agent unnamed. «велел отказать» ('ordered [them] to refuse') governs an infinitive likewise without a stated object.

Но Митя настаивал и доложился еще раз.  
But Mitya insisted and asked to be announced once more.
> Aspect contrast: insisting vs announcing: Imperfective «настаивал» ('kept insisting', a process) is set against perfective «доложился» ('got himself announced', one completed act) — the imperfective carries the ongoing pressing, the perfective the single result.

Кузьма Кузьмич опросил подробно малого: что, дескать, каков с виду, не пьян ли?  
Kuzma Kuzmich questioned the lad in detail: what, now, was he like to look at, was he drunk?
> Reported-speech particle 'as if to say': «дескать» (and «-де», «мол») is a hearsay/quotation particle flagging reported or imagined speech — 'so to speak', 'as he put it'. The narrator threads it through Samsonov's questions to convey their second-hand, indirect quality.
> Yes/no question with ли: «не пьян ли?» fronts the focused word «пьян» (short adjective 'drunk') and follows it with the interrogative particle «ли» to form an embedded yes/no question — 'whether he was drunk'. «ли» is the literary alternative to mere question intonation.

Не буянит ли?  
Was he making a row?
> 'Making a row?': «буянить» is to brawl, kick up a rowdy fuss, behave violently — colloquial. With «ли» it continues Samsonov's terse yes/no interrogation of the lad about the unwelcome 'captain'.

И получил в ответ, что «тверез, но уходить не хочет».  
And received in answer that he was "sober, but won't go away."
> Folk pronunciation of 'sober': «тверёз» is the colloquial, lower-register short form of «трезв(ый)» ('sober'). In quotation marks it reproduces the lad's actual peasant speech, a small touch of skaz (oral storytelling flavour) in the reported answer.
> Negated wish + imperfective infinitive: «не хочет уходить» ('does not want to go away') pairs the negated «хотеть» with the imperfective infinitive «уходить», a prefixed motion verb ('to leave, depart'). The imperfective fits the persistent refusal to budge.

Старик опять велел отказать.  
Again the old man ordered him refused.
> Repetition adverb опять: «опять» ('again') marks the renewed refusal; with perfective «велел» it narrates a second discrete act of ordering. The terse, repeated «велел отказать» mirrors the old man's stubborn dismissal.

Тогда Митя, всё это предвидевший и нарочно на сей случай захвативший с собой бумагу и карандаш, четко написал на клочке бумаги одну строчку: «По самонужнейшему делу, близко касающемуся Аграфены Александровны» — и послал это старику.  
Then Mitya, who had foreseen all this and had purposely brought paper and a pencil for the occasion, wrote out clearly on a scrap of paper a single line: "On a matter of the utmost urgency, closely touching Agrafena Alexandrovna" — and sent it up to the old man.
> Two past active participles in apposition: «предвидевший» and «захвативший» are past active participles agreeing with «Митя», stacked appositively — 'Mitya, who had foreseen all this and had purposely brought along…'. Such participial chains are a signature of the elevated literary register.
> Archaic 'сей' for 'this': «сей» ('this') is the archaic, bookish demonstrative the 19th-century literary language keeps alive beside everyday «этот». «на сей случай» ('for this occasion') is a set, slightly formal turn.

Подумав несколько, старик велел малому ввести посетителя в залу, а старуху послал вниз с приказанием к младшему сыну сейчас же явиться к нему наверх.  
After a little thought, the old man told the lad to show the visitor into the hall, and sent the old woman down with an order to his younger son to come up to him at once.
> Perfective past gerund 'having thought': «Подумав» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) from «подумать» — 'having thought a little'. The perfective gerund marks an action completed before the main verb «велел», sharing its subject (the old man).
> Causative велел + infinitive, parallel commands: «велел… ввести» ('ordered [the lad] to bring in') governs an infinitive; the parallel clause «а старуху послал…» pivots on contrastive «а». «к младшему сыну сейчас же явиться» nests a further command (an order to the son to appear).

Этот младший сын, мужчина вершков двенадцати и силы непомерной, бривший лицо и одевавшийся по-немецки (сам Самсонов ходил в кафтане и с бородой), явился немедленно и безмолвно.  
This younger son, a man of some twelve vershoks' height and immense strength, clean-shaven and dressed in the German fashion (Samsonov himself went about in a kaftan and a beard), appeared immediately and without a word.
> Coordinated past active participles: «бривший» ('who shaved [his face]') and the reflexive «одевавшийся» ('who dressed himself') are imperfective past active participles describing the son's habitual appearance. «одевавшийся» carries «-ся» as a true reflexive ('dressed himself').

Все они пред отцом трепетали.  
They all trembled before their father.
> Archaic пред + instrumental: «пред» is the bookish/archaic form of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «отцом». «трепетали» ('trembled, quaked') in the imperfective conveys the habitual, standing fear of the patriarch.

Пригласил отец этого молодца не то чтоб из страху пред капитаном, характера он был весьма неробкого, а так лишь, на всякий случай, более чтоб иметь свидетеля.  
The father summoned this strapping fellow not exactly out of any fear of the captain — his own character was anything but timid — but just so, in case of need, and rather to have a witness on hand.
> Correlative 'not exactly… but rather': «не то чтоб… а…» is a colloquial correlative 'not so much / not exactly… but rather…'. «из страху» uses «из» + genitive of cause ('out of fear'); the «-у» partitive/causal ending on «страх» is an older masculine variant.
> Genitive of quality: «характера… неробкого» is the genitive of quality (быть + genitive describing a trait) — 'he was of a far from timid character'. The fronted «характера» topicalises the trait; «весьма» ('quite, very') is a bookish intensifier.
> 'Strapping fellow': «молодец» here means a fine, sturdy young man — a vigorous strapping fellow. (With the same end-stress, молоде́ц is also the everyday praise 'well done!'; only the folk-epic 'brave youth', до́брый мо́лодец, shifts the stress to the first syllable.) It fits the huge, silent son just described.

В сопровождении сына, взявшего его под руку, и малого, он выплыл наконец в залу.  
Accompanied by his son, who had taken him by the arm, and by the lad, he at last sailed forth into the hall.
> Past active participle in the genitive: «взявшего» (perfective past active participle of «взять», 'to take') agrees with «сына» in the genitive — 'his son, who had taken him by the arm'. It nests inside the «в сопровождении…» phrase.
> 'Sailed forth': «выплыть» literally 'to swim/sail out'; of a person's gait it evokes a slow, stately, gliding entrance. Applied to the bloated, ailing Samsonov it is faintly comic-grandiose — he 'sailed forth' into the hall. «зала» is the grand reception hall.

Надо думать, что ощущал он некоторое довольно сильное любопытство.  
One must suppose that he felt a rather strong curiosity.
> Impersonal надо + 'one must suppose': «надо думать» is an impersonal, subjectless construction ('one must suppose / presumably'), a hedge the narrator uses to mark inference rather than certain knowledge. The «что»-clause «ощущал он» follows with inverted verb-pronoun order.

Зала эта, в которой ждал Митя, была огромная, угрюмая, убивавшая тоской душу комната, в два света, с хорами, со стенами «под мрамор» и с тремя огромными хрустальными люстрами в чехлах.  
The hall in which Mitya waited was an enormous, gloomy room that crushed the soul with tedium, two stories high, with a gallery, with walls done "in imitation marble," and with three enormous crystal chandeliers in dust-covers.
> Past active participle + instrumental of means: «убивавшая» is a past active participle (imperfective «убивать», 'to kill') modifying «комната» — 'a room that crushed/killed the soul'. The means stands in the instrumental: «тоской» ('with tedium/anguish'), the instrumental of instrument.
> Architectural terms: double light, a gallery: «в два света» describes a hall two stories high with two tiers of windows ('in two lights'); «хоры» is an interior gallery or upper musicians'/spectators' balcony. Together they evoke a pretentious, oppressive merchant's reception hall.

Митя сидел на стульчике у входной двери и в нервном нетерпении ждал своей участи.  
Mitya sat on a little chair by the entrance door and, in nervous impatience, awaited his fate.
> Diminutive 'little chair': «стульчик» is the diminutive of «стул» ('chair'). The small word quietly diminishes Mitya himself — the big, restless 'captain' perched on a little chair by the door, awaiting his fate.
> ждать + genitive of the awaited: «ждать» governs the genitive of the thing awaited: «своей участи» ('his [own] fate'). «своей» is again the reflexive possessive pointing to the subject Mitya.

Когда старик появился у противоположного входа, сажен за десять от стула Мити, то тот вдруг вскочил и своими твердыми, фронтовыми, аршинными шагами пошел к нему навстречу.  
When the old man appeared at the opposite entrance, some ten sazhens from Mitya's chair, the latter suddenly sprang up and went to meet him with his firm, drill-ground, yard-long strides.
> Drill-ground, yard-long strides: «фронтовой» here means 'parade-ground, drill' (from military «фронт», the front of a formation); «аршинный» means 'an arshin long' (~71 cm). The two adjectives in the instrumental render Mitya's stiff, soldierly, exaggeratedly long stride.

