# The Brothers Karamazov, The Beginning of Perhotin's Official Career

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book IX — The Preliminary Investigation

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c1. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c1.json.


Петр Ильич Перхотин, которого мы оставили стучащимся изо всей силы в крепкие запертые ворота дома купчихи Морозовой, кончил, разумеется, тем, что наконец достучался.  
Pyotr Ilyich Perhotin, whom we left pounding with all his might at the firmly locked gate of the merchant's-widow Morozova's house, ended, of course, by knocking long enough to be heard at last.
> A relative clause with a present participle inside it: «которого» is the relative pronoun «который» in the accusative (its object role in the clause), agreeing with Перхотин in masculine singular. Inside it sits the present active participle «стучащимся» («knocking»), a bookish way of compressing «who was knocking» into one declined word; it stands in the instrumental as a secondary predicate after «оставили».
> «купчиха» — a merchant's wife or widow: «купчиха» is the feminine of «купец» (merchant): a merchant's wife or, here, his widow, a recognizable social type of the merchant estate (купечество). The genitive «купчихи Морозовой» ("of the merchant-woman Morozova") names whose house it is.
> «кончить тем, что…» — to end by doing: The set frame «кончить тем, что…» means "to end up by (doing something)." The perfective «достучался» carries the prefix «до-», which adds the sense of carrying an action through to its goal — here, knocking until he finally got through. Note the reflexive «-ся».

Заслышав такой неистовый стук в ворота, Феня, столь напуганная часа два назад и всё еще от волнения и «думы» не решавшаяся лечь спать, была испугана теперь вновь почти до истерики: ей вообразилось, что стучится опять Дмитрий Федорович (несмотря на то, что сама же видела, как он уехал), потому что стучаться так «дерзко» никто не мог, кроме его.  
Hearing such a frantic banging at the gate, Fenya — already so frightened a couple of hours before, and still too agitated and lost in her "brooding" to bring herself to go to bed — was now thrown into something close to hysterics: it came into her head that it was Dmitry Fyodorovich knocking again (despite the fact that she herself had seen him drive off), because no one but he could possibly knock so "insolently."
> Perfective gerund: «having heard»: «Заслышав» is a perfective past gerund (деепричастие) from «заслышать», meaning "having caught the sound of." It compresses a prior, completed action sharing Fenya's subject — "on hearing such a frantic banging" — and is a hallmark of literary narration.
> A chain of participles describing Fenya: Dostoevsky stacks modifiers on Феня: «напуганная» (past passive participle, "frightened") and «не решавшаяся» (past active participle of the reflexive «решаться», "unable to bring herself"). Each agrees with her in feminine singular; the density is typical of 19th-century bookish style.
> Impersonal «ей вообразилось» — it came into her head: «ей вообразилось» is a dative-subject impersonal: the experiencer Феня stands in the dative («ей»), and the reflexive verb is neuter and subjectless — literally "it imagined itself to her." Russian frames such involuntary mental events with the dative experiencer rather than a nominative "she."
> Negative concord and the genitive «его»: «никто… не мог» shows Russian's obligatory double negation: the ни-word «никто» still requires «не» on the verb. «кроме его» ("except him") uses the genitive governed by the preposition «кроме»; the unprefixed «его» (not «него») is normal after «кроме».

Она бросилась к проснувшемуся дворнику, уже шедшему на стук к воротам, и стала было молить его, чтобы не впускал.  
She rushed to the watchman, who had woken and was already going toward the gate at the sound, and began begging him not to let anyone in.
> Two past active participles on one noun: The «дворник» carries two participles in the dative (agreeing after «к»): «проснувшемуся» (perfective, "who had woken") and «шедшему» (imperfective, from «идти», "who was going"). The perfective marks a completed event, the imperfective an action in progress — aspect doing its work inside the participles.
> «дворник» — yardman / gatekeeper: A «дворник» was the live-in yardman of a Russian house or courtyard, responsible for the gate, sweeping, and a measure of order and surveillance. "Watchman" captures his role here at the locked gate at night.
> The «было» particle of a thwarted start: «стала было молить» uses the particle «было», which marks an action begun but immediately interrupted or undone — "she started to beg (but…)." Combined with the inceptive «стала», it signals an attempt cut short, a fine 19th-century narrative nuance.

Но дворник опросил стучавшегося и, узнав, кто он и что хочет он видеть Федосью Марковну по весьма важному делу, отпереть ему наконец решился.  
But the watchman questioned the man who was knocking and, on learning who he was and that he wished to see Fedosya Markovna on a most important matter, made up his mind at last to open to him.
> Gerund plus embedded questions: «узнав» is a perfective past gerund ("having learned"), governing two indirect questions: «кто он» (who he is) and «что хочет он видеть» (that he wishes to see). The substantivized participle «стучавшегося» ("the one who had been knocking") stands as the accusative object of «опросил».
> Inverted word order for weight: Normal order would be «решился наконец отпереть ему». Dostoevsky fronts the infinitive «отпереть ему» and ends on the reflexive verb «решился» ("made up his mind"), throwing rhetorical weight onto the decision — a deliberate literary inversion.

Войдя к Федосье Марковне всё в ту же кухню, причем «для сумления» она упросила Петра Ильича, чтобы позволил войти и дворнику, Петр Ильич начал ее расспрашивать и вмиг попал на самое главное: то есть что Дмитрий Федорович, убегая искать Грушеньку, захватил из ступки пестик, а воротился уже без пестика, но с руками окровавленными: «И кровь еще капала, так и каплет с них, так и каплет!» — восклицала Феня, очевидно сама создавшая этот ужасный факт в своем расстроенном воображении.  
Coming in to Fedosya Markovna in that same kitchen — where, "for safety's sake," she had begged Pyotr Ilyich to let the watchman come in too — Pyotr Ilyich began to question her and in an instant hit upon the very thing that mattered: that is, that Dmitry Fyodorovich, running off to look for Grushenka, had snatched up the pestle from the mortar, and had come back without the pestle but with his hands all bloody: "And the blood was still dripping, dripping right off them, dripping and dripping!" cried Fenya, who had plainly conjured up this dreadful detail herself in her overwrought imagination.
> Perfective gerund opening the sentence: «Войдя» is the perfective past gerund of «войти» ("having entered"). It sets the prior action against the main clause «начал расспрашивать», and must share the main subject — Петр Ильич — which it does.
> Aspect and the contrastive «а»: Two perfective past verbs — «захватил» (snatched up), «воротился» (returned) — move the narrative event by event. The mild contrastive «а» hinges the two halves («took the pestle, but came back without it»), marking a shift rather than flat opposition, untranslatable in a single English word.
> «ступка» and «пестик» — mortar and pestle: «ступка» is the mortar, «пестик» the pestle — the heavy crushing rod that becomes the murder weapon. «из ступки» is genitive after «из» ("out of the mortar"). Existing note on «пестик» kept; here note the pair as a household set.
> Past active participle: «who had created»: «создавшая» is a past active participle ("who had created/conjured up"), agreeing with Феня in feminine singular and replacing a «которая»-clause. The reflexive intensifier «сама» ("herself") stresses that the dripping blood was her own invention.
> The intensifying «так и»: «так и каплет» uses the expressive «так и» before a verb to convey vividness and continuousness — "it just keeps dripping," "drips and drips." It dramatizes Fenya's overwrought, repetitive horror.

