# The Brothers Karamazov, Lyagavy

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book VIII — Mitya

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b8-c2. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b8-c2.json.


Итак, надо было «скакать», а денег на лошадей все-таки не было ни копейки, то есть были два двугривенных, и это всё, — всё, что оставалось от стольких лет прежнего благосостояния!  
And so he had to "gallop off" — yet for the horses there was still not a single copeck, that is, there were two twenty-copeck pieces, and that was all — all that remained of so many years of the old prosperity!
> What «двугривенный» means: A «двугривенный» is a 20-copeck coin (from «гривенник», a 10-copeck piece). «Два двугривенных» is literally two 20-copeck coins — forty copecks in all, which is exactly what we render. It signals that Mitya, once wealthy, is now nearly penniless.
> Genitive of negation with «ни»: «Денег… не было ни копейки» negates existence: the missing thing stands in the genitive («копейки», «денег»), and «ни» intensifies it to 'not a single one'. This is the obligatory genitive-of-negation pattern after «не было».
> Imperfective «оставалось» for a lingering remnant: The imperfective past «оставалось» ('was [still] remaining') views the leftover wealth as a standing, durative state rather than a single event, coloring the exclamation with elegiac duration — all that was left of so many years.

Но у него лежали дома старые серебряные часы, давно уже переставшие ходить.  
But lying at home he had an old silver watch that had long since stopped running.
> Possession with «у» + genitive: Russian expresses 'he had' with «у него» (у + genitive pronoun) plus the thing in the nominative — here «часы» is the grammatical subject, literally 'by him there lay a watch'. The case-marked «у него» frames possession as location-at, not a verb 'to have'.
> Past active participle «переставшие»: «Переставшие ходить» is a past active participle (from «перестать», to stop) agreeing with «часы» — literally 'having long since ceased to run'. It packs a который-clause ('that had stopped') into one declined modifier, a hallmark of literary narration.
> «ходить» of a clock = to run: Of a watch or clock, «ходить» (literally 'to walk, to go') means 'to run, to keep time'. «Переставшие ходить» = 'that had stopped running'. A nice idiom where the multidirectional motion verb is lexicalized for a working mechanism.

Он схватил их и снес к еврею-часовщику, помещавшемуся в своей лавчонке на базаре.  
He snatched it up and carried it off to the Jewish watchmaker, who kept a little stall in the marketplace.
> Two perfectives chaining the action forward: «Схватил» (snatched) and «снёс» (carried off) are both perfective pasts, moving the narrative forward event by event — he grabs, then carries off. Note «их» ('them') agrees with plural «часы», which Russian treats as inherently plural though English says 'a watch'.
> Past active participle «помещавшемуся»: «Помещавшемуся» is a participle agreeing with «часовщику» in the dative ('to the watchmaker who kept [a stall]'). The participle declines to match its noun's case, so its dative ending mirrors «еврею-часовщику» — the bookish equivalent of «который помещался».
> «лавчонка» — a wretched little stall: From «лавка» (shop, stall) plus the pejorative-diminutive suffix «-чонк-», «лавчонка» means a poky, paltry little shop. The suffix conveys not just smallness but shabbiness — exactly our 'little stall'.

Тот дал за них шесть рублей.  
The man gave six roubles for it.
> «Тот» as anaphoric 'the man': The demonstrative «тот» ('that one') here picks up the watchmaker as topic — 'the said man'. Russian uses «тот»/«этот» to track referents across sentences where English would repeat a noun or say 'he', and «тот» specifically points back to a non-current subject.
> «шесть» + genitive plural: After 'five' and higher, the counted noun goes in the genitive plural: «шесть рублей» (cf. «два рубля», gen. sing., after 2–4). The numeral governs the case of what it counts.

«И того не ожидал!» — вскричал восхищенный Митя (он всё продолжал быть в восхищении), схватил свои шесть рублей и побежал домой.  
"I never expected even that much!" — cried Mitya, delighted (he was still in a state of rapture), and grabbing his six roubles he ran home.
> Genitive of negation: «того не ожидал»: «Того не ожидал» — 'I didn't expect even that' — puts the negated object «того» (genitive of «то») in the genitive rather than the accusative, the regular shift under negation with an abstract object. The fronted «того» also throws emphatic weight on 'even that much'.
> Imperfective «продолжал быть» — a sustained state: «Всё продолжал быть в восхищении» ('kept being in rapture') uses imperfective «продолжал» plus «всё» ('still, all the while') to stress an ongoing, unbroken state — the durative imperfective doing exactly what English 'was still in a state of' does.
> Reflexive possessive «свои» + perfectives: «Свои шесть рублей» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('his own'), referring back to the clause's subject Mitya. The two perfectives «схватил… побежал» (grabbed, ran off) drive the action to its swift completion.

Дома он дополнил сумму, взяв взаймы три рубля от хозяев, которые дали ему с удовольствием, несмотря на то, что отдавали последние свои деньги, до того любили его.  
At home he made up the sum by borrowing three roubles from his landlord and landlady, who gave it to him gladly, even though they were parting with the last of their money — so much did they love him.
> Perfective gerund «взяв»: «Взяв взаймы» ('having borrowed') is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) from «взять» — it names a prior, completed action sharing Mitya's subject, the means by which he 'made up the sum'. The bare instrumental-of-manner phrase «взаймы» means 'on loan'.
> Concessive «несмотря на то, что»: «Несмотря на то, что» ('despite the fact that') is a subordinating conjunction opening a concessive clause. Inside it, imperfective «отдавали» ('were parting with') views the giving as an ongoing sacrifice, set against the perfective «дали» ('gave') of the main clause.
> Intensifying «до того… (что)»: «До того любили его» — literally 'to that [degree] they loved him' — is the «до того, что» construction expressing extreme degree, here trailing as a causal afterthought: 'so much did they love him'. It conveys consequence by intensity.

Митя в восторженном состоянии своем открыл им тут же, что решается судьба его, и рассказал им, ужасно спеша разумеется, почти весь свой «план», который только что представил Самсонову, затем решение Самсонова, будущие надежды свои и проч., и проч.  
Mitya, in his exalted state, disclosed to them then and there that his fate was being decided, and recounted to them — hurrying frightfully, of course — almost his entire "plan," which he had just laid before Samsonov, then Samsonov's decision, his hopes for the future, and so on, and so on.
> Reflexive «решается» as passive/middle: «Решается судьба его» — 'his fate is being decided' — uses the «-ся» verb for an imperfective passive/middle: the fate undergoes deciding with no named agent. The postposed «его» ('his') after the noun is a slightly archaic, weighty word order.
> Imperfective gerund «спеша»: «Спеша» ('hurrying') is an imperfective present gerund describing the manner attending «рассказал» — he recounted while hurrying. Simultaneous, ongoing accompaniment, the typical job of the «-я» gerund.
> Postposed «свои» for rhetorical weight: «Будущие надежды свои» places the reflexive possessive «свои» after its noun rather than before — an inverted, bookish order that lends the phrase a trailing, listing rhythm, matched by the repeated «и проч., и проч.»
> «и проч.» — 'and so forth': «И проч.» abbreviates «и прочее» ('and the rest, et cetera'). The doubled «и проч., и проч.» mimics the narrator's weary 'and so on, and so on', conveying that Mitya gushed out far more than is worth reporting.

Хозяева и допрежь сего были посвящены во многие его тайны, потому-то и смотрели на него как на ''своего'' человека, совсем не гордого барина.  
The landlord and his wife had already been let in on many of his secrets even before this, and for that reason looked on him as ''one of their own'' — not at all a haughty gentleman.
> «допрежь сего» — archaic 'before this': «Допрежь» is a folksy-archaic preposition for «прежде» (before), and «сего» is the genitive of the bookish demonstrative «сей» (this). Together «допрежь сего» = 'before this, ere now' — a deliberately old-fashioned, slightly rustic flavor in the narration.
> Short-form past passive «посвящены»: «Были посвящены» is the short-form past passive participle of «посвятить» joined to «были» — the periphrastic passive ('had been let in on'). The short participle «посвящены» predicates a resulting state, agreeing in number with «хозяева».
> Causal «потому-то и»: «Потому-то и» strengthens the causal «потому» with the topic-emphasizing clitic «-то» and the focusing «и» ('and for that very reason'). The little particles together underline the cause as the known, given ground of what follows.

Совокупив таким образом девять рублей, Митя послал за почтовыми лошадьми до Воловьей станции.  
Having thus scraped together nine roubles, Mitya sent for post-horses to take him to the Volovya station.
> Perfective gerund «совокупив»: «Совокупив» ('having gathered together') is a perfective past gerund opening the sentence — a prior completed action ('having thus scraped together nine roubles') before the main perfective «послал». The bookish «совокупить» (to combine, total up) heightens the register.
> Instrumental of means «лошадьми»: «Лошадьми» is the instrumental plural of «лошадь» (note the irregular soft-third-declension ending), naming the means of travel after «послать за». «За» here governs the instrumental in the sense 'to send for / to fetch'.

Но, таким образом, запомнился и обозначился факт, что «накануне некоторого события, в полдень, у Мити не было ни копейки и что он, чтобы достать денег, продал часы и занял три рубля у хозяев, и всё при свидетелях».  
But in this way, too, a fact got fixed and noted — that "on the eve of a certain event, at midday, Mitya did not have a single copeck, and that to get hold of money he sold his watch and borrowed three roubles from his landlord, and all of it before witnesses."
> Reflexive «-ся» verbs, impersonally fronted: «Запомнился и обозначился факт» ('a fact got fixed and noted') uses two «-ся» verbs in a passive/middle sense — the fact became remembered and marked, with no agent. The verb-first order («запомнился… факт») foregrounds the event before naming its subject.
> Genitive of negation again: Inside the quoted 'fact', «не было ни копейки» repeats the genitive-of-negation pattern: the absent money stands in the genitive («копейки»), with «ни» sharpening it to 'not a single copeck'. The echo of segment 1 marks this as the legally damning detail.
> Purpose clause «чтобы достать»: «Чтобы достать денег» ('in order to get money') is a purpose clause: «чтобы» + infinitive when the subject is the same. Note «денег» (genitive) as a partitive/negated-style object after «достать» — 'get [some] money'.

Отмечаю этот факт заранее, потом разъяснится, для чего так делаю.  
I set down this fact in advance; later it will become clear why I do so.
> Perfective future «разъяснится»: «Разъяснится» ('it will become clear') is a perfective verb in present-form endings, which yields future meaning — and the «-ся» gives it a middle/impersonal sense ('it will clear itself up'). A single completed future event: later it will all come clear.
> Narrator's present «отмечаю»: «Отмечаю» ('I note, I set down') is a first-person imperfective present — the chronicler-narrator stepping forward in his own voice. The dropped subject pronoun «я» is recovered from the ending alone, as Russian regularly omits it.

Поскакав на Воловью станцию, Митя хоть и сиял от радостного предчувствия, что наконец-то кончит и развяжет «все эти дела», тем не менее трепетал и от страху: что станется теперь с Грушенькой в его отсутствие?  
Galloping toward the Volovya station, Mitya, even as he glowed with the joyful presentiment that he would at last finish off and untangle "all these affairs," nonetheless trembled with fear as well: what would become of Grushenka now, in his absence?
> Perfective gerund «поскакав»: «Поскакав» ('having galloped / setting off at a gallop') is a perfective past gerund from «поскакать», opening the sentence with the framing action. The prefix «по-» here gives an ingressive 'set to galloping' sense.
> Concessive «хоть и… тем не менее»: «Хоть и сиял… тем не менее трепетал» pairs the concessive «хоть и» ('even though') with the adversative «тем не менее» ('nonetheless') to hold two feelings at once — radiant joy and trembling fear. The two imperfectives «сиял»/«трепетал» keep both as sustained states.
> Impersonal «что станется с…»: «Что станется с Грушенькой» ('what will become of Grushenka') is a fixed impersonal turn — «статься» (perfective future, «-ся») with «с» + instrumental for the person affected. There is no nominative subject; the fate simply 'happens with' her.
> «Грушенька» — the affectionate diminutive: «Грушенька» is the tender diminutive of «Аграфена» (via «Груша»), built with the endearing «-еньк-» suffix. The narrator and Mitya use this caressing form throughout, a constant signal of intimacy and feeling rather than mere naming.

Ну как раз сегодня-то и решится наконец пойти к Федору Павловичу?  
What if it were this very day that she at last made up her mind to go to Fyodor Pavlovich?
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and focusing «и»: «Сегодня-то и решится» loads 'today' with the topic-clitic «-то» and the focusing «и» — 'this very day, of all days'. The clustered particles render Mitya's anxious fixation on the timing, voiced as free indirect thought.
> Perfective future «решится» + middle «-ся»: «Решится пойти» ('she will make up her mind to go') is perfective future with «-ся» giving the inceptive-reflexive 'bring oneself to decide'. The «Ну как…» frame turns it into an anxious hypothetical — 'what if she does decide today?'

Вот почему он и уехал, ей не сказавшись и заказав хозяевам отнюдь не открывать, куда он делся, если откуда-нибудь придут его спрашивать.  
That was why he had set off without telling her, and had ordered his landlord on no account to reveal where he had gone, should anyone come from any quarter asking after him.
> Two gerunds: «сказавшись» and «заказав»: «Не сказавшись» (reflexive perfective gerund, 'without announcing himself to her') and «заказав» (perfective gerund, 'having ordered') chain two prior actions onto «уехал». The «-ся» on «сказавшись» makes it 'without letting her know', and «ей» is the dative of the person told.
> Emphatic negation «отнюдь не»: «Отнюдь не открывать» — 'on no account to reveal' — uses «отнюдь не», an emphatic negator stronger than plain «не», categorically forbidding the act. It governs the imperfective infinitive «открывать», framing the ban as a standing rule.
> Non-specific «-нибудь» in an open condition: «Откуда-нибудь» ('from anywhere at all') uses the «-нибудь» series for a non-specific, hypothetical source — fitting an open «если» condition about some unknown person who might come asking. Contrast «-то», which would mark a definite-but-unnamed someone.