Одет был Митя прилично, в застегнутом сюртуке, с круглою шляпой в руках и в черных перчатках, точь-в-точь как был дня три тому назад в монастыре, у старца, на семейном свидании с Федором Павловичем и с братьями.  
Mitya was decently dressed, in a buttoned frock coat, with a round hat in his hands and in black gloves, exactly as he had been some three days before at the monastery, at the elder's, at the family meeting with Fyodor Pavlovich and his brothers.
> The buttoned frock coat: A «сюртук» is a frock coat, formal day wear for a gentleman of the period. «застёгнутый» ('buttoned [up]') is a past passive participle; the buttoned coat and black gloves mark Mitya's effort to present himself correctly.
> 'Exactly, to a T': «точь-в-точь» is an expressive reduplicated adverb meaning 'exactly, precisely, just as' — emphasising that Mitya is dressed identically to three days before. The doubling is characteristic of colloquial intensifiers.

Старик важно и строго ожидал его стоя, и Митя разом почувствовал, что, пока он подходил, тот его всего рассмотрел.  
The old man awaited him standing, with dignity and severity, and Mitya felt at once that, while he was approaching, the man had looked him over from head to foot.
> Frozen gerund стоя: «стоя» ('standing') is the imperfective present gerund of «стоять», long lexicalised as an adverb of manner — 'awaited him [while] standing'. It is one of a handful of gerunds («стоя, сидя, лёжа, молча») that function as plain adverbs.
> пока + imperfective vs perfective result: «пока он подходил» (imperfective «подходить», 'while he was approaching') gives the ongoing frame inside which the perfective «рассмотрел» ('looked [him] over completely') is the single completed act. «всего» ('him entirely, head to foot') intensifies the scrutiny.

Поразило тоже Митю чрезвычайно опухшее за последнее время лицо Кузьмы Кузьмича: нижняя и без того толстая губа его казалась теперь какою-то отвисшею лепешкой.  
Mitya was also struck by Kuzma Kuzmich's face, which had grown extraordinarily swollen of late: his lower lip, thick to begin with, now looked like some sagging flapjack.
> Object-first word order: The verb «поразило» ('struck') and object «Митю» come first, with the grammatical subject «лицо» ('the face') held to the end as the new, weighty information — Russian's topic-comment freedom in action, putting the swollen face in focus.
> 'A sagging flapjack': A «лепёшка» is a flat round cake or pancake; «отвисшая лепёшка» ('a drooping flapjack') is the grotesque simile for Samsonov's pendulous lower lip. «отвисшею» is an older instrumental-feminine ending («-ею» for «-ей»), common in 19th-century print.

Важно и молча поклонился он гостю, указал ему на кресло подле дивана, а сам медленно, опираясь на руку сына и болезненно кряхтя, стал усаживаться напротив Мити на диван, так что тот, видя болезненные усилия его, немедленно почувствовал в сердце своем раскаяние и деликатный стыд за свое теперешнее ничтожество пред столь важным им обеспокоенным лицом.  
Gravely and in silence he bowed to his guest, motioned him to an armchair beside the sofa, and himself, slowly, leaning on his son's arm and groaning painfully, began to lower himself onto the sofa opposite Mitya, so that the latter, seeing his painful efforts, immediately felt in his heart a repentance and a delicate shame for his own present nothingness before so imposing a person whom he had put to such trouble.
> Two simultaneous gerunds: «опираясь» ('leaning') and «кряхтя» ('groaning') are imperfective present gerunds giving the attendant manner of the main act «стал усаживаться» ('began to lower himself'). Both share the subject (Samsonov). «кряхтеть» is an expressive verb for an old man's pained grunting.
> Causal present gerund: «видя» ('seeing', imperfective present gerund of «видеть») gives the cause/circumstance for Mitya's reaction — 'seeing his painful efforts, he immediately felt…'. It is one of the chain of deepričastija structuring this long sentence.
> Repentance, shame, nothingness: «раскаяние» (repentance, contrition) and «стыд» (shame) before «столь важным… лицом» key into the novel's moral vocabulary; «ничтожество» ('insignificance, nothingness') is Mitya's sudden self-abasement. «столь» ('so') is a bookish, elevated synonym of «так».

— Что вам, сударь, от меня угодно? — проговорил, усевшись наконец, старик, медленно, раздельно, строго, но вежливо.  
"What is it, sir, that you wish of me?" said the old man, having at last seated himself, slowly, distinctly, severely, but courteously.
> Polite 'сударь' and 'угодно': «сударь» is the period's polite form of address ('sir'), now archaic. «что вам угодно?» ('what do you wish?', lit. 'what is pleasing to you?') is a formal, slightly cold courtesy — Samsonov keeps Mitya at icy, ceremonious distance.
> Dative-experiencer with угодно: «угодно» is an impersonal predicative governing a dative of the person — «вам угодно» ('it is pleasing to you / you wish'). There is no nominative subject; the wished-for thing is the «что». A classic dative-subject construction.
> Perfective past gerund 'having seated himself': «усевшись» is a perfective past gerund (from reflexive «усесться», 'to settle oneself down'), marking the action completed just before he speaks. The «-ся» is a true reflexive ('seated himself').

Митя вздрогнул, вскочил было, но сел опять.  
Mitya gave a start, half rose, but sat down again.
> The particle было: a cut-short action: «было» as a particle (not the verb 'was') marks an action begun but immediately undone or interrupted — «вскочил было» = 'started to jump up [but]…'. The «но сел опять» completes the reversal: he half-rose, then sat back down.

Затем тотчас же стал говорить громко, быстро, нервно, с жестами и в решительном исступлении.  
Then at once he began to speak loudly, rapidly, nervously, with gestures and in a resolute frenzy.
> Inceptive стать + imperfective infinitive: «стал говорить» ('began to speak') uses «стать» as an inceptive auxiliary with the imperfective infinitive «говорить», launching an ongoing activity — the rush of speech then characterised by the adverbs «громко, быстро, нервно».
> 'Resolute frenzy': «исступление» is frenzy, a state of being beside oneself, ecstatic or distraught — a heightened Dostoevskian word for the characters' fevered extremes. «в решительном исступлении» captures Mitya's desperate, all-or-nothing pitch.

Видно было, что человек дошел до черты, погиб и ищет последнего выхода, а не удастся, то хоть сейчас и в воду.  
It was plain that the man had come to the brink, was lost, and was seeking a last way out — and if it should fail, then he was ready to throw himself into the water that very moment.
> Impersonal 'it was plain': «видно было, что…» is an impersonal predicative ('it was evident that…'), with no nominative subject, opening a «что»-clause. The perfectives «дошёл», «погиб» narrate the man's arrival at the brink as completed facts.
> Elliptical conditional: «а не удастся, то…» is a compressed conditional ('and if it doesn't come off, then…'); «не удастся» is an impersonal perfective future with a dative experiencer understood. «хоть сейчас и в воду» — verbless — leaves 'throw himself' implied: 'even this instant, into the water'.

Всё это в один миг, вероятно, понял старик Самсонов, хотя лицо его оставалось неизменным и холодным как у истукана.  
All this old Samsonov probably grasped in a single instant, though his face remained unchanged and cold as an idol's.
> Object-first emphasis: Fronting the object «всё это» ('all this') before the verb and subject throws the weight onto what Samsonov grasped, before naming the grasper — the topic-comment ordering that case endings make possible.
> 'Cold as an idol's': An «истукан» is a graven image or idol — and figuratively a stiff, unfeeling, statue-like person. «холодным как у истукана» ('cold as an idol's [face]') fixes Samsonov's impassive mask. «холодным» is an instrumental predicate after «оставалось».