Но окровавленные руки видел и сам Петр Ильич, хотя с них и не капало, и сам их помогал отмывать, да и не в том был вопрос, скоро ль они высохли, а в том, куда именно бегал с пестиком Дмитрий Федорович, то есть наверно ли к Федору Павловичу, и из чего это можно столь решительно заключить?  
But the bloody hands had been seen by Pyotr Ilyich himself, even though nothing was dripping from them, and he himself had helped to wash them; and besides, the question was not how soon they had dried, but where exactly Dmitry Fyodorovich had run off to with the pestle — that is, whether it really was to Fyodor Pavlovich's, and on what grounds one could conclude so positively that it was.
> The correlative «не в том… а в том»: The frame «не в том… а в том, что/куда…» ("the point was not… but…") uses the demonstrative «то» in the prepositional, picked up by a clause. The contrastive «а» pivots between the rejected and the real question.
> The interrogative particle «ль» (= «ли»): «ль» is the reduced enclitic «ли», forming an embedded yes/no question "whether/how soon they had dried." It fronts the focused word «скоро» and follows it, a more literary device than mere question intonation.
> «бегал» — multidirectional motion, and «ли» again: «бегал» is the multidirectional motion verb (round-trip / there-and-back), fitting "where he had run off to (and back)." The clause is reopened by another «ли»: «наверно ли к Федору Павловичу» — "whether it really was to Fyodor Pavlovich's."

На этом пункте Петр Ильич настаивал обстоятельно и хотя в результате твердо ничего не узнал, но всё же вынес почти убеждение, что никуда Дмитрий Федорович и бегать не мог, как в дом родителя, и что, стало быть, там непременно должно было нечто произойти.  
On this point Pyotr Ilyich pressed her in detail, and although in the end he learned nothing for certain, he nevertheless came away almost convinced that Dmitry Fyodorovich could have run nowhere but to his father's house, and that, therefore, something must beyond all doubt have happened there.
> Negative concord with «никуда»: «никуда… не мог» again shows obligatory double negation: the negative adverb «никуда» (nowhere) keeps «не» on the verb. The construction «не мог, как в…» means "could (have run) nowhere except to…" — the «как» here works as "but / except."
> Impersonal «должно было» — something must have happened: «должно было… произойти» is a subjectless modal construction with neuter «должно» plus the infinitive: "something must (necessarily) have happened." «нечто» is the indefinite "something." The intensifier «непременно» ("without fail") sharpens the inference.
> «стало быть» — therefore, ergo: «стало быть» is a slightly old-fashioned, conversational discourse marker meaning "therefore, so then, ergo." It threads Perhotin's reasoning, giving it the flavour of spoken deduction.

«А когда он воротился, — с волнением прибавила Феня, — и я призналась ему во всем, то стала я его расспрашивать: отчего у вас, голубчик Дмитрий Федорович, в крови обе руки», то он будто бы ей так и ответил, что эта кровь — человеческая и что он только что сейчас человека убил, — «так и признался, так мне во всем тут и покаялся, да вдруг и выбежал как сумасшедший.  
"And when he came back," Fenya added in agitation, "and I had confessed everything to him, I began questioning him: why is it, my dear Dmitry Fyodorovich, that both your hands are covered in blood? — and he supposedly answered me outright that the blood was human blood and that he had only just that minute killed a man — "he confessed it straight out, owned up to it all to me right there, and then suddenly ran out like a madman.
> «голубчик» — "my dear (little dove)": «голубчик» is an affectionate diminutive of «голубь» (dove), used as a tender form of address — "my dear, my dove." From the maid Fenya to Mitya it conveys warmth and deference at once. Note it sits before the respectful name-and-patronymic.
> «у вас» possessive plus «в крови»: Russian expresses "your hands" not with a possessive but with «у вас» (genitive after «у»): literally "by you both hands are in blood." «в крови» (prepositional after «в») means "covered in blood" — a fixed locational idiom for being smeared with something.
> «будто бы» — reported with reservation: «будто бы» ("supposedly, as if") flags Fenya's report as hearsay she will not vouch for, the «бы» lending an irrealis, distancing tinge. With the expressive «так и» it adds vividness: "he answered her outright, just like that."
> «покаяться» — to confess, repent: «покаялся» (perfective of «каяться») carries a strong religious-confessional charge: not just "owned up" but "repented, made confession." In a novel saturated with sin and confession, the verb is loaded — Mitya "made his confession" of the blood to Fenya.

Я села да и стала думать: куда это он теперь как сумасшедший побежал?  
I sat down and began to think: where has he run off to now, like a madman?
> The folksy «да и» linking actions: «да и» is a colloquial, slightly folk-narrative connector, "and so / and then," joining «села» (sat down) to «стала думать» (began to think). It gives Fenya's speech its plain, oral rhythm.
> «побежал» — perfective of setting off running: «побежал» pairs the prefix «по-» with the unidirectional «бежать» to mean "set off running (in one direction)." The little «это» («куда это он») is an emphatic filler — "where on earth has he run off to?"