«Непременно, непременно сегодня к вечеру надо вернуться, — повторял он, трясясь в телеге, — а этого Лягавого, пожалуй, и сюда притащить… для совершения этого акта…» — так, замирая душою, мечтал Митя, но увы, мечтаниям его слишком не суждено было совершиться по его «плану».  
"Without fail, without fail I must be back by this evening," — he kept repeating, jolting along in the cart, — "and this Lyagavy, perhaps, I'll have to drag here too… for the carrying-out of this transaction…" — so, his soul sinking within him, Mitya dreamed; but alas, his dreamings were far too little destined to come about according to his "plan."
> Imperfective gerund «трясясь»: «Трясясь в телеге» ('jolting in the cart') is a reflexive imperfective gerund from «трястись», naming the simultaneous physical circumstance of his repeating the words. The «-сь» (post-vowel «-ся») marks the intransitive 'being shaken about'.
> Dative-subject fate: «суждено было»: «Мечтаниям его… не суждено было совершиться» is an impersonal fate construction: the experiencer «мечтаниям» (dative) with the invariable predicate «суждено» ('destined') and «было» — no nominative subject. Literally 'to his dreamings it was not destined to come about'.
> Instrumental of respect: «душою»: «Замирая душою» ('his soul sinking / fainting in spirit') pairs the imperfective gerund «замирая» with «душою», an old instrumental of «душа» specifying in what respect he sinks. The «-ою» ending is the archaic/poetic variant of «-ой».
> «мечтания» — fond, idle dreamings: «Мечтание» (here plural «мечтания») is the bookish, slightly elevated noun for daydreams, fond imaginings — weightier and more wistful than everyday «мечта». The narrator's choice underscores the gap between Mitya's reverie and the realism that will crush it.

Во-первых, он опоздал, отправившись с Воловьей станции проселком.  
In the first place, he was delayed, having set out from the Volovya station by a country road.
> Perfective gerund «отправившись»: «Отправившись» ('having set out') is a perfective past gerund explaining the cause of the delay. «Проселком» is a bare instrumental of route/path — 'by a country road' — one of the instrumental's idiomatic uses for the way one travels.
> «просёлок» — a back country road: A «просёлок» (or «просёлочная дорога») is an unpaved rural byway between villages, off the main post-road — slower and rougher. Mitya's taking it is exactly why he loses time, as the next sentence makes plain.

Проселок оказался не в двенадцать, а в восемнадцать верст.  
The country road turned out to be not twelve but eighteen versts.
> Contrastive «не…, а…»: «Не в двенадцать, а в восемнадцать» uses the corrective pair «не… а…» ('not X but Y') to replace the wrong figure with the right one. «А» here is the sharp contrastive 'but rather', a different word from «но».

Во-вторых, Ильинского батюшки он не застал дома, тот отлучился в соседнюю деревню.  
In the second place, he did not find the priest of Ilyinskoye at home; the man had gone off to a neighboring village.
> Genitive of negation: «батюшки… не застал»: «Батюшки… не застал» — 'he did not find the priest [in]' — shifts the object «батюшку» to the genitive «батюшки» under negation, the usual genitive-of-negation move with «не застал» (didn't find present). The fronted «Ильинского батюшки» is the topic.
> «тот» tracking the priest as topic: «Тот отлучился» — 'the man had gone off' — picks up the priest with «тот» rather than a pronoun, the demonstrative tracking a referent who is not the immediately preceding subject (Mitya). The perfective «отлучился» reports the completed departure.

Пока разыскал там его Митя, отправившись в эту соседнюю деревню всё на тех же, уже измученных лошадях, наступила почти уже ночь.  
By the time Mitya had tracked him down there, having set off to that neighboring village on the same horses, already worn out, night had almost fallen.
> Temporal «пока» + perfective: «Пока разыскал… Митя… наступила ночь» uses «пока» ('by the time, while') with two perfectives to mark the span: by the time he had tracked the priest down, night had set in. The verb-first order («разыскал… Митя») builds the suspense of the elapsing time.
> Gerund «отправившись» + repeated horses: Another perfective gerund «отправившись» frames the side-trip. «Всё на тех же, уже измученных лошадях» — 'on the very same, now worn-out horses' — uses «тот же» ('the same') and the postposed participle «измученных» (worn out, exhausted) to stress that no fresh team was had.

Батюшка, робкий и ласковый на вид человечек, разъяснил ему немедленно, что этот Лягавый, хоть и остановился было у него спервоначалу, но теперь находится в Сухом Поселке, там у лесного сторожа в избе сегодня ночует, потому что и там тоже лес торгует.  
The priest, a timid and gentle-looking little man, explained to him at once that this Lyagavy, though he had indeed stopped at first with him, was now in Sukhoy Posyolok and was spending the night there in the forester's hut, because he was trading for timber there too.
> The past «было» of an interrupted action: «Остановился было» uses the particle «было» after a perfective past to mark an action that started or was the case but then was reversed or didn't hold — 'had stopped [with him] at first [but no longer]'. This «было» of the cancelled/incipient act is a fine 19th-c. nuance.
> «спервоначалу» — colloquial 'at the very first': «Спервоначалу» is a folksy, doubled adverb ('at the very beginning, to start with'), more rustic and expansive than plain «сперва» or «сначала». It colors the priest's reported speech with homely, provincial texture.
> «торговать лес» — to deal/bargain for timber: «Лес торгует» here means 'is trading/bargaining for timber' — «торговать» with a direct object means to be in the market to buy, to dicker over a purchase. «Лес» is collective for standing timber or woodland sold for felling, the business that brings Lyagavy to these forest huts.

На усиленные просьбы Мити сводить его к Лягавому сейчас же и «тем, так сказать, спасти его», батюшка хоть и заколебался вначале, но согласился, однако, проводить его в Сухой Поселок, видимо почувствовав любопытство; но, на грех, посоветовал дойти «пешечком», так как тут всего какая-нибудь верста «с небольшим излишком» будет.  
To Mitya's urgent entreaties to take him to Lyagavy at once and "thereby, so to speak, save him," the priest, though he wavered at first, nevertheless consented to escort him to Sukhoy Posyolok — evidently feeling some curiosity; but, as ill luck would have it, he advised going "on foot," since it was only a verst or so, "with a little to spare."
> Piled-up concession: «хоть и… но… однако»: The sentence stacks three concessive-adversative signals — «хоть и» (even though), «но» (but), and «однако» (however) — around «согласился». The redundancy is deliberate 19th-c. rhetorical fullness, dramatizing the timid priest's hesitation before yielding.
> Gerund «почувствовав» of motive: «Почувствовав любопытство» ('having felt some curiosity') is a perfective gerund giving the inner reason for his consenting, softened by «видимо» ('evidently') as the narrator's inference about the priest's motive.
> «на грех» — 'as ill luck would have it': «На грех» (literally 'to a sin') is a set idiom meaning 'unluckily, as bad luck would have it'. The narrator marks the priest's advice to walk as a small fateful mistake — part of the chapter's chain of mishaps.
> «пешечком» — the coaxing diminutive of 'on foot': «Пешечком» is a diminutive of «пешком» (on foot), formed with «-ечк-». The little suffix makes it sound easy and inviting — 'just a nice little walk' — exactly the priest's coaxing tone, which proves so misleading.

Митя, разумеется, согласился и зашагал своими аршинными шагами, так что бедный батюшка почти побежал за ним.  
Mitya, of course, agreed, and strode off with his yard-long strides, so that the poor priest almost had to run after him.
> Result clause «так что»: «Так что» ('so that, with the result that') opens a result clause: Mitya's huge strides had the consequence that the priest nearly ran. The perfective «побежал» (ingressive 'broke into a run') captures the sudden effort.
> «аршинные шаги» — yard-long strides: An «аршин» is an old Russian measure of about 71 cm (28 inches). «Аршинными шагами» — 'with arshin-long steps' — vividly sizes Mitya's huge, impatient strides, which we render 'yard-long'.

Это был еще не старый и очень осторожный человечек.  
He was a little man, still not old and very cautious.
> «человечек» — the diminutive 'little man': «Человечек» is the diminutive of «человек», here conveying physical smallness tinged with a faint, affectionate condescension — a slight, harmless little figure. It recurs for the priest, fixing him as small and timorous beside the towering Mitya.
> Instrumental? No — nominal predicate with «был»: Note that the predicate noun «человечек» stays in the nominative here, not the instrumental, because «это был…» is the identifying 'this was [a]…' frame, which keeps the nominative. Compare «он был студентом» (instrumental of a role), where the instrumental would be expected.

Митя и с ним тотчас же заговорил о своих планах, горячо, нервно требовал советов насчет Лягавого и проговорил всю дорогу.  
Mitya at once fell to talking with him too about his plans, hotly and nervously demanding advice about Lyagavy, and he kept talking the whole way.
> Ingressive «за-» vs durative «про-»: Two prefixed perfectives frame Mitya's talk: «заговорил» ('began to talk', ingressive «за-») and «проговорил всю дорогу» ('talked the whole way through', the «про-» of an action filling a whole stretch of time). Russian prefixes thus specify the phase of the speaking.
> Reflexive «своих» + prepositional «о»: «О своих планах» ('about his [own] plans') uses «о» governing the prepositional case (the topic-of-speech construction) and the reflexive possessive «своих» pointing back to Mitya. «О» + prepositional is the standard 'about, concerning'.

Батюшка слушал внимательно, но посоветовал мало.  
The priest listened attentively but gave little counsel.
> Imperfective listening vs perfective counsel: The contrast is in the aspect: imperfective «слушал» ('listened', durative attention) against perfective «посоветовал» ('gave [some] counsel', a bounded result). «Но» pivots from the sustained listening to the meagre advice produced.

На вопросы Мити отвечал уклончиво: «Не знаю, ох не знаю, где же мне это знать», и т. д.  
To Mitya's questions he answered evasively: "I don't know, oh, I don't know — how should I know that?" and so forth.
> Rhetorical «где мне…» + emphatic «же»: «Где же мне это знать» is a dative-subject rhetorical question — «мне» (dative experiencer) with an infinitive, literally 'where [is it] for me to know this', i.e. 'how should I know?'. The particle «же» adds insistent, half-pleading emphasis to the disclaimer.
> «ох» — the sighing interjection: «Ох» is a sighing, fretful interjection of weariness or helplessness. Doubled with «не знаю» ('oh, I don't know'), it paints the priest's evasive, hand-wringing reluctance to be drawn in — pure spoken texture.

Когда Митя заговорил о своих контрах с отцом насчет наследства, то батюшка даже испугался, потому что состоял с Федором Павловичем в каких-то зависимых к нему отношениях.  
When Mitya began to speak of his quarrels with his father over the inheritance, the priest grew positively frightened, because he stood in some sort of dependent relation to Fyodor Pavlovich.
> Correlative «когда… то…»: «Когда…, то…» is the correlative pairing of a «когда» time-clause with a resumptive «то» ('then') opening the main clause — a bookish framing common in 19th-c. narration. The ingressive perfectives «заговорил» and «испугался» mark the onset of speaking and of fright.
> Imperfective «состоял в отношениях»: «Состоял… в каких-то зависимых к нему отношениях» ('stood in some dependent relation to him') is durative imperfective «состоять в» + prepositional — a standing, ongoing state, not an event. The indefinite «каких-то» leaves the exact nature vague.
> «контры» — quarrels, a falling-out: «Контры» (here prepositional plural «о своих контрах») is a colloquial noun for a quarrel, friction, being at odds — borrowed ultimately from «контра-» (counter, against). «Контры с отцом насчёт наследства» = his feud with his father over the inheritance.

С удивлением, впрочем, осведомился, почему он называет этого торгующего крестьянина Горсткина Лягавым, и разъяснил обязательно Мите, что хоть тот и впрямь Лягавый, но что он и не Лягавый, потому что именем этим жестоко обижается, и что называть его надо непременно Горсткиным, «иначе ничего с ним не совершите, да и слушать не станет», — заключил батюшка.  
He inquired, with surprise, however, why Mitya called this trading peasant Gorstkin by the name Lyagavy, and explained obligingly to Mitya that, although the man was indeed Lyagavy, yet he was also not Lyagavy, because he took cruel offense at the name, and that one must without fail call him Gorstkin — "otherwise you'll get nowhere with him, and he won't even listen," — the priest concluded.
> Paradox by «хоть… но» and zero copula: The priest's tangle — «тот и впрямь Лягавый, но… он и не Лягавый» ('he really is Lyagavy, yet he is also not Lyagavy') — uses the present-tense zero copula (no 'is'): the predicate noun simply stands in the nominative beside the subject. The «хоть… но» concessive frames the paradox of a name that is and isn't his.
> Instrumental of the name: «называть… Горсткиным»: After «называть» ('to call [someone something]'), the name-predicate goes in the instrumental: «называть его… Горсткиным» — 'to call him Gorstkin'. The instrumental marks the assigned designation, the same case-logic as «быть/стать» + instrumental for a role.
> Negative concord and «не станет»: «Ничего… не совершите» shows negative concord — the negative pronoun «ничего» plus the obligatory «не» on the verb, two negatives for one meaning ('you'll achieve nothing'). «Слушать не станет» uses «стать» as a perfective future auxiliary: 'he won't [even] start to listen'.

Митя несколько и наскоро удивился и объяснил, что так называл его сам Самсонов.  
Mitya was somewhat and hastily surprised, and explained that it was Samsonov himself who had called him by that name.
> Intensifier «сам» and imperfective «называл»: «Сам Самсонов» ('Samsonov himself') uses the intensifier «сам» to stress that the source was the great man in person. Imperfective «называл» ('used to call / kept calling') presents the naming as Samsonov's habitual usage, not a one-off act.