«Благороднейший Кузьма Кузьмич, вероятно, слыхал уже не раз о моих контрах с отцом моим, Федором Павловичем Карамазовым, ограбившим меня по наследству после родной моей матери… так как весь город уже трещит об этом… потому что здесь все трещат об том, чего не надо… А кроме того, могло дойти и от Грушеньки… виноват: от Аграфены Александровны… от многоуважаемой и многочтимой мною Аграфены Александровны…» — так начал и оборвался с первого слова Митя.  
"Most honorable Kuzma Kuzmich, you have probably heard more than once of my quarrels with my father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, who robbed me of my inheritance from my own mother… for the whole town is already buzzing about it… because here everyone buzzes about what they shouldn't… And besides, it might have reached you from Grushenka too… forgive me: from Agrafena Alexandrovna… from the deeply respected and deeply esteemed-by-me Agrafena Alexandrovna…" — so Mitya began, and broke off at the very first word.
> 'Контры' — quarrels: «контры» (from French/Latin contra) is colloquial for being at odds, a feud or running quarrel — 'my contras / quarrels with my father'. The casual loanword suits Mitya's rushed, slangy delivery.
> Past active participle 'who robbed me': «ограбившим» (perfective past active participle of «ограбить», 'to rob') agrees with «отцом» in the instrumental — 'my father, who had robbed me of my inheritance'. The participle packs Mitya's central grievance into one charged modifier.
> Idiom: 'the whole town is buzzing': «трещать» literally 'to crackle, rattle'; of people/a town it means to chatter or buzz with gossip. «весь город трещит об этом» — 'the whole town is talking of it' — repeated for emphasis, conveys Mitya's sense that his disgrace is public property.
> -ся as 'broke off': «оборвался» (perfective «оборваться» + «-ся») is the middle/intransitive 'broke off, snapped short' — Mitya's speech failing of itself. The «-ся» turns the transitive «оборвать» ('to tear off') into an intransitive change of state.

Но мы не будем приводить дословно всю его речь, а представим лишь изложение.  
But we shall not reproduce his whole speech word for word; we shall give only the gist of it.
> Compound future vs perfective future: The narrator contrasts the compound (imperfective) future «не будем приводить» ('we shall not [go on] reproducing') with the simple perfective future «представим» ('we shall give'). The «мы» is the chronicler's editorial 'we'.
> 'Word for word' vs 'the gist': «дословно» means 'verbatim, word for word'; «изложение» is a summary or exposition, the gist. The narrator's choice to give only the «изложение» is a deliberate device — distancing us from Mitya's chaotic actual words.

Дело, дескать, заключается в том, что он, Митя, еще три месяца назад, нарочито советовался (он именно проговорил «нарочито», а не «нарочно») с адвокатом в губернском городе, «со знаменитым адвокатом, Кузьма Кузьмич, Павлом Павловичем Корнеплодовым, изволили, вероятно, слышать?  
The matter, he said, lay in this: that he, Mitya, three months before, had expressly consulted (he did say "expressly," and not "on purpose") with a lawyer in the provincial capital, "with a famous lawyer, Kuzma Kuzmich, Pavel Pavlovich Korneplodov — you have probably had the honor of hearing of him?
> заключаться в том, что — 'consists in that': «заключается в том, что…» ('lies / consists in this, that…') uses the correlative «в том» (prepositional) anticipating the «что»-clause. «дескать» again flags the whole report as Mitya's indirect speech.
> A telling word-choice: Mitya insists he said «нарочито» (deliberately, of set purpose — a bookish, weighty word) and not the plainer «нарочно» (on purpose). The narrator's note on this distinction characterises Mitya's straining after dignified, lawyerly language.
> Deferential 'изволить': «изволить» + infinitive ('to deign / be so good as to…') is an obsequious, deferential auxiliary — 'you have probably had the honour of hearing'. Mitya pours it on to flatter the merchant.

Лоб обширный, почти государственный ум… вас тоже знает… отзывался в лучшем виде…» — оборвался в другой раз Митя.  
A broad brow, almost a statesman's intellect… he knows you too… spoke of you in the best terms…" — Mitya broke off a second time.
> 'Almost a statesman's intellect': «государственный ум» — a mind fit for affairs of state, statesmanlike. Mitya's breathless praise of the lawyer's «лоб обширный» (broad brow, a physiognomic sign of intellect) and «государственный ум» is comic in its excess.
> -ся 'broke off' again: Echoing s111, «оборвался» (intransitive «-ся») marks Mitya's speech snapping short a second time. «в другой раз» here means 'a second time, again', not 'on another occasion'.

Но обрывы его не останавливали, он тотчас же чрез них перескакивал и устремлялся всё далее и далее.  
But these breaks did not stop him; he at once leaped across them and pressed on further and further.
> Negated imperfective: 'did not [keep] stopping': «не останавливали» is the imperfective past under negation — the breaks 'did not [serve to] stop' him, a general/repeated non-effect. «обрывы» ('breaks, ruptures') is the nominal of the verb that broke off his speech.
> Archaic чрез + imperfective rush: «чрез» is the bookish/archaic form of «через» ('across, over'). The imperfectives «перескакивал» and «устремлялся» convey repeated, headlong action — he kept leaping across the gaps and surging on. The reduplicated «всё далее и далее» ('further and further') stretches the momentum.

Этот-де самый Корнеплодов, опросив подробно и рассмотрев документы, какие Митя мог представить ему (о документах Митя выразился неясно и особенно спеша в этом месте), отнесся, что насчет деревни Чермашни, которая должна бы, дескать, была принадлежать ему, Мите, по матери, действительно можно бы было начать иск и тем старика-безобразника огорошить… «потому что не все же двери заперты, а юстиция уж знает, куда пролезть».  
This same Korneplodov, said he, having questioned him in detail and examined the documents Mitya could lay before him (about which documents Mitya expressed himself vaguely and with particular haste at this point), had pronounced that as regards the village of Chermashnya, which ought, he said, to have belonged to him, Mitya, through his mother, one really could begin a suit and thereby give the old reprobate a good shock… "because not all the doors are shut, you know, and the law knows where to slip in."
> Reportive -де + two perfective gerunds: «-де» is the hearsay clitic ('he said, reportedly') threading the indirect report. «опросив» and «рассмотрев» are perfective past gerunds ('having questioned… and examined…'), prior completed acts before the main «отнёсся».
> Conditional бы of mitigated assertion: «должна бы… была принадлежать» joins the past «была должна» with the particle «бы» for a softened, hypothetical 'ought to have belonged' — Mitya hedging his legal claim. «бы» is here split from and embedded in the verb cluster.
> Impersonal можно + conditional бы: «можно бы было начать» is an impersonal possibility construction ('one could begin') softened by «бы» into 'one might/could have begun'. The infinitive «начать иск» ('to begin a suit') depends on impersonal «можно».
> 'Reprobate' and 'to stun': «безобразник» is a maker of disgraceful scenes, a scandalous reprobate (here Fyodor Pavlovich); «огорошить» is the colloquial 'to take aback, stun, floor someone'. Mitya relishes the prospect of 'flooring the old reprobate' with a lawsuit.

Одним словом, можно бы было надеяться даже-де тысяч на шесть додачи от Федора Павловича, на семь даже, так как Чермашня всё же стоит не менее двадцати пяти тысяч, то есть наверно двадцати восьми, «тридцати, тридцати, Кузьма Кузьмич, а я, представьте себе, и семнадцати от этого жестокого человека не выбрал!..»  
In a word, one might hope, he said, even for as much as six thousand in additional payment from Fyodor Pavlovich, even seven, since Chermashnya was after all worth no less than twenty-five thousand, that is, surely twenty-eight, "thirty, thirty, Kuzma Kuzmich, and yet I, imagine it, could not squeeze even seventeen out of that cruel man!.."
> Approximation by inversion + genitive plural: Putting the noun before the numeral («тысяч на шесть») marks approximation ('around six thousand'). «тысяч» is genitive plural governed by «шесть/семь» (5 and up take the genitive plural).
> 'Couldn't squeeze out': «выбрать» here is colloquial 'to extract, get out (of someone)' — Mitya 'couldn't get even seventeen [hundred] out of' his father. «представьте себе» ('imagine!') is his theatrical aside to Samsonov; «жестокий человек» ('cruel man') is Fyodor Pavlovich.

Так вот я, дескать, Митя, тогда это дело бросил, ибо не умею с юстицией, а приехав сюда, поставлен был в столбняк встречным иском (здесь Митя опять запутался и опять круто перескочил) : так вот, дескать, не пожелаете ли вы, благороднейший Кузьма Кузьмич, взять все права мои на этого изверга, а сами мне дайте три только тысячи…  
So then he, said Mitya, had dropped the matter at the time, for he had no head for the law, and on arriving here had been struck dumb by a counter-suit (here Mitya again got tangled up and again leaped abruptly on): so then, said he, would you not be willing, most honorable Kuzma Kuzmich, to take over all my rights against this monster, and give me, for yourself, only three thousand…
> Bookish ибо in colloquial speech: «ибо» ('for, because') is the elevated literary conjunction; Mitya mixes it with the breezy «не умею с юстицией» ('I'm no good with the law') — the clash of registers is itself characterising. The narrator keeps «дескать» to mark the report.
> Perfective gerund + passive participle: «приехав» is a perfective past gerund ('having arrived'); «поставлен был» is the short past passive participle of «поставить» forming a passive ('was put [into]…'). «поставить в столбняк» = 'to strike dumb/dumbfound' («столбняк» = stupor, lit. tetanus).
> Polite request: ли + perfective future: «не пожелаете ли вы…?» ('would you not be willing…?') is a courteous, tentative request — negation + the interrogative «ли» + perfective future «пожелаете». It softens the brazen proposal to take over Mitya's legal rights.
> 'Monster, fiend': «изверг» is a monster, a brutal fiend, one cast out of human kind — Mitya's epithet for his father, escalating from «жестокий человек» and «безобразник». The genitive «изверга» follows «права… на этого изверга» (rights against this monster).