Поедет в Мокрое, думаю, и убьет там барыню.  
He'll drive to Mokroye, I thought, and kill the lady there.
> Perfective future inside reported thought: «Поедет» and «убьет» are perfective verbs conjugated like a present, which yields the simple future: "he'll drive… and kill." The inserted present-tense «думаю» reports Fenya's thought as she relives it.
> «барыня» — the lady, the mistress: «барыня» is the lady of the gentry, the mistress — here Fenya's term for Grushenka, whom Mitya pursues. It marks the speaker (a servant) looking up the social ladder; the accusative «барыню» is the would-be victim.

Выбежала я этта его молить, чтобы барыню не убивал, к нему на квартиру, да у Плотниковых лавки смотрю и вижу, что он уж отъезжает и что руки уж у него не в крови» (Феня это заметила и запомнила).  
So out I ran after him, to his lodgings, to beg him not to kill the lady, but at Plotnikov's shop I look and I see that he's already driving off and that his hands are no longer bloody" (Fenya had noticed this and remembered it).
> «этта» — dialectal "just then / here": «этта» (also «эвта», «эфта») is a substandard, folk-dialect adverb meaning roughly "just now, the other day, here." Dostoevsky uses such non-standard spellings to render Fenya's peasant speech on the page — a deliberate marker of register.
> «чтобы» + past form for an indirect plea: After verbs of begging, «чтобы» takes the past-tense form «не убивал» to express a willed, hypothetical outcome — "to beg him that he not kill." The «бы» fused in «чтобы» carries the irrealis force; English uses an infinitive ("not to kill").
> The historic present in vivid narration: Fenya slips into the present tense — «смотрю», «вижу», «отъезжает» — to relive the scene dramatically, a "historic present" common in excited oral storytelling. «уж» is the colloquial clipped «уже» ("already").

Старуха, бабушка Фени, сколько могла, подтвердила все показания своей внучки.  
The old woman, Fenya's grandmother, confirmed all her granddaughter's testimony as far as she was able.
> «бабушка» and «внучка» — grandmother and granddaughter: «бабушка» (grandmother) and «внучка» (granddaughter, here genitive «внучки») frame the household relationship. The diminutive-warm «бабушка» is the ordinary word for grandmother; «своей внучки» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» to point back to the grandmother as subject.
> «показания» — testimony, depositions: «показания» is the legal term for testimony or evidence given by a witness. Its use here quietly turns Fenya's frightened tale into the language of a criminal investigation — the chapter's theme of an improvised "preliminary inquiry."

Расспросив еще кой о чем, Петр Ильич вышел из дома еще в большем волнении и беспокойстве, чем как вошел в него.  
Having questioned them about a few other things, Pyotr Ilyich left the house in even greater agitation and unease than when he had entered it.
> Opening gerund and split indefinite «кой о чём»: «Расспросив» is a perfective past gerund ("having questioned them"). «кой о чём» is the indefinite «кое о чём» ("about a few things") with its preposition «о» wedged into the middle — a tmesis the «кое-» series allows.
> Comparative «в большем… чем»: «в большем волнении и беспокойстве, чем…» is a comparative: «большем» is the comparative-tinged form of «большой» in the prepositional, governing «чем» ("than"). The slightly bookish «чем как вошёл» compares his state leaving to his state entering.

Казалось бы, что всего прямее и ближе было бы ему теперь отправиться в дом Федора Павловича узнать, не случилось ли там чего, а если случилось, то что именно, и, уже убедившись неоспоримо, тогда только идти к исправнику, как твердо уже положил Петр Ильич.  
It would seem that the most direct and natural thing for him to do now would be to go straight to Fyodor Pavlovich's house to find out whether anything had happened there, and, if it had, what exactly — and only then, once he had made absolutely sure, to go to the police captain, as Pyotr Ilyich had firmly resolved to do.
> Conditional «бы» twice over: Both «казалось бы» ("it would seem") and «было бы… отправиться» ("the thing to do would be to go") use the particle «бы» with past/neuter forms to build the hypothetical. The dative «ему» marks Perhotin as the one for whom this would be the natural course — a dative-subject impersonal.
> «ли» + genitive of negation «чего»: The embedded question «не случилось ли там чего» ("whether anything had happened there") uses «ли» for "whether," and «чего» is the genitive of «что» — the genitive of negation/indefiniteness under the negated «не случилось».
> Gerund «убедившись» — having made sure: «убедившись» is the perfective past gerund of the reflexive «убедиться» ("having become convinced / made sure"). It carries the reflexive «-сь» and sets up the temporal condition: only after being sure would he act.

Но ночь была темная, ворота у Федора Павловича крепкие, надо опять стучать, с Федором же Павловичем знаком он был отдаленно — и вот он достучится, ему отворят, и вдруг там ничего не случилось, а насмешливый Федор Павлович пойдет завтра рассказывать по городу анекдот, как в полночь ломился к нему незнакомый чиновник Перхотин, чтоб узнать, не убил ли его кто-нибудь.  
But the night was dark, the gate at Fyodor Pavlovich's was solid, he would have to knock all over again, and his acquaintance with Fyodor Pavlovich was a distant one — and there he would knock his way in, the gate would be opened to him, and suddenly it would turn out that nothing had happened at all, and the mocking Fyodor Pavlovich would go about town tomorrow telling everyone the anecdote of how at midnight some stranger of an official, Perhotin, had come battering at his door to find out whether somebody hadn't murdered him.
> Stacked clauses with no copula: Russian present-tense "be" is zero, and even these past descriptions run as terse parallel clauses. The piling of short statements — "the night was dark, the gate solid, one must knock again" — enacts Perhotin's racing calculation.
> The emphatic particle «же»: The little «же» wedged into «с Федором же Павловичем» adds insistence and a topic-shift — "and as for Fyodor Pavlovich, his acquaintance with him was a distant one." English can only render it with stress or a phrase like "and besides."
> «ли» + indefinite «кто-нибудь»: The embedded question «не убил ли его кто-нибудь» ("whether somebody had murdered him") again uses «ли» for "whether." «кто-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite "anyone at all," fitting Perhotin's vague dread of an unknown killer.
> «анекдот» — a story, not a "joke": A false friend: «анекдот» in 19th-century Russian means a piquant little anecdote or tale told about someone, not a modern stand-up "joke." Fyodor Pavlovich would spread the "anecdote" of the official who came battering at midnight — a story to ridicule Perhotin.
> «ломиться» — to force one's way in: «ломиться» (from «ломать», to break) means to push violently against a door, to try to break in. The mocking Fyodor Pavlovich would tell how Perhotin «ломился» — "came battering" — at his gate, the verb itself making him ridiculous.