Услышав про это обстоятельство, батюшка тотчас же этот разговор замял, хотя и хорошо бы сделал, если бы разъяснил тогда же Дмитрию Федоровичу догадку свою: что если сам Самсонов послал его к этому мужичку как к Лягавому, то не сделал ли сего почему-либо на смех и что нет ли чего тут неладного?  
Hearing of this circumstance, the priest at once let the conversation drop, though he would have done well had he then explained to Dmitri Fyodorovich his own surmise: that if Samsonov himself had sent him to this little peasant as to "Lyagavy," then might he not have done so for some reason as a joke, and might there not be something amiss here?
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: «Хорошо бы сделал, если бы разъяснил» is a past-counterfactual: both clauses use past-tense verb + «бы» ('he would have done well had he explained'). This is Russian's single irrealis mood — the conditional/subjunctive built on «бы».
> Embedded question with «ли»: «Не сделал ли сего… на смех» uses the interrogative particle «ли» for a tentative embedded question — 'might he not have done this… for a joke?'. The fronted negated verb plus «ли» voices the priest's hesitant surmise. «На смех» = 'as a joke, to make a fool of him'.
> Archaic «сей» — 'this': «Сего» is the genitive of «сей» ('this'), an archaic-bookish demonstrative the narrator slips into for the priest's churchy, formal cast of mind. «Сделать сего» = 'to do this'. The flavor is period-elevated, not ordinary speech.
> «ли» + genitive of negation: «Нет ли чего… неладного» combines the question particle «ли» with the existential «нет» that takes the genitive — 'is there not something amiss here?'. «Чего» and «неладного» are genitives demanded by «нет», so the whole asks after a possible absent-or-present 'wrong thing'.

Но Мите некогда было останавливаться «на таких мелочах».  
But Mitya had no time to dwell "on such trifles."
> Dative subject with «некогда»: «Мите некогда было останавливаться» — 'Mitya had no time to dwell' — is an impersonal dative-subject construction: «Мите» (dative experiencer), the negative impersonal predicate «некогда» ('there's no time'), and an infinitive. No nominative subject at all.
> «мелочи» — trifles: «Мелочь» (here prepositional plural «на мелочах») means a trifle, a petty detail (from «мелкий», small). Set in Mitya's own quotation marks, «такие мелочи» voices his impatient dismissal of the very warning that ought to have stopped him.

Он спешил, шагал и, только придя в Сухой Поселок, догадался, что прошли они не версту и не полторы, а наверное три; это его раздосадовало, но он стерпел.  
He hurried on, striding, and only on reaching Sukhoy Posyolok did he realize that they had walked not a verst, nor a verst and a half, but surely three; this vexed him, but he bore it.
> Gerund «придя» + delimitative «только»: «Только придя… догадался» pairs the perfective gerund «придя» ('on arriving / having come') with «только» ('only [then]'), so the realization («догадался») comes precisely upon arrival. «Придя» is the slightly irregular gerund of «прийти».
> Corrective «не… и не…, а…»: «Не версту и не полторы, а… три» rejects two figures and supplies the true one with «а», the corrective conjunction. «Версту» is the accusative of extent (distance covered), and «полторы» ('one and a half') takes a feminine form agreeing with «верста».
> Neuter «это» as subject + perfectives: «Это его раздосадовало» uses neuter «это» ('this [fact]') as a summarizing subject of the perfective «раздосадовало» ('vexed him'). The clipped «но он стерпел» ('but he bore it') ends on a perfective of endured completion.

Вошли в избу.  
They entered the hut.
> Subjectless plural «вошли»: «Вошли в избу» drops the subject entirely — the plural perfective ending «-и» alone carries 'they entered'. Russian freely omits a recoverable subject, and the terse verb-only sentence quickens the narrative pace. «В избу» is accusative of motion-into after «в».

Лесник, знакомый батюшки, помещался в одной половине избы, а в другой, чистой половине, через сени, расположился Горсткин.  
The forester, an acquaintance of the priest's, lodged in one half of the hut, while in the other, cleaner half, across the entryway, Gorstkin had settled himself.
> Contrastive «а» splitting the two halves: «В одной половине… а в другой… половине» uses «а» as the mild contrastive 'while', setting the forester's half against Gorstkin's half — the topic-shifting «а» rather than oppositional «но». «Расположился» (reflexive perfective) = 'had settled himself, made himself comfortable'.
> «сени» — the entry passage of the izba: «Сени» (always plural) is the unheated entrance passage or vestibule of a traditional «изба», dividing the living quarters. 'Across the сени' places Gorstkin's clean half opposite the forester's, through this cold threshold space — a concrete detail of peasant-house layout.

Вошли в эту чистую избу и засветили сальную свечку.  
They went into this cleaner room and lit a tallow candle.
> Two perfectives, subject still dropped: Again the subject is omitted: paired perfectives «вошли… засветили» ('entered… lit') carry 'they' in the ending. The prefix «за-» on «засветили» is ingressive — 'got the candle alight'.
> «сальная свеча» — a tallow candle: A «сальная свеча» is a cheap candle of rendered animal fat (сало), smoky and dim — the poor man's light, against costlier wax. The diminutive «свечка» (свеча + «-к-») adds homeliness. The detail fixes the rude poverty of the forest hut.

Изба была сильно натоплена.  
The hut had been heated to a fierce warmth.
> Short-form past passive «натоплена»: «Была… натоплена» is the periphrastic passive: «была» plus the short-form past passive participle «натоплена» (from «натопить», to heat up a room/stove), agreeing feminine with «изба». It states a resulting condition — the hut stood heated through.

На сосновом столе стоял потухший самовар, тут же поднос с чашками, допитая бутылка рому, не совсем допитый штоф водки и объедки пшеничного хлеба.  
On the deal table stood a samovar gone cold, and beside it a tray with cups, an emptied bottle of rum, a not-quite-finished flask of vodka, and the crusts of a wheaten loaf.
> Locative-first, verb-second presentation: «На сосновом столе стоял… самовар» fronts the location, then the verb, then the new item — the topic-comment flow that introduces fresh referents at the end. The past active participle «потухший» ('having gone out, extinguished') modifies the samovar as a declined adjective.
> «штоф» — a measure/flask of vodka: A «штоф» was both an old liquid measure (about 1.2 litres) and the squarish bottle holding it. «Не совсем допитый штоф водки» — 'a not-quite-finished flask of vodka' — alongside the rum and crusts completes the still-life of the drunkard's table.
> «объедки» — leftover scraps: «Объедки» (always plural) are the gnawed remnants, the crusts left after eating (from «объесть», to eat round/away). «Объедки пшеничного хлеба» = the scraps of a wheaten loaf — the débris of a meal long over.

Сам же приезжий лежал протянувшись на скамье, со скомканною верхнею одежонкой под головами вместо подушки, и грузно храпел.  
The visitor himself lay stretched out on a bench, his crumpled outer coat bunched under his head in place of a pillow, and snored heavily.
> «сам же» + gerund «протянувшись»: «Сам же приезжий» fronts the intensifier «сам» ('the man himself') with the contrastive particle «же» turning to the main figure. «Протянувшись» is a reflexive perfective gerund ('having stretched out') describing his posture while «лежал» (imperfective, durative lying).
> «одежонка» — a wretched bit of clothing: «Одежонка» is «одежда» (clothing) plus the pejorative-diminutive «-онк-», meaning a paltry, shabby garment. «Скомканная верхняя одежонка под головами» — a crumpled, sorry coat bunched under his head — marks both his poverty and his sodden carelessness.
> «под головами» — the dialectal plural: «Под головами» uses a colloquial/dialectal plural «головами» where standard Russian would say «под головой» ('under his head') — a folk-speech touch fitting the rough forest setting. The sense is simply 'under his head, in place of a pillow'.
> Imperfective «храпел» of ongoing sound: «Грузно храпел» ('snored heavily') is imperfective past for a continuous, repeating sound filling the scene — the drunk man's unbroken snoring, against which Mitya's frantic efforts will founder.

Митя стал в недоумении.  
Mitya stopped short, at a loss.
> «стал» as 'came to a stop' + state: «Стал в недоумении» plays on «стать» — here 'stopped, came to a standstill' — leaving Mitya halted 'in bewilderment' («в недоумении», prepositional of state). The terse perfective freezes him at a loss before the snoring obstacle.

«Конечно, надо будить: мое дело слишком важное, я так спешил, я спешу сегодня же воротиться», — затревожился Митя; но батюшка и сторож стояли молча, не высказывая своего мнения.  
"Of course I must wake him: my business is too important, I hurried so, I must get back this very day," — Mitya began to fret; but the priest and the forester stood in silence, offering no opinion.
> Impersonal necessity «надо» + infinitive: «Надо будить» ('one must wake him') is the impersonal necessity construction: the invariable «надо» plus an imperfective infinitive, no nominative subject. The dative experiencer («мне») is left unspoken but understood from Mitya's inner voice.
> Imperfective gerund of negated accompaniment: «Не высказывая своего мнения» ('not voicing their opinion') is a negated imperfective gerund describing the manner in which the priest and forester 'stood silent' — the simultaneous, sustained withholding. «Своего» is the reflexive possessive.
> «затревожился» — began to fret: «Затревожиться» combines the ingressive prefix «за-» ('begin to') with reflexive «тревожиться» (to grow anxious): 'he began to fret, took alarm'. The «-ся» marks the inward change of state, the «за-» its sudden onset.

Митя подошел и принялся будить сам, принялся энергически, но спящий не пробуждался.  
Mitya went over and set about waking him himself, set about it energetically, but the sleeper would not rouse.
> «приняться» + infinitive, repeated for force: «Принялся будить» ('set about waking') is the perfective «приняться» ('to set to') governing an imperfective infinitive — to take up doing something. Dostoevsky repeats «принялся… принялся» to convey Mitya's mounting, stubborn effort.
> Substantivized participle «спящий» + imperfective: «Спящий» ('the sleeping [one]') is a present active participle used as a noun — 'the sleeper'. Imperfective «не пробуждался» ('would not wake up', durative-conative) conveys repeated failed attempts: he kept not waking.

«Он пьян, — решил Митя, — но что же мне делать, господи, что же мне делать!»  
"He's drunk," — Mitya decided, — "but what am I to do, Lord, what am I to do!"
> Dative-subject deliberation + «же»: «Что же мне делать» — 'what am I to do?' — is the dative-with-infinitive deliberative ('for me to do'), intensified by the despairing «же». No nominative subject; the dative «мне» bears the helpless agent. The doubling 'что же мне делать… что же мне делать' heightens the anguish.
> «господи» — vocative cry to the Lord: «Господи» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «Господь» (Lord), surviving in everyday exclamation. Lower-cased here, it is a half-prayer of dismay — 'Lord!, good God!' — not a formal address. Such Slavonic vocatives pepper Dostoevsky's emotional speech.

И вдруг в страшном нетерпении принялся дергать спящего за руки, за ноги, раскачивать его за голову, приподымать и садить на лавку и все-таки после весьма долгих усилий добился лишь того, что тот начал нелепо мычать и крепко, хотя и неясно выговаривая, ругаться.  
And suddenly, in a frightful impatience, he began tugging at the sleeper by the arms, by the legs, rocking him by the head, lifting him up and sitting him on the bench — and after very long efforts achieved only this much: that the man began to mumble absurdly and, swearing thickly though indistinctly, to curse.
> A chain of imperfective infinitives: «Принялся дёргать… раскачивать… приподымать и садить» strings four imperfective infinitives under one «принялся», each a repeated, effortful manhandling. The imperfectives stress the straining, iterative process — tugging, rocking, lifting, sitting up.
> Correlative «того, что» after «добиться»: «Добился лишь того, что…» ('achieved only this: that…') uses «добиться» + genitive «того» with a «что»-clause unpacking the meagre result. «Добиться» governs the genitive («того»), and «лишь» ('only') deflates the achievement.
> Concessive gerund «выговаривая»: «Хотя и неясно выговаривая… ругаться» nests a concessive imperfective gerund («выговаривая», 'articulating') inside the clause, conceding 'though indistinctly'. It describes the manner attending the man's beginning to curse («ругаться», a «-ся» verb meaning 'to swear').

— Нет, уж вы лучше повремените, — изрек наконец батюшка, — потому он видимо не в состоянии.  
"No, you had better wait a while," — the priest pronounced at last, — "for he is evidently in no state for it."
> Softened advice: «уж… лучше» + imperative: «Уж вы лучше повремените» wraps a polite imperative («повремените», 'wait a while') in the softening particle «уж» and «лучше» ('better') — gentle counsel rather than command. «Повремените» is the perfective imperative, advising one bounded act of waiting.
> «изрёк» — solemnly pronounced: «Изрёк» (perfective «изречь») is an elevated, faintly ironic verb for 'uttered, pronounced [solemnly]', as of an oracle or sage. Applied to the timid little priest, it gently mocks the weight he gives his mild advice.
> «не в состоянии» — short predicate of incapacity: «Он… не в состоянии» ('he is in no state [for it]') is a fixed predicative phrase of incapacity, here with present zero copula. «Потому» (folksy for «потому что») introduces the reason. The whole renders the drunkard's utter incapacity plainly.

— Весь день пил, — отозвался сторож.  
"He drank all day," — the forester put in.
> Imperfective «пил» for duration: «Весь день пил» ('he drank all day') is imperfective past — the activity filling a whole span, with «весь день» as accusative of duration. The terse subjectless line is the forester's blunt explanation.
> «отозваться» — to respond, put in: «Отозвался» (perfective «отозваться», a «-ся» verb) means 'responded, put in [a remark]' — replying to the priest's words. It is the standard dialogue tag for a chiming-in answer, here giving the laconic forester his single contribution.