Вы ни в каком случае проиграть ведь не можете, в этом честью, честью клянусь, а совсем напротив, можете нажить тысяч шесть или семь вместо трех…  
You cannot lose by it in any case — on my honor, on my honor I swear it — but on the contrary, you may make six thousand, or seven, instead of three…
> Negative concord 'in no case': «ни в каком случае… не можете» pairs the ни-phrase with verbal «не» (negative concord) — 'you cannot in any case lose'. The negated imperfective «проиграть… не можете» frames a flat impossibility.
> Instrumental of swearing (existing note, upgraded): In «честью клянусь» ('I swear on my honour') the noun «честь» appears in the instrumental «честью», the case naming the thing one swears by. The doubling «честью, честью» conveys Mitya's frantic, pleading insistence.
> Approximate numerals in oblique cases: «нажить» ('to make, gain') governs «тысяч шесть или семь» (genitive plural, approximation by inversion); «вместо трёх» ('instead of three') puts the numeral «три» in the genitive after «вместо». The «ведь» earlier in the line appeals to shared sense ('you can't lose, after all').

А главное дело, чтоб это кончить «даже сегодня же».  
And the main thing was to get it settled "even this very day."
> Purpose чтоб + the insistent же: «чтоб» (reduced «чтобы») here opens a purpose/desired-result clause with the perfective infinitive «кончить» ('to finish, settle it'). The particle «же» on «сегодня же» insists — 'this very day, no later' — capturing Mitya's headlong urgency.
> Predicate noun + чтобы-clause: «главное дело, чтоб…» ('the main thing was to…') links a predicate phrase to a «чтоб»-clause of aim. The verbless main clause (no «было» expressed) is normal in the narrator's brisk free indirect summary of Mitya's plea.

«Я там вам у нотариуса, что ли, или как там… Одним словом, я готов на всё, выдам все документы, какие потребуете, всё подпишу… и мы эту бумагу сейчас же и совершили бы, и если бы можно, если бы только можно, то сегодня же бы утром… Вы бы мне эти три тысячи выдали… так как кто же против вас капиталист в этом городишке… и тем спасли бы меня от… одним словом, спасли бы мою бедную голову для благороднейшего дела, для возвышеннейшего дела, можно сказать… ибо питаю благороднейшие чувства к известной особе, которую слишком знаете и о которой печетесь отечески.  
"We could do it before a notary there, or however it's done… In a word, I'm ready for anything, I'll hand over whatever papers you require, I'll sign it all… and we could draw the document up this very minute, and if it's possible, if only it's possible, then this very morning… You'd let me have those three thousand… for who else in this little town is a man of capital to set against you… and so you'd save me from… in a word, you'd save my poor head for the noblest of causes, the loftiest of causes, one might say… for I cherish the noblest feelings toward a certain person whom you know all too well and over whom you watch like a father."
> A cascade of «бы»: Mitya's pleading runs entirely on the conditional: «совершили бы», «спасли бы», «выдали бы». Each is a past-tense verb plus the particle «бы», the irrealis 'would', here softening a request into something between a wish and a proposal. Notice «бы» drifting onto «сегодня же бы», leaning on the stressed word rather than the verb.
> Impersonal «можно» under «если бы»: «можно» ('it is possible / one may') is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject — the kind of subjectless construction Russian loves. Wrapped in «если бы», it becomes a breathless hypothetical: 'if only it were possible'.
> The belittling suffix «-ишк-»: «городишко» is «город» (town) plus the pejorative «-ишк-»: not a small town but a wretched, contemptible little one. Mitya waves away the whole provincial place to flatter Samsonov as its one true man of capital.
> (context) the register of his plea: The sentence piles up bookish superlatives — «благороднейшего», «возвышеннейшего» — built with the elevated «-ейш-» suffix ('most noble', 'loftiest'). Coming from the dishevelled Mitya, this lofty diction is comically out of place and signals how desperately he is performing dignity.
> Superlatives in «-ейший»: «благороднейший», «возвышеннейший» are bookish superlatives formed with the suffix «-ейш-» plus adjective endings — 'the noblest', 'the loftiest'. This synthetic superlative is markedly literary beside the everyday «самый + adjective».
> «ибо» and «питать чувства»: «ибо» is an archaic, bookish 'for, because', far more elevated than «потому что» — a period flavour. «питать чувства» literally 'to nourish feelings' is a set bookish idiom for harbouring or cherishing them.
> Discreet circumlocution: «известная особа»: «известная особа» — 'a certain person' (lit. 'a known personage') — is a delicate, mannered way of naming Grushenka without naming her. «печетесь» (from «печься о ком-л.») is a bookish verb for 'to care for, look after', and «отечески» means 'in a fatherly way', flattering Samsonov's role as her protector.

Иначе бы и не пришел, если бы не отечески.  
I would never have come, were it not for that fatherly care.
> Counterfactual with «бы» and no subject pronoun: A pure counterfactual: «не пришёл бы» — 'I would not have come'. The «я» is dropped, recoverable from context and the masculine past «пришёл». The «если бы не…» frame ('were it not for…') leaves its verb unspoken, so the lone adverb «отечески» stands in for the whole clause.

И, если хотите, тут трое состукнулись лбами, ибо судьба — это страшилище, Кузьма Кузьмич!  
And if you like, three foreheads have knocked together here, for fate is a monster, Kuzma Kuzmich!"
> «состукнуться лбами» — foreheads knocked together: A vivid, colloquial coinage: «со-» (together) + «стукнуться» (to bang oneself) + «лбами» (instrumental of «лоб», forehead) — 'three foreheads have knocked together'. Mitya means three fates have collided. The «-ся» makes it reciprocal: they bang against one another.
> «страшилище» — a monster: «страшилище», from «страшный» (terrible), is an expressive noun for a monster or bogey. The «-ище» suffix is augmentative and lurid. Mitya is declaiming: fate itself is a monster — half melodrama, half genuine dread.

Реализм, Кузьма Кузьмич, реализм!  
Realism, Kuzma Kuzmich, realism!"

А так как вас давно уже надо исключить, то останутся два лба, как я выразился, может быть неловко, но я не литератор.  
But since you ought to have been struck out of it long ago, two foreheads are left, as I put it — clumsily, perhaps, but I'm no man of letters.
> «так как… то…» correlative cause: «так как» ('since, because') opens a subordinate cause, answered by the correlative «то» ('then') heading the main clause — a tidy bookish frame for reasoning aloud. «надо исключить» is again an impersonal 'one must strike out', subjectless, with «вас» as the accusative object.
> Perfective past «выразился»: «выразился» (perfective, reflexive «выразиться» — to express oneself, to put it) views the act of phrasing as one completed event: 'as I put it'. The «-ся» here makes a middle/intransitive verb of self-expression.
> «литератор» — man of letters: «литератор» means a professional writer or man of letters. Mitya disclaims eloquence with self-deprecating charm — admitting his metaphor of the foreheads is clumsy because he is no writer.

То есть один лоб мой, а другой — этого изверга.  
That is, one forehead is mine, and the other — that monster's.
> Zero copula and the contrastive «а»: Two equational clauses with no verb 'to be' — Russian omits the present-tense copula, so «один лоб мой» is simply 'one forehead [is] mine'. The hinge «а» is the mild contrastive 'and/while', setting the two foreheads against each other. «этого изверга» is genitive of possession (and animate accusative-like form): 'that monster's'.
> «изверг» — a monster, a fiend: «изверг» is a strong word for a brutal, inhuman wretch — a fiend or monster. Mitya means his father, Fyodor Pavlovich, his rival for Grushenka. The repeated «изверг» across the next lines fixes the loathing.

Итак выбирайте: или я, или изверг?  
So take your pick: me, or the monster?
> Polite imperative «выбирайте»: «выбирайте» is the imperative of imperfective «выбирать» (to choose), plural/polite with «-те» — addressing Samsonov as «вы». The imperfective imperative invites the act in general ('go ahead, choose'), and «или… или…» frames the stark either/or.

Всё теперь в ваших руках — три судьбы и два жребия…  
Everything now lies in your hands — three destinies and two lots…
> Zero copula in an idiom: 'Everything is now in your hands' carries no verb — the present-tense 'is' is simply absent, as always in Russian. «в ваших руках» is the prepositional case after «в» marking location.
> «жребий» — lot, fate cast: «жребий» is the lot cast or drawn, hence one's destiny or allotted fate — more archaic and weighty than «судьба». Mitya's tally ('three destinies and two lots') is grandiose nonsense, but the word lends it a tragic, almost biblical ring.