Скандал!  
A scandal!
> «скандал» — a disgrace, a public embarrassment: «скандал» here is not a modern "scandal" of wrongdoing but the older sense of a humiliating public scene or social disgrace — being made a fool of. The one-word sentence flares with Perhotin's dread of ridicule.

Скандала же Петр Ильич боялся пуще всего на свете.  
And of a scandal Pyotr Ilyich was more afraid than of anything else in the world.
> Fronted genitive object and «боялся» + genitive: «бояться» ("to fear") governs the genitive, hence «скандала», fronted for emphasis at the head of the sentence. The «же» ties it back to the previous exclamation. «всего на свете» is the genitive of comparison after «пуще» (more than anything).
> «пуще» — archaic "more, worse": «пуще» is an old-fashioned comparative meaning "more / more strongly / worse" (still alive in the proverb «пуще неволи»). «пуще всего на свете» = "more than anything in the world." It lends a folk-literary colour.

Тем не менее чувство, увлекавшее его, было столь сильно, что он, злобно топнув ногой в землю и опять себя выбранив, немедленно бросился в новый путь, но уже не к Федору Павловичу, а к госпоже Хохлаковой.  
Nevertheless the feeling that was carrying him along was so powerful that, after stamping his foot on the ground in fury and cursing himself once more, he set off at once on a new course — no longer toward Fyodor Pavlovich, however, but toward Madame Hohlakov's.
> Past active participle as a relative: «увлекавшее» is a past active participle (imperfective, ongoing past) from «увлекать» ("carrying him along"), agreeing with neuter «чувство». It packs a «которое»-clause into one declined word, a recurring literary economy.
> A pair of perfective gerunds: Two perfective past gerunds run in parallel: «топнув» ("having stamped") and «выбранив» ("having cursed"). «себя» is the reflexive pronoun ("himself"), object of «выбранив». Both prior, completed actions share the subject «он».
> Corrective «не… а» with the dative of direction: «не… а…» corrects an expectation: "not toward X, but toward Y." The preposition «к» governs the dative for motion-toward-a-person, hence «к Федору Павловичу» and «к госпоже Хохлаковой».

Если та, думал он, ответит на вопрос: она ли дала три тысячи давеча, в таком-то часу, Дмитрию Федоровичу, то в случае отрицательного ответа он тут же и пойдет к исправнику, не заходя к Федору Павловичу; в противном же случае отложит всё до завтра и воротится к себе домой.  
If she, he reasoned, would answer the question whether it was she who had given Dmitry Fyodorovich the three thousand a short while ago, at such-and-such an hour, then, in the event of a negative answer, he would go straight to the police captain without calling on Fyodor Pavlovich; but in the contrary case he would put everything off until tomorrow and go back home.
> Real conditional «если… то»: A real (not hypothetical) conditional: «если» + perfective future «ответит» in the if-clause, answered by «то» + perfective future «пойдёт». No «бы» here — the outcome is presented as a genuine plan, not a counterfactual.
> «ли» focusing the subject + dative of recipient: «она ли дала» fronts and focuses the subject — "whether it was she who gave." «Дмитрию Федоровичу» is the dative of the indirect object (the recipient). «три тысячи» is the accusative sum.
> «давеча» — "a short while ago, earlier today": «давеча» is a colloquial-archaic adverb meaning "earlier (today), a little while ago, just now." Common in Dostoevsky's narration and dialogue, it sets recent past events without a clock — period-flavoured for the modern reader.
> «в противном случае» — "otherwise / in the contrary case": A bookish legal-administrative formula meaning "in the contrary case, otherwise," balanced against «в случае отрицательного ответа» earlier. The «же» again marks the contrast. The register fits Perhotin's careful, lawyerly weighing.

Тут, конечно, прямо представляется, что в решении молодого человека идти ночью, почти в одиннадцать часов, в дом к совершенно незнакомой ему светской барыне, поднять ее, может быть, с постели, с тем чтобы задать ей удивительный по своей обстановке вопрос, заключалось, может быть, гораздо еще больше шансов произвести скандал, чем идти к Федору Павловичу.  
Here, of course, it is at once plain that in the young man's decision to go, by night, at nearly eleven o'clock, to the house of a fashionable lady wholly unknown to him, to rouse her perhaps from her bed, in order to put to her a question astonishing in its very circumstances — in this there lay, perhaps, even far more chance of producing a scandal than in going to Fyodor Pavlovich's.
> A long periodic sentence with delayed verb: Dostoevsky suspends the main verb «заключалось» ("there lay") to the far end of a long, subordinate-heavy period — a hallmark of his bookish syntax. The subject is «гораздо ещё больше шансов» ("far more chance"), governed by the comparative.
> Purpose clause «с тем чтобы»: «с тем чтобы» + infinitive expresses purpose, "in order to." «задать вопрос» is the fixed collocation "to put a question"; «ей» is the dative recipient. The «чтобы» again hides the irrealis «бы».
> «светская барыня» — a society lady: «светский» means "of high society, fashionable" (from «свет», the social "world"). A «светская барыня» is a fashionable society lady — Madame Hohlakov — wholly unknown to Perhotin, which is what makes the midnight call so improper.

Но так случается иногда, особенно в подобных настоящему случаях, с решениями самых точнейших и флегматических людей.  
But that is sometimes how it goes, especially in cases like the present one, even with the decisions of the most exact and phlegmatic of men.
> Double superlative «самых точнейших»: «самых точнейших» piles two superlative devices: «самый» ("the most") plus the bookish suffixed superlative «точнейших» (from «точный», exact). This emphatic, redundant superlative is a literary intensifier — "the very most exact of men."
> «флегматический» — phlegmatic: From the old humoral temperaments, «флегматический» means calm, sluggish, unexcitable — "phlegmatic." Applied ironically here: even the steadiest men act out of character, and Perhotin, normally cool, has lost his composure.