— Боже! — вскрикивал Митя, — если бы вы только знали, как мне необходимо и в каком я теперь отчаянии!  
"Good God!" — Mitya cried out, — "if you only knew how badly I need this, and what despair I am in now!"
> «Боже» — the vocative of God: «Боже» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» (God), a survival of the lost vocative case used in exclamation and prayer. Mitya's cry 'Good God!' is this solemn form put to the service of raw distress.
> Counterfactual wish with «если бы… только»: «Если бы вы только знали» ('if you only knew') is a present-counterfactual conditional: past-tense «знали» + «бы», with «только» giving it the force of a wish. The apodosis is left to the imagination, a common emotive ellipsis.
> Dative-subject «мне необходимо»: «Как мне необходимо» — 'how [much] I need [it]' — is the impersonal dative pattern: «мне» (dative experiencer) plus the predicative «необходимо» ('[it is] indispensable'), no nominative. The state of dire need is framed as happening to Mitya.

— Нет уж лучше бы вам повременить до утра, — повторил батюшка.  
"No, you'd better wait till morning," — the priest repeated.
> Softened advice with «бы» + dative: «Лучше бы вам повременить» ('you'd better wait') uses «бы» to soften the recommendation, with the dative «вам» as the one advised and an infinitive — 'it would be better for you to wait'. The «бы» turns plain counsel into gentle, hypothetical urging.

— До утра? Помилосердуйте, это невозможно! — И в отчаянии он чуть было опять не бросился будить пьяницу, но тотчас оставил, поняв всю бесполезность усилий.  
"Till morning? Have mercy, that's impossible!" — And in his despair he very nearly flung himself again at waking the drunkard, but at once gave it up, grasping the utter futility of the effort.
> «помилосердуйте» — 'have mercy!': «Помилосердуйте» is a polite-plural imperative of «помилосердовать» ('to take pity, show mercy'), an emphatic, slightly archaic plea — 'for pity's sake, have mercy!'. Mitya throws it up against the priest's reasonable 'wait till morning'.
> Near-miss «чуть было не»: «Чуть было опять не бросился» is the 'almost-did-but-didn't' construction: «чуть… не» ('nearly') with the cancelling «было» plus a perfective ('he very nearly flung himself [but didn't]'). It marks an action on the verge that fails to happen.
> Gerund «поняв» giving the reason: «Поняв всю бесполезность усилий» ('grasping the utter futility of the effort') is a perfective gerund supplying why he gave up — the simultaneous-prior insight. «Бесполезность» (uselessness) is the abstract «-ость» noun the gerund's object.

Батюшка молчал, заспанный сторож был мрачен.  
The priest was silent; the sleepy forester looked grim.
> Short-form adjective «мрачен»: «Был мрачен» uses the short-form adjective «мрачен» (from «мрачный», gloomy), which can only predicate and often marks a temporary state — 'looked grim [just then]'. The bookish short form suits the 19th-c. narration; «заспанный» (sleepy-eyed) before the noun is the full attributive form.

— Какие страшные трагедии устраивает с людьми реализм! — проговорил Митя в совершенном отчаянии.  
"What dreadful tragedies realism arranges for people!" — Mitya brought out in utter despair.
> Object-first word order for rhetoric: «Какие страшные трагедии устраивает… реализм» fronts the exclamatory object («какие… трагедии») before verb and subject, ending on «реализм» — the topic-comment freedom letting Mitya hurl the abstract noun to the stressed final position. «С людьми» = 'to/with people' (instrumental after «с»).

Пот лился с его лица.  
The sweat poured down his face.
> Imperfective «лился» + «с» + genitive: «Пот лился с его лица» ('the sweat poured down his face') is reflexive imperfective «литься» (to flow, pour) for the continuous streaming, with «с» governing the genitive «лица» for motion off a surface ('down from'). A vivid durative image of his distress.

Воспользовавшись минутой, батюшка весьма резонно изложил, что хотя бы и удалось разбудить спящего, но, будучи пьяным, он всё же не способен ни к какому разговору, «а у вас дело важное, так уж вернее бы оставить до утреца…» Митя развел руками и согласился.  
Seizing the moment, the priest very reasonably set forth that, even if one did manage to wake the sleeper, he was still, being drunk, incapable of any conversation, "and your business is important, so it would surely be safer to leave it till morning…" Mitya spread his hands and consented.
> Gerund «воспользовавшись» + instrumental: «Воспользовавшись минутой» ('seizing the moment') is a perfective reflexive gerund; «воспользоваться» governs the instrumental «минутой» (the thing made use of). The gerund frames the priest's well-timed intervention.
> Concessive «хотя бы» + gerund «будучи»: «Хотя бы и удалось» ('even if one did manage') is a concessive with «бы»; «удалось» is the impersonal 'it would succeed [to do]'. «Будучи пьяным» is the rare imperfective gerund of «быть» ('being drunk'), with «пьяным» in the instrumental as predicate of the gerund.
> Short adjective «способен» + «ни к какому»: «Не способен ни к какому разговору» pairs the short-form predicative adjective «способен» ('capable', here negated) with «ни к какому» — the «ни»-intensified 'not to any [conversation] at all', in negative concord. «К… разговору» is dative governed by «способен к».
> «утрецо» — the coaxing diminutive of 'morning': «До утреца» is a diminutive of «утро» (morning), formed with «-ец-». In the priest's mouth it softens and sweetens the postponement — 'till nice morning' — the same wheedling tenderness as his earlier «пешечком».

— Я, батюшка, останусь здесь со свечой и буду ловить мгновение. Пробудится, и тогда я начну… За свечку я тебе заплачу, — обратился он к сторожу, — за постой тоже, будешь помнить Дмитрия Карамазова. Вот только с вами, батюшка, не знаю теперь как быть: где же вы ляжете?  
"I'll stay here, Father, with the candle, and watch for the right moment. He'll wake, and then I'll begin… For the candle I'll pay you," — he turned to the forester, — "for the lodging too; you'll remember Dmitri Karamazov. Only with you, Father, I don't know now what to do: where are you going to lie down?"
> Perfective vs compound future side by side: «Останусь» (perfective future, 'I'll stay') names a single completed step; «буду ловить» (compound future of imperfective «ловить») names the ongoing watching that follows — 'I'll be watching for the moment'. The two futures sit side by side, one bounded, one durative.
> Dative recipient «тебе» + «за» + accusative: «Тебе заплачу» has «тебе» (dative) as the one paid; «за свечку», «за постой» use «за» + accusative for what is paid for. Note too the shift to «ты» («тебе»): Mitya addresses the forester with the familiar/condescending «ты», but the priest with «вы».
> Perfective future «ляжете» + «же»: «Где же вы ляжете» ('where are you going to lie down?') is perfective future «лечь» → «ляжете», a single completed future act, with «же» lending concerned insistence. The «вы» keeps the respectful address to the priest.
> «постой» — lodging, a night's stay: «Постой» here is the noun 'lodging, putting-up for the night' (from «постоять», to stand/stay a while) — Mitya offers to pay the forester «за постой», for the night's quarters. A homely, period word for board and shelter.

— Нет, я уж к себе-с. Я вот на его кобылке и доеду, — показал он на сторожа. — Засим прощайте-с, желаю вам полное удовольствие получить.  
"No, I'll be off home, sir. I'll just ride there on his mare," — he pointed at the forester. — "And so good-bye, sir; I wish you the fullest satisfaction."
> The deferential particle «-с»: The priest's «к себе-с» and «прощайте-с» tack a tiny «-с» onto words. This is the «словоерс», a shortened «сударь» (sir), once added to show politeness or deference. We render it with a tacked-on "sir"; it marks the timid priest's submissive, ingratiating tone.
> Reflexive «себя/себе» — 'to one's own place': «Я уж к себе» ('I'll be off home, to my own place') uses the reflexive pronoun «себе» (dative of «себя»), pointing back to the speaker — «к себе» idiomatically means 'to my/one's own home'. The reflexive has no nominative and serves any person.
> «кобылка» — the little mare: «Кобылка» is the diminutive of «кобыла» (mare), affectionate and homely — 'the little mare'. The priest will ride the forester's modest nag home; the diminutive matches his meek, folksy speech.
> «засим» — archaic 'thereupon, and so': «Засим» (from «за сим», 'after this') is an archaic-bookish adverb, 'thereupon, herewith' — the priest's formula for taking leave, 'and so good-bye'. It pairs with his churchy «прощайте-с» to seal his deferential exit.

Так и порешили.  
And so it was settled.
> Subjectless «так и порешили» + folksy «по-»: «Так и порешили» ('and so it was settled') is impersonal/subjectless ('they settled it so'), with the focusing «и» ('that's just how'). «Порешить» is a folksier, more conclusive perfective than «решить» — the matter was thus decided and done with.

Батюшка отправился на кобылке, обрадованный, что наконец отвязался, но всё же смятенно покачивая головой и раздумывая: не надо ли будет завтра заблаговременно уведомить о сем любопытном случае благодетеля Федора Павловича, «а то, неровен час, узнает, осердится и милости прекратит».  
The priest set off on the mare, glad that he had finally gotten away, yet still shaking his head in confusion and pondering: ought he not, betimes tomorrow, to notify his benefactor Fyodor Pavlovich of this curious case, "for, who knows, he might find out, take offense, and cut off his favors."
> Past passive participle «обрадованный»: «Обрадованный» ('gladdened, glad') is a past passive participle from «обрадовать», used predicatively to describe the priest's state as he rides off. The «что»-clause gives its cause; «отвязался» (reflexive perfective) colloquially = 'got himself free, got rid of [the bother]'.
> Two imperfective gerunds of accompaniment: «Покачивая головой и раздумывая» chains two imperfective gerunds ('shaking his head and pondering') describing the simultaneous manner of his setting off. «Покачивая» (instrumental «головой») and «раздумывая» both share the priest's subject.
> «ли» in indirect deliberation + «надо»: «Не надо ли будет… уведомить» frames the priest's inner question with «ли» ('whether') over the impersonal «надо… будет» ('it will be necessary') — 'ought he not to notify…?'. «О сем любопытном случае» uses archaic «сем» (prepositional of «сей», this) for churchy flavor.
> «неровён час» — 'who knows, perhaps': «Неровён час» (literally 'the hour is uneven') is a fixed colloquial hedge meaning 'who knows, as likely as not, you never can tell' — anticipating something unwelcome. It voices the priest's nervous fear that Fyodor Pavlovich might find out and cut off his favors.

Сторож, почесавшись, молча отправился в свою избу, а Митя сел на лавку ловить, как он выразился, мгновение.  
The forester, scratching himself, went off in silence to his own room, while Mitya sat down on the bench to watch, as he put it, for the moment.
> Reflexive gerund «почесавшись»: «Почесавшись» ('having scratched himself') is a perfective reflexive gerund of attendant action before «отправился» (set off). The «-сь» is the true reflexive (scratching oneself); «молча» ('in silence') is itself a frozen gerund-turned-adverb.
> Contrastive «а» pivoting to Mitya: «А Митя сел…» uses «а» to shift the topic from the departing forester to Mitya left alone — the soft contrastive 'while Mitya, for his part, sat down'. The imperfective infinitive «ловить» ('to watch/catch [the moment]') gives his purpose.

Глубокая тоска облегла, как тяжелый туман, его душу.  
A deep anguish settled, like a heavy fog, upon his soul.
> Object-final order + simile interposed: «Глубокая тоска облегла… его душу» keeps subject-verb-object but wedges the simile «как тяжёлый туман» ('like a heavy fog') between verb and object for weight. «Облегла» (perfective «облечь/облегать», to envelop) is a bookish, almost archaic verb of settling all around.
> «тоска» — the untranslatable anguish: «Тоска» is the famous untranslatable Russian noun: a heavy, aching melancholy, dread, and yearning all at once — far more than 'anguish' or 'sadness'. Its settling 'like a heavy fog' on Mitya's soul is a keynote of Dostoevskian inner weather.

Глубокая, страшная тоска!  
A deep, dreadful anguish!
> Verbless exclamation in the nominative: «Глубокая, страшная тоска!» is a bare nominative exclamation — no verb, no copula — just the noun and its adjectives flung out for emotional emphasis. Russian's zero-copula readily yields such intense, fragmentary cries that echo the previous sentence.

Он сидел, думал, но обдумать ничего не мог.  
He sat, he thought, but think anything through he could not.
> Imperfective process vs perfective «обдумать»: The aspectual contrast carries the whole line: imperfective «сидел, думал» ('sat, kept thinking', durative process) against perfective «обдумать» ('to think through to a conclusion') — which he 'could not' do. He thinks endlessly but cannot bring any thought to completion.
> Negative concord: «ничего… не мог»: «Ничего… не мог» shows negative concord — the negative pronoun «ничего» ('nothing', genitive) requires «не» on the verb as well, two negatives for one meaning. The fronted «обдумать ничего» throws weight on the futility of his thinking.

Свечка нагорала, затрещал сверчок, в натопленной комнате становилось нестерпимо душно.  
The candle was burning down, a cricket began to chirp, and in the overheated room it was growing unbearably stifling.
> Impersonal «становилось ... душно»: There is no nominative subject: the neuter «становилось» (was becoming) plus the invariable predicative «душно» (stuffy) frames the room's state impersonally. The implied experiencer would stand in the dative — the same pattern as «мне холодно».
> Imperfective background, perfective onset: «нагорала» (was burning down, imperfective) holds an ongoing process, while «затрещал» (began to chirp) is a perfective with the prefix за- marking the inception of the action. The aspectual contrast layers a continuing scene against a sudden new sound.
> «сверчок» — the cricket: A cricket on the hearth, a stock detail of the close Russian peasant izba. Its chirp («затрещал») and the suffocating heat build the oppressive, almost fevered atmosphere around Mitya.