Извините, я сбился, но вы понимаете… я вижу по вашим почтенным глазам, что вы поняли… А если не поняли, то сегодня же в воду, вот!»  
Forgive me, I've lost the thread, but you understand… I can see by your venerable eyes that you've understood… And if you haven't, then it's into the water with me this very day, there!"
> Perfective «сбиться» — to lose the thread: «сбился» is the perfective past of reflexive «сбиться» ('to go astray, lose one's way / one's thread'). The «-ся» marks a change of state happening to the subject; the perfective frames it as one completed slip.
> Verbless threat with «то»: The «если… то…» conditional ends with no verb at all: «то сегодня же в воду» — 'then [it's] into the water today'. Russian routinely drops a predicate of motion under «в + accusative», leaving the violence of 'into the water' (drowning himself) bare and abrupt.

Митя оборвал свою нелепую речь этим «вот» и, вскочив с места, ждал ответа на свое глупое предложение.  
Mitya broke off his absurd speech with that "there," and, springing up from his seat, waited for an answer to his foolish proposal.
> Perfective gerund «вскочив»: «вскочив» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) — 'having sprung up'. It names a prior, completed action sharing Mitya's subject, then the main imperfective «ждал» ('was waiting') sets the lingering state against it. A textbook literary pairing.
> Genitive object and reflexive «свой»: «ждать» governs the genitive of what is awaited: «ответа» ('an answer'). «своё» is the reflexive possessive — the proposal belongs to the clause's own subject, Mitya, where «его» would point to someone else.

С последнею фразой он вдруг и безнадежно почувствовал, что всё лопнуло, а главное, что он нагородил страшной ахинеи.  
With the last phrase he suddenly and hopelessly felt that the whole thing had collapsed, and worst of all that he had piled up some frightful nonsense.
> «лопнуть» — to burst, to fall through: «лопнуть» literally 'to burst, split' (a bubble, a string) is colloquial for a plan collapsing or falling through. The perfective gives the sudden, total snap of failure that Mitya feels.
> «нагородить ахинеи» — to talk a heap of rot: «нагородить» ('to pile up, heap together') plus «ахинея» (nonsense, gibberish, rot) is an expressive idiom: he has 'piled up frightful nonsense'. «ахинеи» stands in the genitive of quantity — a heap 'of' nonsense. «ахинея» is itself a colourful, slightly bookish word for drivel.

«Странное дело, пока шел сюда, всё казалось хорошо, а теперь вот и ахинея!» — вдруг пронеслось в его безнадежной голове.  
"Strange thing — while I was on my way here it all seemed fine, and now look, it's nonsense!" flashed suddenly through his despairing head.
> Imperfective for the lingering scene: «пока шёл… всё казалось» — both verbs imperfective, painting an unbroken background: while he 'was walking' it all 'seemed' fine. The conjunction «пока» ('while') frames simultaneous ongoing actions, exactly what the imperfective is for.
> «пронестись» — to flash through: «пронеслось» (perfective «пронестись», 'to rush/sweep through') renders a thought darting through the mind — the same image as «мелькнуло» and «неслось» elsewhere in the chapter. The «-сь» (after a vowel) is the reflexive clitic marking the inner, self-propelled motion of the thought.

Всё время, пока он говорил, старик сидел неподвижно и с ледяным выражением во взоре следил за ним.  
The whole time he was speaking, the old man sat motionless and watched him with an icy expression in his gaze.
> Imperfective background: «сидел», «следил»: Both verbs are imperfective past, holding the old man in a single unbroken posture through Mitya's whole speech: he 'sat' motionless and 'watched'. «следить за + instrumental» ('to follow/watch someone') governs «за ним», the instrumental of «он».
> «взор» — bookish 'gaze': «взор» is an elevated, literary word for the gaze or eyes, loftier than everyday «взгляд». «во взоре» uses «во» (the expanded form of «в») before the consonant cluster. The icy «ледяное выражение» fixes Samsonov's cold scrutiny.

Выдержав его, однако, с минутку в ожидании, Кузьма Кузьмич изрек наконец самым решительным и безотрадным тоном:  
Having held him a minute in suspense, however, Kuzma Kuzmich at last pronounced, in the most decisive and cheerless of tones:
> Perfective gerund «выдержав»: «выдержав» — perfective gerund of «выдержать» ('to hold, sustain') — 'having held him [in suspense]'. It sets a completed prior action before the main verb, and shares Samsonov as subject. «с минутку» softens the duration to 'a little minute'.
> «изречь» — to pronounce, to utter solemnly: «изрёк» (perfective «изречь») is a markedly archaic, lofty verb for 'pronounced, declared' — the diction of oracles and scripture. Applied to Samsonov's flat dismissal it is gently ironic, dressing a brush-off in solemn robes.
> Instrumental of manner: «самым решительным… тоном» is the instrumental case answering 'in what manner / with what' — he pronounced it 'in the most decisive and cheerless tone'. The instrumental routinely carries manner without any preposition. «безотрадный» ('joyless, cheerless') is a bookish compound (без- + отрада).

— Извините-с, мы эдакими делами не занимаемся.  
"Begging your pardon, sir, we don't go in for that sort of business."
> The deferential «-с» (словоерс): The clitic «-с» tacked onto «Извините» is the словоерс, a contraction of old «сударь» ('sir'). In Dostoevsky it marks obsequious, old-fashioned, lower-rank politeness — here the merchant's smooth, faintly mocking deference. It recurs as «Извините-с», «Ничего-с», «несподручны-с».
> Reflexive «заниматься» + instrumental, negated: «заниматься чем-л.» ('to occupy oneself with, deal in') is a «-ся» verb governing the instrumental «эдакими делами» ('such affairs'). The merchant's lordly 'we' and the negated present together form his polished refusal: 'we don't go in for that sort of thing'. «эдакий» is a colloquial 'such, that kind of'.

Митя вдруг почувствовал, что под ним слабеют ноги.  
Mitya suddenly felt his legs giving way beneath him.
> Word order: comment last: Literally 'beneath him weaken the legs' — the subject «ноги» lands at the very end, the new and dramatic information, while the topic «под ним» comes first. Russian's free, case-driven order lets the sentence build to the buckling legs.

— Как же я теперь, Кузьма Кузьмич, — пробормотал он, бледно улыбаясь. — Ведь я теперь пропал, как вы думаете?  
"What am I to do now, Kuzma Kuzmich," he mumbled, smiling wanly. "I'm done for now, wouldn't you say?"
> The particle «же» of urgency: «же» here is the modal particle that intensifies and presses — the spoken weight English carries only by stress: 'But what am I to do now?' It colours Mitya's question with helpless insistence.
> Imperfective gerund «улыбаясь»: «улыбаясь» is a present (imperfective) gerund — 'smiling', an action simultaneous with «пробормотал». It shares Mitya's subject and paints the attendant circumstance of his mumbling: a wan smile.
> The particle «ведь» appealing for agreement: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge and seeks the hearer's assent — 'I'm done for now, aren't I?'. Together with the tag «как вы думаете?» it begs Samsonov to confirm Mitya's own dread. «пропал» (perfective past) states the accomplished ruin: 'I'm lost.'

— Извините-с…  
"Begging your pardon, sir…"
> The bare «-с» repeated: Samsonov answers Mitya's anguish with nothing but the same obsequious formula «Извините-с» — the deferential «-с» (from «сударь») turning courtesy into a wall. The repetition is itself the cruelty: a closed, polite door.

Митя всё стоял и всё смотрел неподвижно в упор и вдруг заметил, что что-то двинулось в лице старика.  
Mitya kept standing there and kept staring straight ahead without moving, and suddenly noticed that something had shifted in the old man's face.
> «всё» + imperfective for 'kept doing': The adverb «всё» before imperfective verbs means 'kept on, all the while': «всё стоял… всё смотрел» — 'kept standing… kept staring'. The imperfectives stretch the moment of paralysis before the sudden perfective «заметил» ('noticed') breaks it.
> Indefinite «что-то» and reflexive «двинуться»: «что-то» ('something', specific but unidentified) is the «-то» indefinite. «двинулось» is perfective reflexive «двинуться» ('to stir, shift'), the «-ся» making the motion intransitive and self-originating — something 'moved' in the face on its own.

Он вздрогнул.  
He gave a start.
> Perfective «вздрогнуть» — a single shudder: «вздрогнул» is the perfective past of «вздрогнуть» ('to give a start, shudder once'). The «-ну-» stem and perfective aspect together capture a single instantaneous jolt — one of Dostoevsky's favourite physical verbs for the nerves.