Петр же Ильич, в ту минуту, был уже совсем не флегматиком!  
And Pyotr Ilyich, at that moment, was no longer in the least phlegmatic!
> Instrumental predicate after «был»: After past-tense «был», the predicate noun takes the instrumental: «флегматиком» (not nominative «флегматик»). The instrumental frames the role as a temporary state — fitting, since he was "no longer phlegmatic" just then.
> «же» splitting the name for contrast: The contrastive «же» is inserted between «Петр» and «Ильич» — Russian lets the particle lean on the first word — marking the turn: "As for Pyotr Ilyich, he was by now not in the least phlegmatic."

Он всю жизнь потом вспоминал, как непреоборимое беспокойство, овладевшее им постепенно, дошло наконец в нем до муки и увлекало его даже против воли.  
All his life afterward he would recall how an irresistible disquiet, taking hold of him by degrees, had at last risen in him to the pitch of torment and was carrying him on even against his will.
> Past active participle + instrumental of «овладеть»: «овладевшее» is a past active participle ("that had taken hold of") agreeing with neuter «беспокойство». The verb «овладеть» governs the instrumental, so its object is «им» ("of him") — the disquiet "took possession with/of him."
> Perfective + imperfective in sequence: «дошло» (perfective, "reached, rose to") marks the completed climax; «увлекало» (imperfective, "was carrying him on") names the ongoing pull. The aspect pairing gives both the peak and the continuing momentum of his disquiet.
> «непреоборимый» — irresistible, insurmountable: «непреоборимый» ("that cannot be overcome," from the archaic «преобороть») is an elevated, bookish word for "irresistible, invincible." It lends weight to the disquiet that masters Perhotin against his will.

Разумеется, он все-таки ругал себя всю дорогу за то, что идет к этой даме, но «доведу, доведу до конца!» — повторял он в десятый раз, скрежеща зубами, и исполнил свое намерение — довел.  
Naturally, he scolded himself the whole way for going to call on this lady, but "I'll see it through, I'll see it through to the end!" he kept repeating for the tenth time, grinding his teeth, and he carried out his intention — he saw it through.
> Perfective future as resolve: «доведу» is the perfective future of «довести» ("I will carry it through"): the conjugated perfective expresses a single completed future act. Its repetition, with «до конца» ("to the end"), dramatizes Perhotin's grinding determination.
> Present gerund «скрежеща»: «скрежеща» is an imperfective present gerund ("grinding [his teeth]"), expressing an action simultaneous with «повторял» — "he kept repeating, grinding his teeth." «зубами» is the instrumental of means.

Было ровно одиннадцать часов, когда он вступил в дом госпожи Хохлаковой.  
It was exactly eleven o'clock when he entered Madame Hohlakov's house.
> Perfective «вступил» + accusative of motion: «вступил в дом» ("entered the house") is perfective, marking the single completed act of entering; «в дом» takes the accusative because «в» here expresses motion into a place. The clock detail «ровно одиннадцать часов» pins the dramatic timing.

Впустили его во двор довольно скоро, но на вопрос: почивает ли уже барыня или еще не ложилась — дворник не мог ответить в точности, кроме того, что в эту пору обыкновенно ложатся.  
He was let into the courtyard fairly quickly, but to the question of whether the lady had already retired or had not yet gone to bed, the watchman could give no exact answer, beyond the fact that at this hour people usually went to bed.
> Embedded question with «ли»: «почивает ли… барыня» uses «ли» for the embedded yes/no question, "whether the lady had retired." «почивать» is a deferential-elevated verb for "to sleep, repose," used by servants of their betters — far politer than plain «спать».
> «почивать» — to repose (deferential): «почивать» is an old, respectful verb for sleeping, used about persons of rank — "to repose, to take one's rest." The watchman uses it of «барыня»; it marks the social distance and the gentility of the household.

«Там, наверху, доложитесь; захотят вас принять, то примут, а не захотят — не примут».  
"Go up and have yourself announced; if they want to receive you, they'll receive you, and if they don't want to, they won't."
> Conditional without «если», answered by «то»: Colloquial Russian can drop «если» and let a fronted perfective future carry the condition: «захотят… то примут» = "if they want to, they'll receive you." The parallel «а не захотят — не примут» uses the contrastive «а» and elides the verb of will.
> Reflexive imperative «доложитесь»: «доложитесь» is the imperative of the reflexive «доложиться» — "have yourself announced." The «-сь» turns the act on the speaker's own behalf; the «-те» marks the polite/plural form to the visitor.

Петр Ильич поднялся наверх, но тут пошло потруднее.  
Pyotr Ilyich went upstairs, but here things grew rather more difficult.
> Impersonal «пошло» + comparative «потруднее»: «тут пошло потруднее» is an impersonal, subjectless idiom — "things went a bit harder here." «потруднее» is a comparative softened by the prefix «по-» ("somewhat harder, rather more difficult"), a common conversational moderation.

Лакей докладывать не захотел, вызвал наконец девушку.  
The footman would not announce him, and finally called a maidservant.
> Imperfective infinitive under negated «захотел»: «докладывать» is the imperfective infinitive (the activity of announcing), and «не захотел» negates the wish to do it: "would not announce him." Negated verbs of wishing typically pair with the imperfective for the general activity.
> «лакей» — footman / liveried servant: A «лакей» is a footman or manservant, a household servant of higher standing than the «девушка»/«горничная» maid he summons. The hierarchy of servants — footman, maid, watchman — quietly structures Perhotin's slow ascent toward the lady.

Петр Ильич вежливо, но настоятельно попросил ее доложить барыне, что вот, дескать, пришел здешний один чиновник, Перхотин, по особому делу, и если б не важное такое дело, то и не посмел бы прийти — «именно, именно в этих словах доложите», — попросил он девушку.  
Politely but insistently, Pyotr Ilyich asked her to inform the lady that a certain local official, Perhotin, had come on a particular matter, and that had it not been so important a matter he would never have dared to come — "those are the very words, the very words, you're to tell her," he urged the girl.
> Counterfactual conditional with «если б… бы»: A hypothetical conditional: «если б (= если бы) не важное дело… то и не посмел бы прийти» — "had the matter not been so important, he would not have dared to come." Both halves carry «бы» (one clipped to «б»), the irrealis particle on a past-form verb.
> «дескать» — "says he / supposedly": «дескать» is a reportative particle flagging that the words are being relayed second-hand — "as he put it, so to speak, says he." It frames Perhotin's message as a quotation the narrator is passing along.