Ему вдруг представился сад, ход за садом, у отца в доме таинственно отворяется дверь, а в дверь пробегает Грушенька…  
Suddenly there rose before him the garden, the passage behind the garden, the door in his father's house opening mysteriously, and Grushenka slipping in through it…
> Dative experiencer «ему ... представился»: «представился» (presented itself, arose before him) is a reflexive -ся verb whose grammatical subject is «сад»; the person to whom the vision comes stands in the dative «ему». Russian frames the mind's images as something that happens to a person, not something he does.
> Vivid present inside a memory: The narration slips into the present tense («отворяется» opens, «пробегает» runs through) to render the remembered scene as if unfolding now — a cinematic, hallucinatory immediacy against the past-tense frame.
> «ход» — the passage: Here «ход» is a passage or way behind the garden, the secret route by which Grushenka could slip to old Karamazov's house. The detail is loaded: this garden and back-passage are the very stage of the coming catastrophe.

Он вскочил с лавки.  
He jumped up from the bench.
> Perfective verb of motion «вскочил»: «вскочил» (jumped up) is a prefixed perfective: the prefix в(с)- adds the upward, sudden direction, and the perfective gives a single completed leap. The preposition «с» + genitive «лавки» marks motion off the bench.
> «лавка» — the bench: In a peasant hut «лавка» is the long fixed wall-bench that doubles as a seat and a bed. Mitya keeps returning to it through the scene; it is the only furniture his ordeal allows him.

— Трагедия! — проговорил он, скрежеща зубами, машинально подошел к спящему и стал смотреть на его лицо.  
"Tragedy!" — he said, grinding his teeth, and mechanically went up to the sleeper and began to stare at his face.
> Gerund «скрежеща зубами»: «скрежеща» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) meaning 'gnashing/grinding', naming an action simultaneous with the main verb «проговорил». It must share Mitya as its subject and condenses 'he ground his teeth as he said it' into one adverbial form.
> Inceptive «стал смотреть»: «стал» (began) plus the imperfective infinitive «смотреть» is the standard way Russian marks the start of an ongoing activity — 'began to stare'. «стать» here is a phase verb, not the copula 'become'.
> «машинально» — mechanically: A bookish adverb, 'mechanically, automatically'. It signals that Mitya's approach to the sleeper is unwilled, his body moving while his mind reels — a recurring note in his frenzy.

Это был сухопарый, еще не старый мужик, с весьма продолговатым лицом, в русых кудрях и с длинною тоненькою рыжеватою бородкой, в ситцевой рубахе и в черном жилете, из кармана которого выглядывала цепочка от серебряных часов.  
He was a lean peasant, still not old, with a very long face, light-brown curls, and a long, thin, reddish little beard, in a print shirt and a black waistcoat, from whose pocket peeped the chain of a silver watch.
> Old instrumental ending «-ою»: The feminine instrumental adjectives «длинною, тоненькою, рыжеватою» carry the long literary form «-ою» rather than the modern «-ой». In 19th-century prose this fuller ending is the unmarked written norm; all three agree with «бородкой» in the instrumental after «с».
> Relative «которого» with its own case: «которого» refers back to «жилет» (waistcoat) and agrees with it in masculine singular, but takes the genitive that «из» demands within its own clause — 'from the pocket of which'. A textbook case of a relative pronoun's case set by its role, not its antecedent's.
> Diminutives «тоненькая бородка»: Both the adjective «тоненькая» (from тонкий, with endearing -еньк-) and «бородка» (little beard, diminutive of борода) shrink the description. The effect is faintly contemptuous-fastidious, matching Mitya's coming disgust at this man's looks.

Митя рассматривал эту физиономию со страшною ненавистью, и ему почему-то особенно ненавистно было, что он в кудрях.  
Mitya studied this physiognomy with a frightful hatred, and for some reason it was especially hateful to him that the man had curls.
> Dative-experiencer «ему ненавистно было»: Another subjectless construction: 'it was hateful to him'. The experiencer «ему» is dative, the predicate is the invariable «ненавистно», and the real content sits in the «что»-clause that follows. Dostoevsky's inner life runs on exactly this dative grammar.
> Indefinite «почему-то»: The clitic -то on «почему» makes it 'for some reason (unknown even to him)'. It marks a specific-but-unidentified cause, capturing how Mitya's revulsion fixes on the man's curls without his being able to explain why.
> «физиономия» — mug, physiognomy: A loan-word that in this register carries a slightly contemptuous, appraising tone — closer to English 'mug' or 'phiz' than a neutral 'face'. It frames Mitya's hostile, dehumanising study of the sleeper.

Главное то было нестерпимо обидно, что вот он, Митя, стоит над ним со своим неотложным делом, столько пожертвовав, столько бросив, весь измученный, а этот тунеядец, «от которого зависит теперь вся судьба моя, храпит как ни в чем не бывало, точно с другой планеты».  
The chief thing that galled him unbearably was that here he, Mitya, stood over the man with his pressing business, having sacrificed so much, having thrown away so much, utterly worn out — while this sponger, "on whom my whole fate now depends, snores as if nothing were the matter, as though he were from another planet."
> Paired perfective gerunds «пожертвовав ... бросив»: Two perfective past gerunds in -в express prior, completed sacrifices ('having sacrificed... having thrown away...'). Stacked in parallel with «столько ... столько», they pile up Mitya's prior losses behind his standing 'now' — a hallmark of literary gerund chaining.
> Relative «от которого» + genitive government: «от которого» ('on whom') takes the genitive demanded by «от», while «зависеть от» ('to depend on') governs that very preposition. The relative agrees with «тунеядец» in masculine singular but draws its case from its own clause.
> «тунеядец» — sponger, parasite: A heavy, bookish word of moral condemnation: one who lives idly off others, a 'do-nothing parasite'. Mitya's choice of it (over a plain «мужик») measures his contempt and his desperation.
> Idiom «как ни в чём не бывало»: A fixed idiom, 'as if nothing had happened, as cool as you please'. Note the negative concord: «ни ... не бывало», two negatives (the negative «ни в чём» and the verbal «не») knit into one untroubled image of the man snoring on.

«О, ирония судьбы!» — воскликнул Митя и вдруг, совсем потеряв голову, бросился опять будить пьяного мужика.  
"Oh, the irony of fate!" — Mitya exclaimed, and suddenly, losing his head entirely, hurled himself once more at waking the drunken peasant.
> Gerund «потеряв голову»: «потеряв» is a perfective past gerund ('having lost'), here in the idiom «потерять голову» = to lose one's head. It marks the completed mental collapse that immediately precedes — and explains — the main verb «бросился».
> Reflexive «бросился» + imperfective infinitive: «бросился» is the -ся (middle) form 'flung himself', and «будить» is an imperfective infinitive of attempt — he set about the (repeated, unfinished) effort of waking the man. Imperfective here precisely conveys an action tried, not achieved.

Он будил его с каким-то остервенением, рвал его, толкал, даже бил, но, провозившись минут пять и опять ничего не добившись, в бессильном отчаянии воротился на свою лавку и сел.  
He woke him with a kind of frenzy, yanking at him, shoving him, even striking him; but after laboring some five minutes and again accomplishing nothing, he returned in helpless despair to his bench and sat down.
> Imperfective string for repeated effort: The unbroken imperfective past chain «рвал, толкал, бил» (was tearing at, shoving, even beating) renders a sustained, repeated struggle. The aspect alone tells us none of it landed a result — set against the perfectives «воротился ... сел» that finally close the attempt.
> Two negated/temporal gerunds: «провозившись» (having fussed/labored for some minutes) and «ничего не добившись» (having achieved nothing) are perfective past gerunds of prior, completed circumstance. «не добившись» pairs with the genitive «ничего» — the genitive of negation under a negated verb.
> «остервенение» — frenzy, savage rage: An intense, almost animal word (root связан with 'going rabid'): a frenzied, ferocious vehemence. It marks the pitch of Mitya's violence against the helpless sleeper.

— Глупо, глупо! — восклицал Митя, — и… как это всё бесчестно! — прибавил он вдруг почему-то.  
"Stupid, stupid!" — Mitya exclaimed, — "and… how dishonorable all this is!" — he added suddenly, for some reason.
> Exclamatory «как ... бесчестно»: «как» + the predicative short form «бесчестно» builds an exclamation of degree, 'how dishonorable all this is'. The short adjective in -о is the predicate of an impersonal frame, with «это всё» as the subject.
> «почему-то» — for some reason: Again the clitic -то marks an undefined cause: the word «бесчестно» surfaces in Mitya unbidden, 'for some reason' — Dostoevsky flags a conscience speaking beneath his conscious thought.

У него страшно начала болеть голова: «Бросить разве? Уехать совсем, — мелькнуло в уме его. — Нет уж, до утра. Вот нарочно же останусь, нарочно! Зачем же я и приехал после того? Да и уехать не на чем, как теперь отсюда уедешь, о, бессмыслица!»  
His head began to ache fearfully: "Give it up, then? Leave altogether," — flashed through his mind. — "No, not till morning. Here I'll stay on purpose, on purpose! Why else did I even come, after all that? And there's nothing to leave on, anyway — how would I get away from here now? Oh, the absurdity of it!"
> Bare infinitives of deliberation + «разве»: The infinitives «бросить», «уехать» stand alone as a deliberating, half-question to himself ('Give it up? Leave for good?'). The particle «разве» colours it with doubt and surprise — 'should I, then?' — typical of inner monologue.
> Perfective future «останусь» + insistent «же»: «останусь» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present, yielding simple future 'I'll stay'. The particle «же» drives home stubborn insistence — 'I'll stay on purpose, just to spite it', the texture of spoken defiance.
> Impersonal «не на чем уехать»: The negative-pronoun construction «не на чем» ('there is nothing to leave on / no means of leaving') with a bare infinitive is a fixed impersonal pattern: «нечего/некого/не на чем» + infinitive denies the very means or object of an action. No nominative subject appears.
> «мелькнуть» — to flash through the mind: «мелькнуть» is a momentary perfective, 'to flit/flash by'. The idiom «мелькнуло в уме» renders a thought that darts up and vanishes — the staccato rhythm of Mitya's reasoning.

Голова его, однако, разбаливалась всё больше и больше.  
His head, however, was aching worse and worse.
> Imperfective of intensifying process: «разбаливалась» (was aching ever more) is imperfective with the prefix раз- of swelling intensity, and «всё больше и больше» reinforces the rising curve. The aspect is essential: the pain is a process that grows, not an event.
> Contrastive «однако»: «однако» ('however, nonetheless') sets this clause against his defiant resolve to stay: the body betrays the will. Placed mid-sentence, it works as a concessive hinge.

Неподвижно сидел он и уже не помнил, как задремал и вдруг сидя заснул.  
He sat motionless, and no longer remembered how he had dozed off and suddenly fallen asleep sitting up.
> Inverted, adverb-first word order: Fronting the adverb «неподвижно» (motionless) and delaying the pronoun «он» throws weight onto his stillness — topic-comment ordering for rhetorical effect rather than grammatical need. The cases keep the meaning fixed however the words fall.
> Inceptive perfectives «задремал ... заснул»: Both verbs carry the prefix за- of falling-into-a-state: «задремал» (dozed off) and «заснул» (fell asleep). Perfective and momentary, they mark the unnoticed thresholds of sleep that Mitya 'no longer remembered' crossing.

По-видимому, он спал часа два или больше.  
Apparently he slept some two hours or more.
> Approximation by inversion «часа два»: Putting the noun before the numeral («часа два» instead of «два часа») turns an exact count into an estimate — 'about two hours'. «часа» is genitive singular as 2–4 require. A neat, idiomatic way to say 'roughly'.

Очнулся же от нестерпимой головной боли, нестерпимой до крику.  
He came to from an unbearable headache — unbearable enough to make him cry out.
> «от» + genitive of cause: «очнулся от боли» uses «от» + genitive «головной боли» to give the cause he woke from — 'came to from a headache'. «очнуться» (-ся) is itself a perfective middle verb of regaining consciousness. The «же» links and lightly contrasts with the preceding sentence.
> Old genitive «до крику»: «до крику» ('to the point of crying out') shows the older masculine genitive ending -у that survives in fixed quantitative/limit phrases (cf. «много народу»). The repeated «нестерпимой / нестерпимой» hammers the unbearableness.

В висках его стучало, темя болело; очнувшись, он долго еще не мог войти в себя совершенно и осмыслить, что с ним такое произошло.  
His temples throbbed, the crown of his head ached; coming to, he was for a long while still unable to recover himself completely and make sense of what had happened to him.
> Gerund «очнувшись»: «очнувшись» is the perfective past gerund of «очнуться» ('having come to'), setting the prior moment against the long inability that follows. As a -ся verb its gerund takes -вшись.
> Imperfective infinitives of failed effort: «не мог войти ... и осмыслить» pairs «мочь» with perfective infinitives of an unreachable result — he was 'for a long while unable to recover himself and make sense'. «долго» plus the negated modal stresses sustained incapacity.
> Idiom «войти в себя»: 'To come to oneself, recover one's wits' — literally 'to enter into oneself'. Note the reflexive pronoun «себя» as the object, referring back to the clause's subject.

Наконец-то догадался, что в натопленной комнате страшный угар и что он, может быть, мог умереть.  
At last he realized that the overheated room was full of dreadful fumes and that he might, perhaps, have died.
> «мог умереть» — counterfactual past possibility: «мог умереть» (was able / might have died) uses the past of «мочь» with a perfective infinitive to convey a possibility that nearly came true. With «может быть» it edges toward the counterfactual without the particle бы.
> «угар» — carbon-monoxide fumes: «угар» is the deadly fume from a stove whose flue («труба») is closed too soon — a real and common cause of death in heated peasant huts. The detail is no metaphor: Mitya has genuinely come close to dying of fumes.

А пьяный мужик всё лежал и храпел; свечка оплыла и готова была погаснуть.  
And the drunken peasant still lay snoring; the candle had guttered and was about to go out.
> Imperfective duration with «всё»: «всё лежал и храпел» — the particle «всё» here means 'still, all the while', and the imperfective verbs stress unbroken continuation: the man lay and snored straight through the crisis, oblivious.
> Short adjective «готова» + infinitive: The feminine short adjective «готова» ('ready/about to') agrees with «свечка» and takes an infinitive complement «погаснуть». Short-form predicatives like this are the bookish norm for transient states in 19th-century prose.
> «оплыть» of a candle: «оплыть» here means a candle has guttered and run down with melted wax. The dying candle, like the fumes, ticks off the night's slow approach to disaster.