— Видите, сударь, нам такие дела несподручны, — медленно промолвил старик, — суды пойдут, адвокаты, сущая беда! А если хотите, тут есть один человек, вот к нему обратитесь…  
"You see, sir, such affairs aren't to our convenience," the old man said slowly, "courts would start up, lawyers, sheer disaster! But if you like, there's a man here — go and turn to him…"
> «сударь» — sir: «сударь» is the old polite address 'sir', the full word behind the clitic «-с». Samsonov shifting from bare «-с» to the whole «сударь» as he offers the tip lends a momentary, deceptive warmth to the trap he is setting.
> «несподручный» — inconvenient, awkward: «несподручный» is a homely, colloquial adjective: 'not handy, inconvenient, awkward to manage'. Here in the short predicate form «несподручны» ('aren't convenient for us'). It belongs to plain merchant speech, contrasting with the bookish flights of Mitya.
> Perfective imperative «обратитесь»: «обратитесь» is the polite imperative of perfective «обратиться» ('to turn to, apply to someone') — a single, decisive act: 'go and turn to him'. The «-ся» makes it reflexive ('direct yourself toward'), and «к нему» is the dative governed by «к».

— Боже мой, кто же это!.. Вы воскрешаете меня, Кузьма Кузьмич, — залепетал вдруг Митя.  
"Good Lord, who can it be!.. You bring me back to life, Kuzma Kuzmich," Mitya suddenly began to babble.
> «Боже» — the Church-Slavonic vocative: «Боже» is the old vocative of «Бог» (God), surviving only in such fixed exclamations: 'O God!' «Боже мой» — 'My God / Good Lord'. It is one of the Church-Slavonic vocatives (with «Господи», «отче») that pepper Dostoevsky's emotional speech.
> «воскрешать» — to raise from the dead: «воскрешать» is literally 'to resurrect, raise from the dead' (cf. «воскресение», Resurrection). Mitya's hyperbole — 'you bring me back to life' — borrows the language of religious resurrection for a moneylender's tip, the kind of soaring, slightly blasphemous metaphor typical of him.
> «залепетать» — to start babbling: «залепетал» pairs the inceptive prefix «за-» ('to begin to') with «лепетать» ('to babble, prattle, like a child or in confusion'): 'he began to babble'. The verb captures Mitya's incoherent rush of relieved gratitude.

— Не здешний он, этот человек, да и здесь его теперь не находится.  
"He's not from these parts, this man, and he isn't to be found here at present.
> Fronted predicate and a trailing topic: Word order does the work: the predicate «не здешний» ('not from here') is fronted for emphasis, «он» follows, and the full noun «этот человек» is added almost as an afterthought — the topic-comment looseness of speech. «здешний» means 'local, from these parts'.
> Genitive of negation with «не находится»: In a negated existential, the subject goes genitive: «его… не находится» — 'he is not [to be found] here'. «находиться» ('to be located, be present') is a «-ся» verb, and the negation pulls «он» into the genitive «его».

Он по крестьянству, лесом торгует, прозвищем Лягавый.  
He's of peasant stock, trades in timber, goes by the nickname Lyagavy.
> «торговать» + instrumental: «торговать чем-л.» ('to trade in something') governs the instrumental: «лесом» — 'trades in timber/forest'. The instrumental marks the goods one deals in, with no preposition.
> «Лягавый» — the nickname: «прозвище» is a nickname or by-name; «прозвищем» is the instrumental, 'by nickname'. «Лягавый» evokes «лягавая» (a pointer, a gun-dog), with a coarse, faintly contemptuous ring — a peasant's earthy by-name, and a sly detail given the man's role.

У Федора Павловича вот уже год как торгует в Чермашне этой вашей рощу, да за ценой расходятся, может слышали.  
For a year now he's been bargaining with Fyodor Pavlovich over that grove of yours at Chermashnya, only they can't agree on a price — you may have heard of it.
> «вот уже… как» — for X now: «вот уже год, как…» is the idiom for 'for a year now (and counting)', stressing duration up to the present. The imperfective «торгует» ('has been bargaining') matches the ongoing, unfinished haggling.
> Reciprocal «расходиться» + «за ценой»: «расходятся» (reflexive «расходиться», 'to diverge, fail to agree') is reciprocal here — the two parties 'can't come together' on the price. «за ценой» uses «за + instrumental» in the sense of haggling over the figure.

Теперь он как раз приехал опять и стоит теперь у батюшки Ильинского, от Воловьей станции верст двенадцать, что ли, будет, в селе Ильинском.  
Just now he's arrived once more and is staying with Father Ilyinsky, some twelve versts or so from Volovya station, in the village of Ilyinskoye.
> Inverted numeral = 'about'; «что ли»: Putting the noun before the numeral («верст двенадцать») turns an exact count into an estimate, reinforced by the hedge «что ли» ('or so, I suppose'). «будет» here is a colloquial 'it'll be / comes to' for reckoning a distance.

Писал он сюда и ко мне по этому самому делу, то есть насчет этой рощи, совета просил.  
He wrote to me here too about this very matter — that is, regarding the grove — asking my advice.
> «просить» + genitive of the abstract object: «просить совета» — 'to ask for advice'. With abstract or non-specific objects «просить» takes the genitive («совета») rather than the accusative, a fine point of case selection. The object stands fronted before its verb, the loose order of speech.
> Imperfective «писал» for a past event: «писал» (imperfective) reports the fact of writing without dwelling on completion — 'he wrote / did write'. Russian often prefers the imperfective past to simply name that an act took place. The «ко мне» shows «к» expanded to «ко» before the consonant cluster.

Федор Павлович к нему сам хочет ехать.  
Fyodor Pavlovich means to go to him himself.
> Unidirectional «ехать» and intensifier «сам»: «ехать» is the unidirectional motion verb (going one way, by conveyance) — Fyodor Pavlovich means to make the single trip to Lyagavy. «сам» ('himself') intensifies the subject: he wants to go in person.

Так если бы вы Федора Павловича предупредили да Лягавому предложили вот то самое, что мне говорили, то он, может статься…  
So if you were to get ahead of Fyodor Pavlovich and put to Lyagavy the very thing you've just been telling me, then he might just…"
> Conditional «бы» as tactful suggestion: Samsonov frames his bait as a polite hypothetical: «если бы вы предупредили… да предложили» — 'if you were to get ahead… and put to him'. The past-form-plus-«бы» conditional softens a direct push into a mere musing possibility. «да» here is the folksy coordinating 'and'.
> «предупредить» — to forestall, get ahead of: Here «предупредить кого-л.» means not 'to warn' but 'to forestall, get in ahead of' — beat Fyodor Pavlovich to Lyagavy. The perfective marks the decisive single act of pre-empting him; «вы предупредили» governs «Фёдора Павловича» in the accusative.
> «может статься» — it may be that: «может статься» is an archaic-flavoured fixed phrase for 'it may happen, perhaps' (from «статься», 'to come to pass'). Samsonov leaves the sentence dangling — 'then he might just…' — dangling the hope without promising it.

— Гениальная мысль! — восторженно перебил Митя. — Именно он, именно ему в руку! Он торгует, с него дорого просят, а тут ему именно документ на самое владение, ха-ха-ха! — И Митя вдруг захохотал своим коротким деревянным смехом, совсем неожиданным, так что даже Самсонов дрогнул головой.  
"A brilliant idea!" Mitya broke in rapturously. "He's the very man, the very one for it! He's bargaining, they're asking a high price of him, and here comes the very deed to the property itself, ha-ha-ha!" And Mitya suddenly burst into his short, wooden laugh, so utterly unexpected that even Samsonov gave a jerk of his head.
> «в руку» — right up his alley: «ему в руку» (lit. 'into his hand') is an idiom meaning it suits him perfectly, plays right into his hands — 'the very thing for him'. Mitya means the deed to the grove is exactly what the haggling Lyagavy needs.
> Impersonal 'they' with bare 3rd-pl.: «с него дорого просят» — 'they ask a high price of him' — has no stated subject: the bare 3rd-person plural «просят» is Russian's impersonal 'one / they', like English 'they say'. «с него» (от «с + genitive») marks the person the price is demanded of.
> «деревянный смех» — a wooden laugh: «деревянный» literally 'wooden' is transferred to the laugh — hollow, stiff, unnatural. The instrumental «коротким деревянным смехом» (manner: 'with a short, wooden laugh') and the jarring image flag that Mitya's mirth is forced and not quite sane.
> Perfective «дрогнуть» + instrumental: «дрогнул» (perfective, a single tremor) takes «головой» in the instrumental of the body part set in motion — 'gave a jerk of his head'. Russian commonly marks the moving part this way (кивнуть головой, пожать плечами).