Та ушла.  
She went off.
> «та» as a tracking demonstrative: «Та» ("that one," feminine) here simply re-refers to the maid just mentioned, the demonstrative «тот/та» doing the topic-tracking that lets Russian dispense with "the." The terse two-word sentence quickens the pace.

Он остался ждать в передней.  
He stayed behind to wait in the entrance hall.
> «передняя» — the entrance hall: «передняя» (a substantivized adjective, "the front [room]") is the entrance hall or antechamber of a genteel house, where visitors waited and left their coats. Perhotin is kept here, not yet admitted — a spatial marker of his uncertain welcome.

Сама госпожа Хохлакова хотя еще не започивала, но была уже в своей спальне.  
Madame Hohlakov herself, though she had not yet settled down for the night, was already in her bedroom.
> «започивать» — to settle down to sleep: «започивать», with the inceptive prefix «за-», means "to begin to repose, settle for the night," built on the same deferential «почивать.» «ещё не започивала» = "had not yet gone to sleep." The elevated verb signals the gentility of Madame Hohlakov.

Была она расстроена с самого давешнего посещения Мити и уже предчувствовала, что в ночь ей не миновать обыкновенного в таких случаях с нею мигреня.  
She had been upset ever since Mitya's visit earlier that day, and already had a presentiment that during the night she would not escape the migraine that came over her on such occasions.
> Dative subject + genitive after «не миновать»: «ей не миновать… мигреня» is a dative-experiencer impersonal: "she would not escape the migraine." «миновать» ("to avoid") under negation takes the genitive «мигреня», a genitive of negation. There is no nominative subject — the migraine simply befalls her.
> Imperfective «предчувствовала» of an ongoing state: «предчувствовала» (imperfective past) names a continuing inner state, "she had a presentiment / kept sensing." The reflexive-free verb sets the background mood; the subordinate «что…» reports the content of the foreboding.

Выслушав доклад девушки и удивившись, она, однако, раздражительно велела отказать, несмотря на то что неожиданное посещение в такой час незнакомого ей «здешнего чиновника» чрезвычайно заинтересовало ее дамское любопытство.  
Having heard the maid's report and being surprised by it, she nonetheless irritably ordered that the man be turned away, even though the unexpected visit at such an hour of a "local official" unknown to her had stirred her ladylike curiosity in the extreme.
> Two perfective gerunds in a row: «Выслушав» ("having heard out") and «удивившись» (reflexive, "having been surprised") are paired perfective past gerunds, both prior to the main «велела». Stacking gerunds to open a sentence is a signature of Dostoevsky's narrative texture.
> «велеть» + dative-less infinitive: «велела отказать» ("she ordered him to be turned away") uses «велеть» plus a bare infinitive to give a command at one remove. «отказать» here means "to refuse / turn away (a person)."
> «дамский» — ladylike: «дамский» ("of a lady, ladies'") with «любопытство» gives "ladylike curiosity" — a faintly ironic narratorial touch, the curiosity that overrides her irritation. «дама» is a lady of society, distinct from the homelier «барыня».

Но Петр Ильич на этот раз уперся как мул: выслушав отказ, он чрезвычайно настойчиво попросил еще раз доложить и передать именно «в этих самых словах», что он «по чрезвычайно важному делу, и они, может быть, сами будут потом сожалеть, если теперь не примут его».  
But Pyotr Ilyich this time dug in his heels like a mule: hearing the refusal, he asked with extraordinary insistence that she be told once more, and that it be conveyed in "those very words," that he had come "on an extremely important matter, and that she might perhaps be sorry afterward if she would not receive him now."
> «упереться как мул» — to dig in like a mule: «упереться» (reflexive, "to brace oneself, dig in, refuse to budge") with the simile «как мул» ("like a mule") vividly renders Perhotin's stubbornness. The reflexive «-ся» gives the verb its "plant oneself firmly" sense.
> Plural «они» for a single lady: The maid's relayed message uses respectful plural «они… сами будут… сожалеть» of Madame Hohlakov alone — a deferential third-person plural for a social superior. «будут сожалеть» is the compound imperfective future ("will be sorry").

«Я точно с горы тогда летел», — рассказывал он потом сам.  
"It was exactly as if I were tumbling down a mountain just then," he himself related afterward.
> Imperfective «летел» — a unidirectional fall: «летел» is the unidirectional motion verb «лететь» ("was flying/tumbling"), here imperfective past for a process: "I was tumbling down a mountain." «точно» means "exactly as if." The image conveys his helpless momentum.

Горничная, удивленно оглядев его, пошла другой раз докладывать.  
The maid, looking him over in astonishment, went to announce him a second time.
> Gerund + perfective «пошла» of setting off: «оглядев» is a perfective past gerund ("having looked him over"). «пошла… докладывать» pairs the perfective «пошла» (set off) with the imperfective infinitive «докладывать» (the activity of announcing) — "went to announce him."
> «горничная» — a chambermaid: A «горничная» is a chambermaid (substantivized adjective, "the [maid] of the rooms"), a step above the generic «девушка». The shifting words for the same servant — «девушка», «горничная» — track her role rather than naming a new person.

Госпожа Хохлакова была поражена, подумала, расспросила, каков он с виду, и узнала, что «очень прилично одеты-с, молодые и такие вежливые».  
Madame Hohlakov was struck, considered, asked further questions about what he looked like, and learned that he was "very respectably dressed, sir, young, and ever so polite."
> The deferential particle «-с»: «-с» on «одеты» is a contraction of «сударь/сударыня» ("sir/madam"), tacked on by servants and lower-status speakers to mark politeness and deference. It has no dictionary meaning — a tone marker we render loosely with an added "sir" where it fits, or drop.
> Respectful plural of the predicate: «одеты» (short passive participle, plural) again uses the deferential plural of a single young man — "[he is] very respectably dressed." Russian servants pluralize verbs and participles when speaking respectfully of one person.