Митя закричал и бросился, шатаясь, через сени в избу сторожа.  
Mitya cried out and rushed, staggering, across the entryway into the forester's room.
> Gerund «шатаясь» + accusative of path: «шатаясь» (staggering) is an imperfective present gerund of attendant manner, sharing Mitya's subject. «через сени» uses «через» + accusative to mark motion across/through the entry-passage.

Тот скоро проснулся, но услыхав, что в другой избе угар, хотя и пошел распорядиться, но принял факт до странности равнодушно, что обидно удивило Митю.  
The man woke up quickly, but on hearing that there were fumes in the other room, although he did go to see to it, he took the fact with a strange indifference that hurt and astonished Mitya.
> Gerund + concessive «хотя и ... но»: «услыхав» is a perfective gerund ('on hearing'); the paired «хотя и пошёл ..., но принял» is the concessive frame 'although he did go..., he nonetheless took it...'. The «и» after «хотя» reinforces the concession ('did indeed go').
> Sentence-relative «что»: This «что» does not introduce a noun clause but refers back to the whole preceding fact — 'which (the indifference) hurt and astonished Mitya'. A bookish summarising relative. «Митю» is the ordinary first-declension accusative (Митя → Митю); it is NOT equal to the genitive «Мити» — the acc=gen animacy rule does not apply to -а/-я nouns.
> «распорядиться» — to see to it: 'To give orders, take charge, see to something'. The watchman 'went to do something about it' — but only formally; his real attitude is the «равнодушие» (indifference) that wounds the frantic Mitya.

— Но он умер, он умер, и тогда… что тогда? — восклицал пред ним в исступлении Митя.  
"But suppose he had died, suppose he had died — and then… what then?" — Mitya cried out before him in a frenzy.
> Past perfective as 'suppose he had died': The bare perfective past «он умер» carries a hypothetical force here — 'but suppose he had died'. Russian can let the perfective past, in a fevered question, do the work English marks with 'suppose / what if'.
> «исступление» — frenzy, distraction: A strong, near-clinical word for being beside oneself — ecstatic or maddened rapture. «в исступлении» is a signature Dostoevsky phrase for a character whose self-control has broken entirely.
> Bookish «пред» for «перед»: «пред» is the elevated, contracted literary variant of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «ним». It lends the narration a slightly archaic, formal grain.

Двери растворили, отворили окно, открыли трубу, Митя притащил из сеней ведро с водой, сперва намочил голову себе, а затем, найдя какую-то тряпку, окунул ее в воду и приложил к голове Лягавого.  
They threw the doors open, opened the window, opened the flue; Mitya dragged in a bucket of water from the entryway, first wetting his own head, and then, finding some rag, soaked it in the water and laid it on Lyagavy's head.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural «растворили ...»: The plural verbs have no stated subject — an indefinite-personal construction ('they/people opened the doors...'), where the 3rd-person plural alone signals unspecified agents. The cascade of near-synonyms «растворили / отворили / открыли» enacts the flurry of throwing everything open.
> Dative of the affected + «себе»: «намочил голову себе» — the reflexive dative «себе» marks Mitya as the one to whose own head the wetting is done. Russian routinely uses a dative of the possessor/affected party where English would say 'his own head'.
> Gerund «найдя» + indefinite «какую-то»: «найдя» is a perfective gerund ('having found'); «какую-то тряпку» uses the -то marker for a specific but unnamed object — 'some rag or other'. Together they sketch his improvised, half-blind action.

Сторож же продолжал относиться ко всему событию как-то даже презрительно и, отворив окно, произнес угрюмо: «Ладно и так» — и пошел опять спать, оставив Мите зажженный железный фонарь.  
The forester, meanwhile, went on treating the whole affair with something almost like contempt and, having opened the window, muttered sullenly, "It'll do as it is," — and went off to sleep again, leaving Mitya a lighted iron lantern.
> Framing perfective gerunds: «отворив» and «оставив» are perfective past gerunds bracketing the watchman's main acts ('having opened... having left...'). «оставив Мите фонарь» shows the dative «Мите» as the recipient — left for Mitya.
> Topic-marking «же»: «же» after «сторож» sets him off as the contrasting topic — 'the watchman, for his part'. It marks a shift back to him after Mitya's frantic activity, a quiet structural hinge.
> «Ладно и так» — peasant phlegm: 'It'll do as it is / good enough'. The blunt, fatalistic shrug captures the watchman's unflappable indifference to a man who has nearly died — a peasant phlegm that maddens the gentry-born Mitya.

Митя провозился с угоревшим пьяницей с полчаса, всё намачивая ему голову, и серьезно уже намеревался не спать всю ночь, но, измучившись, присел как-то на одну минутку, чтобы перевести дух, и мгновенно закрыл глаза, затем тотчас же бессознательно протянулся на лавке и заснул как убитый.  
Mitya fussed over the fume-stricken drunkard for half an hour, keeping his head wetted, and seriously meant by now to stay awake the whole night; but, worn out, he sat down for a minute or so to catch his breath, and instantly closed his eyes, then at once, without knowing it, stretched out on the bench and fell asleep like the dead.
> Purpose clause «чтобы перевести дух»: «чтобы» + the perfective infinitive «перевести дух» ('to catch his breath') gives the purpose of his sitting down. With an infinitive (same subject) «чтобы» needs no past-form verb — pure aim.
> Gerund «измучившись»: «измучившись» is a perfective -ся gerund, 'having worn himself out'. It supplies the completed cause behind his sitting and dozing — the body's exhaustion overriding his resolve.
> Idiom «спать как убитый»: 'To sleep like the dead' (literally 'like one killed'). A grimly apt simile in a novel circling a murder — Mitya drops into deathlike sleep at the very moment his urgent errand collapses.
> Diminutive «минутка»: «минутка» (little minute) is the affectionate-diminutive of минута, here 'just for a tiny minute'. The cosy diminutive ironically undercuts what becomes hours of fatal sleep.

Проснулся он ужасно поздно.  
He woke up frightfully late.
> Verb-first inversion for emphasis: Opening with the perfective verb «проснулся» and delaying «он» foregrounds the waking and the shocking lateness — comment-first order that lets the case-marked pronoun fall where the rhythm wants it.

Было примерно уже часов девять утра.  
It was already about nine in the morning.
> Approximation «часов девять»: Again noun-before-numeral inversion gives 'about nine o'clock'. «часов» is genitive plural after 5+ (девять), and «утра» is the genitive 'of the morning'. A compact idiom of vague time.

Солнце ярко сияло в два оконца избушки.  
The sun shone brightly through the two little windows of the hut.
> «в» + accusative for the path of light: «сияло в два оконца» uses «в» + accusative to mark the direction the sunlight pours — in through the two little windows. «оконца» is the accusative-plural of the diminutive «оконце».
> Diminutive «оконце»: «оконце» is the diminutive of «окно» — a small window. After the night of fumes and despair, the bright morning sun through the tiny panes marks a tonal break into cold daylight.

Вчерашний кудрявый мужик сидел на лавке, уже одетый в поддевку.  
Yesterday's curly-headed peasant sat on the bench, already dressed in his long-skirted coat.
> Passive participle «одетый»: «одетый» is a past passive participle ('dressed'), here long-form and attributive to «мужик», with «в поддёвку» (accusative) naming the garment. It states the result of dressing — he is already dressed.

Пред ним стоял новый самовар и новый штоф.  
Before him stood a fresh samovar and a fresh flask.
> Existential inversion «пред ним стоял»: The locative phrase «пред ним» fronts, the verb «стоял» follows, and the new information — «самовар и штоф» — lands last. This 'there stood before him X' order is the default for introducing new entities into a scene.

Старый вчерашний был уже допит, а новый опорожнен более чем наполовину.  
The old one from yesterday had already been drunk dry, and the new one was emptied more than halfway.
> Short passive participles «допит / опорожнен»: Both «допит» (drunk to the end) and «опорожнен» (emptied) are short-form past passive participles joined to «был» to state a result — the periphrastic passive. They agree with «штоф» in masculine singular.
> Contrastive «а»: «а» links the two flasks with the mild contrastive 'and/while' — old one finished, new one half-gone. Not real opposition but a topic-shift between the two bottles, exactly the hinge «а» specialises in.

Митя вскочил и мигом догадался, что проклятый мужик пьян опять, пьян глубоко и невозвратимо.  
Mitya leapt up and realized in a flash that the cursed peasant was drunk again — drunk deeply and beyond recall.
> Short adjective «пьян» as predicate: «пьян» is the short masculine form of «пьяный», the bookish predicative used in «что»-clauses of state. Its emphatic repetition — «пьян опять, пьян глубоко» — drives the realisation home.
> «невозвратимо» — beyond recall: A heavy bookish adverb, 'irretrievably, past all recovery'. Paired with «глубоко» it raises the man's drunkenness to a fated, irreversible condition — and with it the collapse of Mitya's errand.

Он глядел на него с минуту, выпучив глаза.  
He gazed at him for a minute, his eyes bulging.
> Gerund «выпучив глаза»: «выпучив» is a perfective past gerund of attendant state — 'his eyes bulging / having goggled his eyes'. It modifies «глядел», fixing Mitya's stunned stare as he gazed.
> «с» + accusative of approximate measure: «с минуту» uses «с» + accusative to mean 'about a minute, a minute or so'. This approximative «с» is distinct from instrumental «с» ('with') and common in time/quantity estimates.

Мужик же поглядывал на него молча и лукаво, с каким-то обидным спокойствием, даже с презрительным каким-то высокомерием, как показалось Мите.  
The peasant, for his part, eyed him in silence and slyly, with a kind of insulting composure, even with a kind of contemptuous arrogance, or so it seemed to Mitya.
> Topic «же» + iterative «поглядывал»: «же» reintroduces the peasant as topic ('the peasant, for his part'); «поглядывал» is an imperfective with the suffix -ыва- of intermittent action — he kept glancing, on and off. «молча» is itself a frozen gerund ('in silence').
> Instrumental of manner after «с»: The strings «с ... спокойствием», «с ... высокомерием» put the abstract nouns in the instrumental after «с» to describe the manner of his gaze — with composure, with arrogance. A favourite Dostoevskian way of layering attitude.
> Impersonal «как показалось Мите»: «показалось» (it seemed, perfective -ся) is impersonal, with the experiencer in the dative «Мите». The parenthetical flags that the contempt is Mitya's perception — a subjective reading folded into the narration.

Он бросился к нему.  
He rushed up to him.
> «бросился к» + dative: «бросился к нему» — the reflexive «бросился» (flung himself) with «к» + dative «нему» marks the goal of rushing motion, 'rushed up to him'. After a preposition the 3rd-person pronoun takes the prefix н- (к нему).

— Позвольте, видите… я… вы, вероятно, слышали от здешнего сторожа в той избе: я поручик Дмитрий Карамазов, сын старика Карамазова, у которого вы изволите рощу торговать…  
"Allow me, you see… I… you have probably heard from the local forester there, in the other room: I am Lieutenant Dmitri Karamazov, son of old Karamazov, from whom you are pleased to be buying a wood…"
> Relative «у которого» + genitive: «у которого» ('from whom') takes the genitive «у» governs, agreeing with «старика Карамазова» in masculine singular but drawing its case from its own clause — 'old Karamazov, from whom you are buying a wood'.
> «изволить» — deferential 'be pleased to': «изволите» + infinitive is an obsequious-formal idiom, 'you are pleased / you deign to'. Mitya lays it on thick toward a drunken peasant, and the man will throw the deference back contemptuously — a small comedy of misplaced courtesy.

— Это ты врешь! — вдруг твердо и спокойно отчеканил мужик.  
"That's a lie of yours!" — the peasant suddenly rapped out, firmly and calmly.
> Fronted «ты» for accusation: Putting the pronoun «ты» before the verb «врёшь» throws contemptuous stress onto 'you' — 'that's a lie of yours'. Pronouns are normally dropped; their presence here is pure emphasis. The familiar «ты» to a gentleman is itself an insult.
> «отчеканить» — to rap out: Literally 'to mint/stamp (as a coin)'; of speech, to enunciate sharply and deliberately, 'rap out, bite off each word'. It makes the drunkard's flat denials land like hammer-blows.

— Как вру? Федора Павловича изволите знать?  
"How a lie? You are pleased to know Fyodor Pavlovich?"
> Animate accusative «Фёдора Павловича»: Both name and patronymic are in the accusative, and being animate masculine they borrow the genitive ending («Фёдора Павловича»). Fronting the object before «изволите знать» foregrounds the disputed person.

— Никакого твоего Федора Павловича не изволю знать, — как-то грузно ворочая языком, проговорил мужик.  
"I am not pleased to know any Fyodor Pavlovich of yours," — the peasant brought out, his tongue working heavily.
> Genitive of negation + «никакой»: Under the negated «не изволю знать», the object shifts to the genitive: «никакого твоего Фёдора Павловича». «никакой» ('no ... whatever') drives negative concord with «не», dismissing the very existence of 'any Fyodor Pavlovich of yours'.
> Gerund «ворочая языком»: «ворочая» is an imperfective present gerund ('working/turning'), and «ворочать языком» is the idiom for a drunk's thick, laborious speech — 'his tongue working heavily'. The gerund pins the manner to «проговорил».