— Как благодарить мне вас, Кузьма Кузьмич, — кипел Митя.  
"How am I ever to thank you, Kuzma Kuzmich," Mitya seethed with feeling.
> Dative subject + infinitive: helpless 'how am I to…': «Как благодарить мне вас» frames Mitya's overflowing gratitude impersonally: the dative «мне» is the would-be agent, the bare infinitive «благодарить» the act — 'how am I [even] to thank you'. This dative-plus-infinitive is the Russian shape of 'what am I to do?'.
> «кипеть» — to boil over (with feeling): «кипел» ('was boiling, seething') as a speech tag renders Mitya bubbling over with emotion — the imperfective holding him at a rolling boil. The verb of literal boiling water lent to a person is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's overheated characters.

— Ничего-с, — склонил голову Самсонов.  
"It's nothing, sir," Samsonov said, inclining his head.
> «Ничего» + deferential «-с»: «Ничего» here means 'it's nothing, no matter', dismissing the thanks; the clitic «-с» keeps the merchant's smooth, lower-rank politeness. The same «-с» Samsonov has hung on «Извините» throughout — courtesy as a mask.
> Perfective «склонить» and inverted subject: «склонил голову» — perfective 'inclined his head', one finished gesture. The subject «Самсонов» trails after the verb, the loose order typical of a dialogue tag, where the action precedes the named speaker.

— Но вы не знаете, вы спасли меня, о, меня влекло к вам предчувствие… Итак, к этому попу!  
"But you don't realize, you've saved me — oh, a foreboding drew me to you… So, off to this priest!"
> Word order: the subject «предчувствие» last: 'A foreboding drew me to you' arrives subject-last: «меня влекло… предчувствие». The accusative object «меня» and the verb come first, the new and weighty «предчувствие» (foreboding, presentiment) saved for the end — Russian rhythm building to the mysterious cause.

— Не стоит благодарности-с.  
"No thanks are needed, sir."
> Genitive of negation + «-с»: «Не стоит благодарности» — 'it's not worth thanks / no thanks needed'. The impersonal negated «не стоит» pulls «благодарность» into the genitive «благодарности». The clinging «-с» keeps Samsonov's deferential mask in place to the last.

— Спешу и лечу.  
"I rush, I fly.
> Present tense, dropped pronoun: «Спешу и лечу» — 'I rush and fly' — two first-person present verbs with «я» dropped, since the «-у» endings already mark the speaker. The breathless pair conveys Mitya's headlong haste; «лечу» (from «лететь») is literal flight turned figurative.

Злоупотребил вашим здоровьем.  
I've imposed on your health.
> «злоупотребить» + instrumental: «злоупотребить чем-л.» ('to abuse, take undue advantage of') governs the instrumental: «вашим здоровьем» — 'I've imposed on / abused your health'. The verb is a transparent compound: «зло-» (ill) + «употребить» (to use).

Век не забуду, русский человек говорит вам это, Кузьма Кузьмич, р-русский человек!  
I'll never forget it for as long as I live — a Russian man tells you so, Kuzma Kuzmich, a R-Russian man!"
> «век не забуду» — never as long as I live: «век» literally 'an age, a lifetime' works here as an emphatic adverb: «век не забуду» — 'I'll never forget it as long as I live'. The perfective future «забуду» under negation seals the vow.

— Тэ-экс.  
"Vee-ery well."
> A drawn-out «так»: «Тэ-экс» is the old merchant Samsonov drawling out the word «так» ("so, very well"), spelled to show the lazy, dismissive way he says it — we stretch it into "Vee-ery well." The clipped, condescending sound fits a man who is secretly mocking his visitor.

Митя схватил было старика за руку, чтобы потрясть ее, но что-то злобное промелькнуло в глазах того.  
Mitya made to seize the old man by the hand to shake it, but something malicious flickered in the latter's eyes.
> The particle «было» — an action begun and broken off: «было» after a perfective past marks an action started but at once abandoned or reversed: «схватил было» — 'made to seize / began to grab (but stopped)'. This nuanced particle, frequent in 19th-century prose, is exactly why Mitya's grasp doesn't land.
> «за + accusative» for the grasped part: Russian takes hold of a person 'by' a body part with «за + accusative»: «схватил старика за руку» — 'seized the old man by the hand'. The person is the object, the hand the part grasped.
> Substantivised «того» — 'the latter': «того» (genitive of «тот») stands alone for 'the latter / that one', i.e. Samsonov — a bookish way to track which of two people is meant. The demonstrative «тот» often does this referent-juggling that English handles with 'the former/the latter'.

Митя отнял руку, но тотчас же упрекнул себя во мнительности.  
Mitya withdrew his hand, but at once reproached himself for being suspicious.
> Reflexive pronoun «себя»: «упрекнул себя» — 'reproached himself': «себя» is the full reflexive object pronoun pointing back to the subject Mitya, distinct from the verbal clitic «-ся». «во мнительности» («в + prepositional») names what he reproaches himself for. «мнительность» is morbid suspiciousness, a tendency to imagine slights.

«Это он устал…» — мелькнуло в уме его.  
"It's that he's tired…" flashed through his mind.
> Explanatory «это» fronting the thought: «Это он устал» — 'It's [just] that he's tired' — uses «это» as an invariable presentational particle introducing an explanation, not as a demonstrative agreeing with anything. Mitya talks himself out of his suspicion; «устал» is the perfective past of his being tired.

— Для нее! Для нее, Кузьма Кузьмич! Вы понимаете, что это для нее! — рявкнул он вдруг на всю залу, поклонился, круто повернулся и теми же скорыми, аршинными шагами, не оборачиваясь, устремился к выходу.  
"For her! For her, Kuzma Kuzmich! You understand that it's for her!" he suddenly bellowed across the whole hall, bowed, wheeled sharply about, and with those same quick, yard-long strides, without looking back, made for the door.
> A chain of perfectives driving the action: Four perfective past verbs fire in sequence — «рявкнул… поклонился… повернулся… устремился» — each a single completed event pushing the narrative forward, the perfective's storytelling job. The «-ся» on «повернулся» and «устремился» makes the turning and rushing intransitive.
> «рявкнуть» — to bark/bellow: «рявкнул» (perfective «рявкнуть») is to bark or bellow out, a brusque animal-loud verb — Mitya roars 'For her!' «на всю залу» means 'across the whole hall', «зала» being the large reception room of a well-off house.
> «аршинные шаги» — yard-long strides: «аршинный» derives from «аршин», the old measure of about 71 cm (28 in); «аршинные шаги» are huge, yard-long strides. The instrumental «… шагами» marks the manner of his going. The vivid period unit measures the breadth of Mitya's stride.

Он трепетал от восторга.  
He was trembling with rapture.
> «от + genitive» of cause: «от восторга» — 'with/from rapture' — is «от + genitive» marking the cause of an emotional or physical state. Russian regularly attributes trembling, weeping, joy to a cause this way (дрожать от страха, плакать от радости). «трепетать» is a bookish 'to tremble, quiver'.

«Всё ведь уж погибало, и вот ангел-хранитель спас, — неслось в уме его. — И уж если такой делец, как этот старик (благороднейший старик, и какая осанка!), указал этот путь, то… то уж, конечно, выигран путь.  
"It was all going to ruin, and now look — a guardian angel has saved me," raced through his mind. "And if a man of affairs like this old fellow (a most worthy old man, and what a bearing!) has pointed out this path, then… then the path is surely won.
> Particles «ведь» and «уж»: Two modal particles stack in Mitya's inner speech: «ведь» appeals to what he already knows ('after all'), «уж» (a clipped «уже» here doing emphatic, not temporal, work) intensifies — 'it was all going to ruin, you see'. They give the thought its spoken, self-persuading texture.
> «делец» — a sharp man of business: «делец» is a man of affairs, a shrewd operator — admiring here, but the word can edge toward the wheeler-dealer. Mitya's «благороднейший старик, и какая осанка!» («осанка» = bearing, carriage) heaps reverence on the very man making a fool of him.
> Short passive participle «выигран»: «выигран» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «выигранный» ('won'): 'the path is [as good as] won'. This short participle plus an implied 'is' forms the resultative passive — a markedly bookish, decisive turn.

Сейчас и лететь.  
Off this instant.
> Bare infinitive as a resolution: A subjectless, tenseless infinitive «лететь» stands for a firm intention or command to oneself — 'off this instant', literally 'now to fly'. Russian uses the lone infinitive for resolve, necessity, or order, with no need of a verb of will.

До ночи вернусь, ночью вернусь, но дело побеждено.  
I'll be back before nightfall, back by night, but the thing is as good as won.
> Perfective future «вернусь»: «вернусь» (perfective «вернуться») conjugated like a present yields future meaning — 'I'll be back', a single completed return. The repetition «до ночи… ночью» ('before night… by night') is Mitya reassuring himself. The «-сь» marks the reflexive return.
> Short passive participle «побеждено»: «побеждено» is the short past passive participle of «победить» ('to conquer, win') — 'the matter is [as good as] won/conquered', neuter to agree with «дело». The short participle states a settled result, here Mitya's premature triumph.