Заметим в скобках и мельком, что Петр Ильич был довольно-таки красивый молодой человек, и сам это знал о себе.  
Let us note in passing, and by way of parenthesis, that Pyotr Ilyich was a rather good-looking young man, and knew it about himself.
> Hortative first-person plural «Заметим»: «Заметим» is a first-person plural perfective used as a soft hortative — "let us note." The narrator's authorial "we" steps forward to address the reader directly, a characteristic Dostoevskian aside.
> «довольно-таки» — "rather, fairly": «довольно-таки» is a colloquial intensifier-hedge, "rather, quite, fairly" — the «-таки» clitic adds a knowing, conversational shade. "A rather good-looking young man, and knew it about himself."

Госпожа Хохлакова решилась выйти.  
Madame Hohlakov made up her mind to come out.
> Reflexive «решилась» + infinitive: «решилась выйти» ("made up her mind to come out") uses the reflexive «решиться» ("to bring oneself to, resolve"), the «-ся» giving the sense of an inner decision overcoming hesitation. It echoes the watchman's earlier «отпереть… решился.»

Была она уже в своем домашнем шлафроке и в туфлях, но на плечи она накинула черную шаль.  
She was already in her house-robe and slippers, but she had thrown a black shawl over her shoulders.
> «шлафрок» — a dressing-gown (German loan): «шлафрок» (from German Schlafrock, "sleeping-coat") is a dressing-gown or house-robe, a genteel loanword of the period. That she receives Perhotin in her «шлафрок» and slippers, with a shawl thrown over, marks the impropriety of the late hour.
> Perfective «накинула» + accusative of direction: «накинула… на плечи» ("threw [a shawl] over her shoulders") is perfective for the single completed act. «на плечи» takes the accusative because «на» here expresses motion onto a place.

«Чиновника» попросили войти в гостиную, в ту самую, в которой давеча принимали Митю.  
The "official" was asked to come into the drawing room — the very one in which they had received Mitya earlier that day.
> Subjectless plural «попросили»: «попросили войти» is an indefinite-personal construction: a bare third-person plural verb with no stated subject means "they / someone asked him to come in" — "the official was asked in." Russian uses this to leave the agent vague.
> Correlative «та самая… в которой»: «в ту самую (гостиную), в которой…» links the demonstrative «та самая» ("that very one") to a «который»-relative in the prepositional after «в» (location). «принимали» is again an agentless plural — "in which Mitya had been received."

Хозяйка вышла к гостю с строго вопросительным видом и, не пригласив сесть, прямо начала с вопроса: «Что угодно?»  
The mistress of the house came out to her guest with a sternly questioning air and, without inviting him to sit, began straight off with a question: "What is it you want?"
> Negated perfective gerund: «не пригласив сесть» is a perfective past gerund under negation — "without inviting (him) to sit." A negated gerund neatly renders English "without doing," expressing the omitted accompanying action.
> «Что угодно?» — dative-of-pleasure idiom: «Что вам угодно?» (here clipped to «Что угодно?») literally "what is pleasing [to you]?" is the polite-but-here-curt formula for "What do you want?" It belongs to the dative-experiencer family, with «угодно» an invariable predicative.

— Я решился обеспокоить вас, сударыня, по поводу общего знакомого нашего Дмитрия Федоровича Карамазова, — начал было Перхотин, но только что произнес это имя, как вдруг в лице хозяйки изобразилось сильнейшее раздражение.  
"I have made bold to trouble you, madam, on the matter of our mutual acquaintance Dmitry Fyodorovich Karamazov," Perhotin began — but no sooner had he uttered the name than the keenest exasperation showed itself in the lady's face.
> «сударыня» — "madam": «сударыня» is the period-polite address "madam" (its masculine «сударь» yields the deferential clitic «-с»). Perhotin's «сударыня» is the courteous register of a respectful caller, contrasting with the lady's mounting fury.
> «только что… как» — "no sooner… than": The frame «только что [perfective], как вдруг…» renders "no sooner had he uttered the name than suddenly…" The perfective «произнёс» marks the completed instant against which the next event («изобразилось») abruptly breaks.
> Reflexive «изобразилось» — appeared of itself: «изобразилось» (reflexive, "showed/expressed itself") is a middle use of «-ся»: the exasperation "painted itself" on her face, with «раздражение» as grammatical subject. Russian favours this self-acting construction for involuntary expressions.

Она чуть не взвизгнула и с яростью прервала его.  
She very nearly shrieked, and cut him off in a fury.
> «взвизгнуть» — to shriek out: «взвизгнуть» is a semelfactive perfective (suffix «-ну-») naming a single sharp shriek or yelp; the prefix «вз-» adds the upward burst. «чуть не взвизгнула» = "very nearly shrieked." Such momentary-action verbs vivify Dostoevsky's outbursts.
> Instrumental of manner «с яростью»: «с яростью» ("in/with a fury") is the preposition «с» plus the instrumental, expressing the manner of «прервала» ("cut him off"). The с + instrumental phrase is the standard way to adverbialize an emotion.

— Долго ли, долго ли будут меня мучить этим ужасным человеком? — вскричала она исступленно.  
"How much longer, how much longer are people going to torment me with that dreadful man?" she cried, beside herself.
> «ли» in an exasperated rhetorical question: «Долго ли будут…» fronts «долго» with «ли» to form an indignant rhetorical question, "how much longer are they going to…?" «будут… мучить» is the compound imperfective future (ongoing torment). The doubling intensifies her outburst.
> Instrumental of means after «мучить»: «мучить… этим ужасным человеком» — "to torment me with that dreadful man" — uses the instrumental «человеком» (with the demonstrative and adjective agreeing) as the means of the tormenting. The adjective endings make the case visible.
> «исступлённо» — frenziedly, beside oneself: «исступление» is frenzy, a transport of rage or ecstasy; the adverb «исступлённо» means "frenziedly, beside herself." It is a charged Dostoevskian word for the extremes of feeling his characters reach.