— Рощу, рощу вы у него торгуете; да проснитесь, опомнитесь. Отец Павел Ильинский меня проводил сюда… Вы к Самсонову писали, и он меня к вам прислал… — задыхался Митя.  
"The wood, the wood you are buying from him; come, wake up, come to your senses. Father Pavel of Ilyinskoye showed me the way here… You wrote to Samsonov, and he sent me to you…" — Mitya gasped.
> Perfective imperatives «проснитесь, опомнитесь»: Two polite-plural perfective imperatives in -ите ('wake up!', 'come to your senses!'), both -ся verbs of regaining wits. The leading «да» is an urging particle here, 'come now, do!', not the conjunction 'and'.
> Fronted, doubled object «рощу, рощу»: The accusative object «рощу» is fronted and repeated for insistence before the verb «торгуете» — Mitya hammers the one fact he is sure of. Free word order lets the urgent topic come first.

— B-врешь! — отчеканил опять Лягавый.  
"You l-lie!" — Lyagavy rapped out again.
> Stammered «в-врёшь»: The doubled, hyphenated initial renders a drunken stammer on «врёшь» ('you lie'). Dostoevsky often spells out such slurs and stutters phonetically to voice intoxication on the page.

У Мити похолодели ноги.  
Mitya's legs went cold.
> «У» + genitive of the affected body: Russian says 'at Mitya the legs went cold' — «у Мити» (genitive) names the possessor and «ноги» is the grammatical subject. The body-part construction with «у» replaces the English possessive 'Mitya's legs'.

— Помилосердуйте, ведь это не шутка! Вы, может быть, хмельны. Вы можете же, наконец, говорить, понимать… иначе… иначе я ничего не понимаю!  
"Have mercy, this is no joke! You may be tipsy. Surely you can speak, after all, and understand… otherwise… otherwise I understand nothing at all!"
> Insistent «же» mid-sentence: «же» wedged after «можете» pleads and presses — 'surely you can, after all, speak'. The particle carries the exasperated appeal that English would render only by stress; «наконец» reinforces 'for goodness' sake'.
> «помилосердовать» — have mercy: An old, elevated imperative, 'have mercy, take pity'. Built on «милосердие» (mercy), it belongs to a pleading, almost liturgical register — Mitya begging a drunk peasant as one might beg heaven.
> Short adjective «хмельны»: «хмельны» is the short plural of «хмельной» (tipsy, from хмель 'hops/intoxication'), a softer, more genteel word for drunk than «пьяный». Mitya politely understates the man's state even now.

— Ты красильщик!  
"You're a dyer!"
> «красильщик» — a dyer: 'You're a dyer!' — the drunkard has fixed Mitya in his fogged mind as some tradesman (a cloth-dyer) who once cheated him. The grotesque misidentification, flung out flatly, deepens the nightmarish futility of the exchange.

— Помилосердуйте, я Карамазов, Дмитрий Карамазов, имею к вам предложение… выгодное предложение… весьма выгодное… именно по поводу рощи.  
"Have mercy, I am Karamazov, Dmitri Karamazov, I have a proposal for you… an advantageous proposal… a very advantageous one… precisely concerning the wood."
> Adjective–noun agreement, repeated: «выгодное предложение» (an advantageous proposal) shows neuter agreement; the bookish intensifier «весьма» ('very') replaces colloquial «очень». The breathless repetition «выгодное... весьма выгодное» mimics Mitya's desperate salesmanship.
> «иметь предложение к» + dative: «имею ... предложение к вам» — «к» + dative «вам» marks the addressee of the proposal. «иметь» as a full lexical 'to have/hold' is itself somewhat formal here, fitting his stilted, official pitch.

Мужик важно поглаживал бороду.  
The peasant stroked his beard importantly.
> Iterative imperfective «поглаживал»: «поглаживал» carries the -ива- suffix of leisurely, repeated action — he kept stroking, on and on. The slow imperfective gesture, paired with the adverb «важно» ('with an air of importance'), paints the peasant's smug self-possession against Mitya's panic.

— Нет, ты подряд снимал и подлец вышел. Ты подлец!  
"No, you took on a contract and turned out a scoundrel. You're a scoundrel!"
> «а»-less coordination of accusation: The imperfective «снимал» (were taking on, of habitual dealings) and the perfective «вышел» (turned out) sit side by side: ongoing past conduct yielding a finished verdict. «выйти подлецом/подлец» is the idiom 'to turn out a scoundrel'.

— Уверяю же вас, что вы ошибаетесь! — в отчаянии ломал руки Митя.  
"I assure you that you are mistaken!" — Mitya wrung his hands in despair.
> «что»-clause + reflexive «ошибаетесь»: «уверяю вас, что...» opens a reported-content clause with «что» ('I assure you that...'); «ошибаетесь» is a -ся verb 'you are mistaken'. The «же» again presses the appeal. «вас» is the polite/plural accusative object of «уверять».
> Idiom «ломать руки»: 'To wring one's hands' (literally 'to break/twist the hands') — the classic gesture of helpless anguish. The imperfective «ломал» holds the wringing as a continuing image of despair.

Мужик всё гладил бороду и вдруг лукаво прищурил глаза.  
The peasant kept stroking his beard, and suddenly narrowed his eyes slyly.
> Imperfective continuation vs perfective break: «всё гладил» (kept stroking, imperfective + «всё» 'still') holds the steady gesture, then the perfective «прищурил» (narrowed) snaps in with «вдруг» to mark the single sly change. The aspectual contrast stages the shift from lull to cunning.

— Нет, ты мне вот что укажи: укажи ты мне такой закон, чтобы позволено было пакости строить, слышишь ты! Ты подлец, понимаешь ты это?  
"No, here's what you show me: you show me a law that allows a man to do dirty tricks, do you hear! You're a scoundrel, do you understand that?"
> «чтобы» + irrealis «позволено было»: «чтобы позволено было» joins «чтобы» to a past-form / short-passive irrealis 'such a law that it should be permitted' — the willed, hypothetical use of «чтобы» (with past form, not infinitive, since the subject differs). «позволено» is a short passive participle.
> Imperative with tacked-on «ты»: The imperative «укажи» plus a following emphatic «ты» ('you show me!') is a rough, hectoring colloquial pattern, echoed in «слышишь ты», «понимаешь ты». The redundant pronoun jabs at the listener — bullying, peasant-tavern menace.
> Idiom «строить пакости»: «пакость» is a dirty, spiteful trick; «строить пакости» = to play dirty tricks, do mischief. The phrase, with «укажи мне такой закон, чтобы...», casts the peasant as a grotesque barrack-room moralist demanding a law against villainy.

Митя мрачно отступил, и вдруг его как бы «что-то ударило по лбу», как он сам потом выразился.  
Mitya gloomily stepped back, and suddenly it was as though "something struck him on the forehead," as he himself put it afterward.
> «как бы» + indefinite «что-то»: «как бы» ('as if, as it were') softens the image into a likeness; «что-то» (-то marker) names an unidentified force, 'something struck him'. «по лбу» uses «по» + dative for the surface struck.
> Intensive «сам» + reflexive «выразился»: «сам» ('himself, in his own words') intensifies, marking the quoted phrase as Mitya's own later wording; «выразился» is the -ся verb 'expressed himself, put it'. The aside frames the quote as testimony reported after the fact.

В один миг произошло какое-то озарение в уме его, «загорелся светоч, и я всё постиг».  
In a single instant some kind of illumination occurred in his mind, "a beacon flared up, and I grasped it all."
> Existential «произошло озарение»: «произошло» (occurred, perfective) presents the new event with the subject «озарение» delayed to the end — comment-last order. «какое-то» (-то) keeps the illumination vague and sudden, 'some kind of'.
> «светоч» — a beacon, torch of truth: «светоч» is an elevated, almost biblical word for a torch or beacon, often figurative ('светоч истины', beacon of truth). In Mitya's quoted self-dramatising — 'a beacon flared and I grasped it all' — the high diction marks his theatrical, revelatory self-image.

В остолбенении стоял он, недоумевая, как мог он, человек всё же умный, поддаться на такую глупость, втюриться в этакое приключение и продолжать всё это почти целые сутки, возиться с этим Лягавым, мочить ему голову…  
He stood dumbfounded, unable to fathom how he, a sensible man after all, could have given in to such folly, plunged into an adventure like this, and kept it up nearly a whole day and night, fussing with this Lyagavy, wetting his head…
> Gerund «недоумевая» heading an infinitive chain: «недоумевая» (being unable to fathom, imperfective gerund) governs an embedded «как мог он...» followed by a string of infinitives — «поддаться, втюриться, продолжать, возиться, мочить». Dostoevsky packs the whole self-reproach into one breathless syntactic sweep.
> «втюриться» — to land oneself in: A low-colloquial, expressive verb: to get foolishly caught up / land oneself in (later also 'to fall head over heels'). Its slangy ring breaks the elevated «озарение/светоч» a line earlier, dropping Mitya from rapture to rueful self-mockery.
> «сутки» — a full day-and-night: «сутки» is the plurale-tantum noun for a 24-hour day (day plus night together), with no singular. «почти целые сутки» measures exactly how long Mitya has squandered on Lyagavy.

«Ну, пьян человек, пьян до чертиков и будет пить запоем еще неделю — чего же тут ждать? А что, если Самсонов меня нарочно прислал сюда? А что, если она… О боже, что я наделал!..»  
"Well, the man's drunk, drunk as a lord, and he'll go on drinking in a binge another week — what's there to wait for here? And what if Samsonov sent me here on purpose? And what if she… O God, what have I done!.."
> Compound future «будет пить»: «будет пить» is the imperfective compound future — будущее of «быть» plus the imperfective infinitive — naming an ongoing future activity, 'he'll go on drinking'. «запоем» (instrumental as adverb) means 'in a binge, non-stop'.
> Anxious «а что, если…»: «а что, если…» ('and what if…') is the formula of dread speculation, the «а» hinging each new fear onto the last. The trailing «а что, если она…» breaks off mid-thought — the unspeakable fear about Grushenka left hanging.
> Idiom «до чертиков»: «до чертиков» (literally 'to the little devils') means 'utterly, blind drunk' — drunk to the point of seeing imps. «чертики» is the diminutive of «черти». The folk-demonology of the idiom is quietly apt in a novel haunted by the devil.

Мужик сидел, глядел на него и посмеивался.  
The peasant sat, looked at him, and snickered.
> Three imperfectives of steady mockery: «сидел, глядел, посмеивался» — all imperfective, painting a continuous tableau. «посмеивался» adds the -ива- of low, intermittent action: he kept quietly snickering, the unhurried imperfective itself an insult to Mitya's frenzy.
> «посмеиваться» — to snicker quietly: The prefix по- + iterative -ива- gives 'to chuckle to oneself, snicker on and off' — a needling, under-the-breath laughter rather than open mirth. It crystallises the peasant's contemptuous calm.

Будь другой случай, и Митя, может быть, убил бы этого дурака со злости, но теперь он весь сам ослабел как ребенок.  
In other circumstances Mitya might, perhaps, have killed this fool out of spite; but now he himself had gone as weak all over as a child.
> Conditional «убил бы» + imperative-as-«if»: «убил бы» is the irrealis — past form «убил» + particle «бы» = 'would have killed'. The protasis is the imperative-form «будь другой случай» ('were it another occasion'), an archaic-folk way of saying 'if it had been'. Pure counterfactual.
> «со злости» — out of spite: «со злости» (variant of «со зла») uses «с/со» + genitive to give the emotional cause of an action, 'out of spite/anger'. A common idiom of motive-from-emotion.

Тихо подошел он к лавке, взял свое пальто, молча надел его и вышел из избы.  
Quietly he went up to the bench, took his overcoat, put it on in silence, and walked out of the hut.
> Perfective chain of quiet exit: A run of perfectives — «подошёл, взял, надел, вышел» — moves the story forward step by deliberate step, against all the preceding imperfective turmoil. The calm sequence of completed acts enacts Mitya's sudden, spent resignation.
> Reflexive possessive «своё»: «своё пальто» uses the reflexive possessive «свой», referring the coat back to the clause's subject — his own coat. Using «его» instead would have meant someone else's. A small but constant point of precision in Russian narration.
> Frozen gerund «молча»: «молча» ('in silence, silently') is the lexicalised gerund of «молчать» that now functions as a plain adverb of manner. Its quietness seals the wordless, defeated departure.

В другой избе сторожа он не нашел, никого не было.  
In the other room he did not find the forester; there was no one there.
> Genitive of negation, twice: «не нашёл сторожа» puts the negated object in the genitive «сторожа»; then the negated existential «никого не было» pairs «не было» with the genitive «никого». Both clauses show absence expressed through the genitive — and «никого ... не» gives negative concord.

Он вынул из кармана мелочью пятьдесят копеек и положил на стол, за ночлег, за свечку и за беспокойство.  
He took fifty copecks in small change from his pocket and laid them on the table, for the night's lodging, for the candle, and for the trouble.
> «за» + accusative of payment: The triple «за ночлег, за свечку, за беспокойство» uses «за» + accusative in its 'in exchange for / in payment for' sense — what the fifty copecks are for. Note the diminutive «свечку».

Выйдя из избы, он увидал, что кругом только лес и ничего больше.  
Coming out of the hut, he saw that all around there was only forest and nothing more.
> Gerund «выйдя»: «выйдя» is the perfective past gerund of the prefixed motion verb «выйти» ('having come out'), setting the prior exit before the main «увидал». Prefixed «вы-» + the perfective gives the single completed leaving.
> Emphatic «ничего больше»: «ничего больше» ('nothing more') leans on the negative pronoun «ничего» for desolate emphasis after «только лес». The bleak tautology — only forest, and nothing else — frames Mitya's total disorientation.