Неужели же старик мог надо мной насмеяться?»  
Surely the old man couldn't have been mocking me?"
> «неужели» + «же» — disbelieving question: «неужели» introduces an incredulous yes/no question ('surely not…?'), here doubled with the insistent «же». Mitya can hardly believe the old man could have been mocking him — the dramatic irony being that he was. «надо мной» shows «над» expanded before the cluster.
> «насмеяться над + instrumental»: «насмеяться над кем-л.» ('to mock, make sport of') governs «над + instrumental»: «надо мной» — 'mock me'. The «-ся» verb «насмеяться» is one of those that exist only in reflexive form, and «мог» supplies the modal 'could'.

Так восклицал Митя, шагая в свою квартиру, и уж, конечно, иначе и не могло представляться уму его, то есть: или дельный совет (от такого-то дельца) — со знанием дела, со знанием этого Лягавого (странная фамилия!), или — или старик над ним посмеялся!  
So Mitya exclaimed to himself, striding toward his lodgings, and of course nothing else could present itself to his mind — that is, either it was sound advice (from such a man of affairs), grounded in knowledge of the business, in knowledge of this Lyagavy (an odd surname!), or — or the old man had laughed at him!
> Imperfective gerund «шагая»: «шагая» is a present (imperfective) gerund — 'striding', the attendant action going on while Mitya exclaims. It shares his subject and sets the moving background to his inner monologue. «свою» is the reflexive possessive: his own lodgings.
> Dative experiencer «уму его»: 'Nothing else could present itself to his mind' uses the dative «уму» ('to the mind') as the seat of the impression, with the «-ся» verb «представляться» ('to appear, present itself'). The mind is framed as the recipient of the thought, a typical experiencer-dative shape.
> The emphatic clitic «-то» on «такой»: The hyphenated «-то» in «такого-то дельца» is the emphatic clitic stressing a known quantity — 'from such a man of affairs (no less)'. It is a different «-то» from the indefinite one in «кто-то»; here it underscores Mitya's awe at Samsonov's standing.

Увы! последняя-то мысль и была единственно верною.  
Alas! it was the latter thought that alone was true.
> Emphatic «-то» and instrumental predicate «верною»: «-то» on «последняя» topicalises and stresses it ('that last thought, of all'). «была… верною» puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental after past «была» — the bookish «-ою» ending (for «-ой») is a 19th-century literary flavour. «единственно» means 'alone, solely'.

Потом, уже долго спустя, когда уже совершилась вся катастрофа, старик Самсонов сам сознавался смеясь, что тогда осмеял «капитана».  
Later, long afterward, when the whole catastrophe had run its course, old Samsonov admitted with a laugh that he had made a fool of the "captain" that day.
> Reflexive «совершиться» — to come to pass: «совершилась» (perfective reflexive «совершиться», 'to be accomplished, come to pass') treats the catastrophe as a single completed event. The «-ся» makes it intransitive — the disaster 'happened' of itself. A solemn, fateful verb pointing ahead to the novel's tragedy.
> Imperfective gerund «смеясь»: «смеясь» is a present gerund — 'laughing', the manner accompanying «сознавался» ('admitted'). «осмеял» (perfective «осмеять», to deride, make fun of) names the completed mockery. «сам» stresses that the old man owned up himself.

Это был злобный, холодный и насмешливый человек, к тому же с болезненными антипатиями.  
He was a spiteful, cold, derisive man, and one given to morbid antipathies besides.
> «Это был…» presentational copula: «Это был… человек» — 'He was a… man'. Here «был» is the past copula (the present 'is' would simply vanish), and «Это» is the fixed presentational subject, invariable, not agreeing with the masculine «человек». A standard frame for characterising someone.
> «болезненный» — morbid: «болезненный» (from «болезнь», illness) means 'morbid, sickly, unhealthy' rather than literally ill — his «антипатии» are pathological aversions. The detail diagnoses Samsonov's malice as something near disease, a favourite Dostoevskian shading.

Восторженный ли вид капитана, глупое ли убеждение этого «мота и расточителя», что он, Самсонов, может поддаться на такую дичь, как его «план», ревнивое ли чувство насчет Грушеньки, во имя которой «этот сорванец» пришел к нему с какою-то дичью за деньгами, — не знаю, что именно побудило тогда старика, но в ту минуту, когда Митя стоял пред ним, чувствуя, что слабеют его ноги, и бессмысленно восклицал, что он пропал, — в ту минуту старик посмотрел на него с бесконечною злобой и придумал над ним посмеяться.  
Whether it was the captain's rapturous air, or the foolish conviction of this "spendthrift and squanderer" that he, Samsonov, might fall for such rubbish as his "plan," or a jealous feeling on account of Grushenka — in whose name "this scapegrace" had come to him with some nonsense after money — I do not know what exactly prompted the old man just then; but in the minute when Mitya stood before him, feeling his legs giving way and senselessly crying out that he was done for, in that minute the old man looked at him with boundless malice and resolved to make sport of him.
> The particle «ли» listing possibilities: The repeated «ли» strings together candidate causes — 'whether it was the rapturous air…, or the foolish conviction…, or a jealous feeling…' Each «ли» frames one alternative in an indirect 'whether' chain, the bookish, deliberative manner of the narrator weighing motives.
> Reflexive «поддаться» — to fall for: «поддаться на что-л.» ('to be taken in by, fall for') is a perfective «-ся» verb governing «на + accusative»: «на такую дичь» — to fall for 'such rubbish'. «дичь» literally 'wild game' is colloquial for nonsense, wild stuff — Mitya's scheme.
> Quoted epithets: «мот», «расточитель», «сорванец»: The narrator strings Samsonov's scornful labels in quotes: «мот» (a wastrel, spendthrift), «расточитель» (a squanderer, more bookish), «сорванец» (a young scapegrace, harum-scarum). Each names Mitya through the old man's contempt rather than the narrator's own voice.
> Imperfective gerund «чувствуя» and the suspended frame: The sentence holds Mitya in the imperfective: «стоял» (was standing), the gerund «чувствуя» (feeling), «восклицал» (was crying out) — an unbroken tableau — against which the perfective «посмотрел» and «придумал» finally strike. «во имя которой» is the bookish 'in whose name'.

Когда Митя вышел, Кузьма Кузьмич, бледный от злобы, обратился к сыну и велел распорядиться, чтобы впредь этого оборванца и духу не было, и на двор не впускать, не то..  
When Mitya had gone, Kuzma Kuzmich, pale with malice, turned to his son and gave orders that henceforth there be no trace of this ragamuffin, that he not be let into the yard, or else..
> «чтобы» + past-form for a command: «чтобы… не было» uses «чтобы» plus the past-tense (irrealis) verb to express a willed outcome after a verb of ordering: 'gave orders that there be no…'. This is «чтобы» with its fused «бы», the obligatory shape for indirect commands and purpose.
> «чтобы духу не было» — not a trace of him: «чтобы (чьего-л.) духу не было» is a vehement set idiom — literally 'so that not even his breath/spirit be here' = 'I want no trace of him'. «духу» is the partitive/genitive of negation. It is the language of an enraged master throwing someone out for good.
> «оборванец» — a ragamuffin: «оборванец» (from «оборвать», to tear off; «оборванный», ragged) is a contemptuous word for a tattered down-and-out, a ragamuffin. The pejorative «-нец» suffix sneers. To the rich merchant the captain is simply this — a man in rags.

Он не договорил того, чем угрожал, но даже сын, часто видавший его во гневе, вздрогнул от страху.  
He did not finish saying what he threatened, but even the son, who had often seen him in a rage, shuddered with fright.
> Correlative «того, чем» and instrumental of «угрожать»: «того, чем угрожал» pairs the correlative «то» (genitive «того», object of «не договорил») with the relative «чем» (instrumental, since «угрожать чем-л.» — 'to threaten with' — takes the instrumental): 'did not finish [saying] that with which he threatened'. A compact bookish correlative.
> Past active participle «видавший»: «видавший» is a past active participle ('who had often seen'), compressing a который-clause into one modifier of «сын» — a hallmark of literary description. «видавший» (from iterative «видать») and «от страху» (an old colloquial genitive in «-у» of «страх») both carry a homely, period colour.

Целый час спустя старик даже весь трясся от злобы, а к вечеру заболел и послал за «лекарем».  
A whole hour later the old man was still shaking all over with malice, and toward evening he fell ill and sent for the "doctor."
> Imperfective «трясся» for the lasting state: «трясся» (imperfective reflexive «трястись», 'to shake all over') holds the old man in a prolonged fit of trembling — an hour later he is still at it. The imperfective and «весь» ('all over') stretch the rage in time; «от злобы» is the genitive of cause.
---

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.