Он пошел наугад, даже не помня, куда поворотить из избы — направо или налево; вчера ночью, спеша сюда с батюшкой, он дороги не заметил.  
He walked off at random, not even remembering which way to turn from the hut — to the right or to the left; the night before, hurrying here with the priest, he had not noticed the road.
> Gerund «не помня» + deliberative infinitive: «не помня» is a negated imperfective gerund ('not remembering'), governing an indirect question «куда поворотить» with a deliberative infinitive — 'which way to turn'. The structure renders thought in motion, lost between right and left.
> Gerund «спеша» + genitive of negation: «спеша» (hurrying, imperfective gerund of attendant circumstance) sets the manner of the prior night's travel; the main clause «дороги не заметил» shifts the negated object «дорогу» to the genitive «дороги» — he hadn't noted the road.
> «батюшка» — affectionate 'father (priest)': «батюшка» is the warm diminutive of «батя/отец», the customary affectionate term for an Orthodox priest (here Father Pavel of the earlier scene). The cosy word sits poignantly against Mitya's present lostness in the empty wood.

Никакой мести ни к кому не было в душе его, даже к Самсонову.  
There was no vengeance in his soul toward anyone, not even toward Samsonov.
> Piled-up negation: Russian demands negative concord: «никакой» (no… at all), «ни к кому» (toward no one), and «не было» all carry the negation together, where English collapses them into a single 'no'. The intensifying «ни» here strengthens the «не» rather than cancelling it.
> Genitive of absence: With negated «не было» the thing that fails to exist stands in the genitive: «мести» (gen. of «месть», vengeance) rather than a nominative «месть». This is the obligatory genitive of the absent subject — literally 'of vengeance there was none'.
> «месть» — vengeance: A bookish, weighty abstract noun (f., soft -ь) for revenge or retribution, more elevated than the plainer «отместка». Its presence frames Mitya's inner state in moral-dramatic terms.

Он шагал по узенькой лесной дорожке бессмысленно, потерянно, с «потерянною идеей» и совсем не заботясь о том, куда идет.  
He strode along the narrow forest path senselessly, lost, with his "lost idea," and caring nothing at all about where he was going.
> Double diminutive: Both words are softened: «узенькой» (from «узкий», narrow) with the affectionate -еньк- suffix, and «дорожке» (a little path, from «дорога»). The pairing makes the forest track feel small and intimate, almost tender, against Mitya's despair.
> Gerund of attendant manner: «заботясь» is an imperfective present деепричастие (from «заботиться», to care/worry), 'caring', describing a circumstance simultaneous with «шагал». It shares the main subject and condenses 'and he did not care' into a single adverbial phrase — a hallmark of literary narration.
> Imperfective of aimless process: «шагал» (was striding) is imperfective past, viewing the walking as ongoing, directionless process rather than a completed journey — reinforced by the adverbs «бессмысленно, потерянно» (senselessly, lost).

Его мог побороть встречный ребенок, до того он вдруг обессилел душой и телом.  
A child coming the other way could have overpowered him, so suddenly had he gone weak in soul and body.
> Object first for emphasis: The sentence opens with the object «его» (him, acc.) before subject and verb, throwing the weight onto Mitya as the one who could be overpowered. The free case-marked word order lets the new information — that even a child could do it — land last.
> «до того… что» — to such a degree: The correlative «до того… (что)» means 'to such an extent that', here with «до того он вдруг обессилел» explaining the preceding clause. «обессилел» is perfective past (from «обессилеть», to grow weak), naming the completed onset of weakness.
> «встречный» — coming the other way: An adjective meaning 'oncoming, met along the way' (from «встречать», to meet). «встречный ребенок» is a child encountered head-on on the path — the casual passer-by who, the narrator says, could have bested him.

Кое-как он, однако, из лесу выбрался: предстали вдруг сжатые обнаженные поля на необозримом пространстве.  
Somehow, however, he made his way out of the wood: all at once the bare, mown fields opened before him across a boundless expanse.
> Stressed -у genitive after «из»: «из лесу» uses the special partitive/locative ending «-у» of «лес» after «из» (out of the wood), a survival in a small set of masculine nouns. The reflexive «выбрался» (from «выбраться», to get out) shows -ся as a change-of-state middle, not a true reflexive.
> «предстать» — to appear before: An elevated, slightly archaic verb (perfective) for something suddenly presenting itself to the gaze — 'there rose up / opened before him'. More solemn than «появились», it lends the bare fields a vision-like force.
> «необозримый», «сжатые» — vast, harvested: «сжатые» (reaped, from «сжать», to mow/harvest) and «обнаженные» (bared, stripped) describe fields after the harvest; «необозримый» means 'beyond surveying', boundless to the eye. The bookish diction paints a desolate autumn vista matching Mitya's despair.

«Какое отчаяние, какая смерть кругом!» — повторял он, всё шагая вперед и вперед.  
"What despair, what death all around!" he kept repeating, still striding on and on.
> Exclamatory «какой»: «какой» (which/what kind) is used here exclamatively — 'what despair, what death!' — and agrees in gender with each noun: neuter «какое отчаяние», feminine «какая смерть». No verb is needed; the bare nominatives carry the cry.
> Iterative imperfective + gerund: «повторял» (kept repeating) is imperfective for a repeated action, reinforced by «всё» ('still, keep on'). «шагая» is again a present gerund of simultaneous manner — striding while repeating.

Его спасли проезжие: извозчик вез по проселку какого-то старичка купца.  
Travelers passing by were his salvation: a driver was carting some little old merchant along the country road.
> Object-first, then the saviours: Again the object «его» (him) opens the clause ahead of the subject «проезжие» (passers-by, a substantivized adjective), so the new information — who saved him — falls at the end. «спасли» is perfective past, a single completed rescue.
> «старичок» — a dear little old man: «старичка» is the affectionate-pitying diminutive of «старик» (old man), here in animate accusative, paired with «купца» (merchant). The suffix conveys a fond, slightly amused warmth toward the small old merchant — characteristic Dostoevskian texture.

Когда поровнялись, Митя спросил про дорогу, и оказалось, что те тоже едут на Воловью.  
When they drew level, Mitya asked about the road, and it turned out that they too were heading to Volovya.
> Reciprocal -ся, subject dropped: «поровнялись» (drew level with each other, from «поровняться») uses -ся reciprocally — the two parties came alongside one another. The subject is left unstated, recoverable from context, a frequent economy in Russian narration.
> «те» as 'they over there': «те» is the far demonstrative «тот» in the plural, here standing in for 'those people, they' — the merchant's party as distinct from Mitya. «едут» is the unidirectional motion verb «ехать» (going by conveyance), present-for-reported one-way travel.

Вступили в переговоры и посадили Митю попутчиком.  
They struck a bargain and took Mitya aboard as a fellow traveler.
> Subjectless perfective chain: Two perfective past verbs run with no expressed subject — 'they entered into negotiations and seated Mitya'. The events move the narrative forward as discrete completed steps, the perfective's natural work.
> Instrumental of role: «попутчиком» (instrumental of «попутчик», fellow traveler) names the capacity in which Mitya was taken aboard — 'as a fellow traveler'. This predicate/role instrumental marks a temporary, assumed status.

Часа через три доехали.  
In about three hours they arrived.
> «часа через три» — about three hours: Inverting the numeral and noun — «часа через три» instead of «через три часа» — signals approximation, 'in some three hours'. «часа» is genitive singular as governed by «три».
> Prefixed motion verb, perfective: «доехали» (from «доехать», to reach a destination by vehicle) carries the prefix до- 'all the way to'; the prefix turns the motion verb into a plain perfective meaning 'arrived'. The subject is again dropped.

На Воловьей станции Митя тотчас же заказал почтовых в город, а сам вдруг догадался, что до невозможности голоден.  
At the Volovya station Mitya at once ordered post-horses for town, and then suddenly realized that he was hungry beyond bearing.
> Short adjective predicate: «голоден» is the short (predicative) form of «голодный» (hungry), used after «догадался, что» to state a temporary state — 'that he was hungry'. The phrase «до невозможности» ('to impossibility') intensifies it to 'unbearably hungry'.
> Contrastive «а» and intensive «сам»: «а» here is the mild contrastive 'and/then' hinging two actions; «сам» ('himself') stresses that Mitya only now, on his own, noticed his hunger. Together they mark the shift from arranging horses to a sudden bodily realization.

Пока впрягали лошадей, ему смастерили яичницу.  
While they were harnessing the horses, someone whipped him up an omelet.
> «пока» + imperfective background: The subordinator «пока» ('while') sets a durative background, and «впрягали» (were harnessing) is imperfective for the ongoing process against which the next event unfolds. The harnessers are an unstated 'they'.
> Dative recipient, impersonal 'someone': «ему» (dat., for him) marks the beneficiary, while the bare 3rd-plural «смастерили» ('they whipped up') is the impersonal 'someone made him' — Russian's way of leaving the agent vague.
> «смастерить» — to knock together: A colloquial, slightly jaunty perfective (from «мастерить», to craft/contrive) for quickly putting something together by hand. Applied to an omelet it has a homely, improvised flavor.

Он мигом съел ее всю, съел весь большой ломоть хлеба, съел нашедшуюся колбасу и выпил три рюмки водки.  
In an instant he ate the whole of it, ate a big hunk of bread, ate some sausage he found, and drank three glasses of vodka.
> Anaphora of perfectives: The repeated perfective «съел» (ate up, from «съесть») and final «выпил» (drank) stack completed actions in a rapid list, each emphasizing the result — everything devoured whole. The triple repetition of «съел» is a rhetorical drumbeat of ravenous haste.
> Past active participle: «нашедшуюся» is a past active participle of «найтись» (to turn up, be found), declined to agree with «колбасу» (acc. f.) — 'sausage that had turned up'. It packs a whole который-clause into one bookish modifier.

Подкрепившись, он ободрился, и в душе его опять прояснело.  
Fortified, he took heart, and in his soul it grew bright once more.
> Perfective gerund of prior action: «Подкрепившись» is a perfective past деепричастие (from «подкрепиться», to fortify oneself with food) in -вши/-сь — 'having fortified himself'. It marks an action completed before the main verbs «ободрился… прояснело».
> Impersonal 'it grew bright': «прояснело» is a subjectless neuter perfective — literally 'it cleared up / grew bright' in his soul, with no nominative subject, the same impersonal frame Russian uses for weather and inner states. «в душе его» localizes the change within him.

Он летел по дороге, погонял ямщика и вдруг составил новый, и уже «непреложный», план, как достать еще сегодня же до вечера «эти проклятые деньги».  
He flew along the road, urging the driver on, and suddenly hatched a new and now "infallible" plan for how to lay hands, this very day before evening, on "this accursed money."
> Imperfective rush, perfective resolve: «летел» (flew, imperf.) and «погонял» (kept urging on, imperf.) give the ongoing rush of the ride, then perfective «составил» ('drew up, hatched') marks the single completed act of forming a plan — aspect switching from motion to outcome.
> «ямщик» — the coachman: «ямщик» (acc. «ямщика») is the driver of a hired carriage or post-troika, a stock figure of the Russian road. The word descends from the old «ям», a posting-station obligation, and carries strong folk-song associations.
> «непреложный» — immutable, infallible: A bookish, solemn adjective meaning 'unalterable, not to be revoked' (from «преложить», to alter). The scare-quotes around «непреложный» let the narrator gently mock Mitya's overconfidence in his new plan.

«И подумать, только подумать, что из-за этих ничтожных трех тысяч пропадает судьба человеческая! — воскликнул он презрительно. — Сегодня же порешу!»  
"To think, only to think, that a man's whole fate should be ruined over these paltry three thousand! he exclaimed contemptuously. This very day I shall settle it!"
> Bare infinitive of exclamation: The bare imperfective infinitive «подумать» ('to think!'), doubled with «только подумать», is an exclamatory construction expressing astonished indignation — 'and to think that…'. It needs no subject or finite verb.
> «ничтожный» — paltry, worthless: «ничтожных» (gen. pl., from «ничтожный», related to «ничто», nothing) means trifling, contemptible — the three thousand reduced to nothing. The word drips with Mitya's scorn that so 'paltry' a sum should decide a fate.
> Emphatic «же» + perfective future: The particle «же» fastens to «сегодня» to insist 'this very day'. «порешу» is a colloquial perfective future (from «порешить», to settle/finish off), conjugated like a present but meaning a single completed future act.

И если бы только не беспрерывная мысль о Грушеньке и о том, не случилось ли с ней чего, то он стал бы, может быть, опять совсем весел.  
And were it not for the unceasing thought of Grushenka, and of whether something might have happened to her, he might perhaps have become quite cheerful again.
> Contrary-to-fact conditional: The whole sentence is an irrealis built on the particle «бы»: «если бы не…» (were it not for) in the protasis and «он стал бы» (he might have become) in the apodosis, both with past-form verbs. «бы» plus the past is Russian's single way to say 'would / might have'.
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether': «не случилось ли с ней чего» is an indirect question introduced by the enclitic «ли»: 'whether something had happened to her'. «чего» is the genitive of «что» under negation, and «с ней» (with her) localizes the dreaded mishap.

Но мысль о ней вонзалась в его душу поминутно как острый нож.  
But the thought of her stabbed into his soul every minute like a sharp knife.
> Imperfective of recurrence: «вонзалась» (kept stabbing in, imperf. past of «вонзаться») with «поминутно» ('every minute') views the pain as repeated, recurring action rather than one stab. The -ся makes the verb intransitive — the thought drives itself in.
> Simile with «как»: «как острый нож» ('like a sharp knife') is a comparative simile introduced by «как»; the noun phrase stays nominative because «как» here means 'like, as' rather than introducing a clause. The image literalizes the thought's pain.

Наконец приехали, и Митя тотчас же побежал к Грушеньке.  
At last they arrived, and Mitya ran straight off to Grushenka.
> Prefixed arrival verb: «приехали» (from «приехать», to arrive by vehicle) carries the prefix при- 'arriving here', converting the motion pair into a plain perfective. The subject is again dropped, recoverable as 'they'.
> Inceptive по- + dative goal: «побежал» (set off running, perfective with inceptive по-) marks the start of the motion, and «к Грушеньке» (dat. after «к») gives the goal 'to Grushenka'. The preposition «к» governs the dative of the person headed toward.
---

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.