— Как вы смели, милостивый государь, как решились обеспокоить незнакомую вам даму в ее доме и в такой час… и явиться к ней говорить о человеке, который здесь же, в этой самой гостиной, всего три часа тому, приходил убить меня, стучал ногами и вышел как никто не выходит из порядочного дома.  
"How dared you, my dear sir, how could you bring yourself to trouble a lady unknown to you in her own house, and at such an hour... and to come to her to talk about a man who, right here, in this very drawing room, only three hours ago, came to murder me, stamped his feet, and went out as no one ever goes out of a respectable house.
> «милостивый государь» — "my dear sir" (formal-icy): «милостивый государь» (literally "gracious sovereign") was the formal, official mode of address "dear/honoured sir," used in letters and stiff speech. In Madame Hohlakov's furious mouth it turns frostily ironic — politeness weaponized.
> Indignant «как» + past tense: «Как вы смели… как решились…» ("how dared you… how could you bring yourself…") uses «как» with the past tense for an outraged rhetorical question. «смели» is the past of «сметь» (to dare); «решились» reflexive (to bring oneself).
> Relative «который» with a run of past verbs: The «который»-clause (nominative subject of its clause) strings together «приходил» (imperfective, came/was coming), «стучал» (imperfective, stamped), and «вышел» (perfective, went out) — imperfectives for the lingering scene, the perfective for the final exit.
> «как никто не…» with negative concord: «как никто не выходит из порядочного дома» — "as no one ever goes out of a respectable house." The ни-word «никто» keeps «не» on the verb (negative concord), and the present-tense «выходит» states a general truth about decent behaviour.

Знайте, милостивый государь, что я на вас буду жаловаться, что я не спущу вам, извольте сей же час оставить меня… Я мать, я сейчас же… я… я…  
Be advised, my dear sir, that I shall lodge a complaint against you, that I shall not let this pass — be so good as to leave me this very instant... I am a mother, I shall at once... I... I..."
> Imperative «Знайте» — "be advised": «Знайте» is the polite/plural imperative of «знать», used as "be advised, mark you, know this." It opens her threat with an imperious flourish. The «-те» marks the formal address to Perhotin.
> Compound future «буду жаловаться»: «буду жаловаться» is the compound (imperfective) future — быть + imperfective infinitive — naming a threatened ongoing action, "I shall (be) complain(ing)." «жаловаться на + acc.» ("to complain about") governs «на вас».
> «извольте» + the archaic «сей»: «извольте» is a stiff, imperious imperative "be so good as to / kindly," plus infinitive. «сей же час» ("this very instant") uses the archaic demonstrative «сей» ("this"), a period-elevated form intensified by «же».

— Убить! Так он и вас хотел убить?  
"To murder! So he wanted to murder you as well?"
> Emphatic «так… и» seizing on her word: «Так он и вас хотел убить?» — Perhotin pounces on «убить», the «и» before «вас» meaning "you too / you as well." «так» opens the inference ("so then…"), the colloquial connective tissue of dialogue.

— А разве он кого-нибудь уже убил? — стремительно спросила госпожа Хохлакова.  
"Why, has he already murdered someone, then?" Madame Hohlakov asked impetuously.
> «разве» — incredulous question particle: «разве» frames an astonished, doubting question — "Why, has he really…?" The opening «А» adds the conversational hinge. «кого-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite "anyone (at all)," in the accusative-genitive animate object form.
> «стремительно» — headlong, impetuously: «стремительно» (from «стремиться», to rush toward) means "impetuously, with a rush, headlong." It catches the lady's sudden lunge of curiosity — she fires the question off before she can stop herself.

— Соблаговолите выслушать, сударыня, только полминуты, и я в двух словах разъясню вам всё, — с твердостью ответил Перхотин.  
"Be so good as to hear me out, madam, just half a minute, and in a couple of words I'll explain it all to you," Perhotin answered firmly.
> «соблаговолить» — "be so gracious as to": «Соблаговолите» is a markedly formal, deferential imperative "be so good / so gracious as to," plus infinitive. Perhotin meets the lady's icy «извольте» with equal ceremonious politeness, holding his ground courteously.
> Perfective future «разъясню» + numeral phrase: «разъясню» is the perfective future, "I will explain (fully)." «в двух словах» ("in a couple of words") shows the numeral «два» governing the genitive-style plural «словах» within the prepositional phrase — an idiom for "briefly."

— Сегодня, в пять часов пополудни, господин Карамазов занял у меня, по-товарищески, десять рублей, и я положительно знаю, что у него денег не было, а сегодня же в девять часов он вошел ко мне, неся в руках на виду пачку сторублевых бумажек, примерно в две или даже в три тысячи рублей.  
"Today, at five in the afternoon, Mr. Karamazov borrowed ten roubles from me as a friend, and I know for a fact that he had no money; yet this same evening, at nine o'clock, he came in to me carrying a wad of hundred-rouble notes in his hands, in plain sight, roughly two or even three thousand roubles.
> «занять у кого» — to borrow from: «занять у меня» means "borrowed from me": «занять» here is "to borrow" (its sibling «одолжить» is "to lend"), and «у меня» is genitive after «у» marking the source. «десять рублей» — "ten roubles," with the numeral above five taking the genitive plural «рублей».
> Genitive of negation in an existential: «денег не было» — "there was no money" — is the textbook genitive of negation: the subject of a negated existential «не было» stands obligatorily in the genitive («денег»). «у него» (genitive after «у») expresses the possessor.

Руки же у него и лицо были все окровавлены, сам же казался как бы помешанным.  
His hands and his face, moreover, were all covered in blood, and he himself seemed as though out of his mind.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «окровавлены» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «окровавленный» ("bloodied"), joined to «были» to state a result — "the hands were [all] covered in blood." The short form, plural to agree with «руки», is the bookish predicative norm.
> Instrumental predicate after «казался»: «казался… помешанным» ("seemed out of his mind") takes the instrumental «помешанным» as predicate after «казаться» — like быть/стать, it governs the instrumental. «как бы» ("as it were, as though") softens it; «же» marks the contrast.

На вопрос мой, откуда взял столько денег, он с точностью ответил, что взял их сейчас пред тем от вас и что вы ссудили его суммою в три тысячи, чтоб ехать будто бы на золотые прииски…  
To my question, where he had got so much money, he answered precisely that he had taken it just before from you, and that you had advanced him a sum of three thousand to go, supposedly, off to the gold mines..."
> «столько денег» — genitive after a quantifier: «столько денег» ("so much money") shows the quantity word «столько» governing the genitive «денег», just as numerals do. «откуда взял» is the embedded question "where he got [it from]."
> «ссудить» + instrumental of the thing lent: «ссудить кого суммою» — "to advance someone a sum" — takes the person in the accusative («его») and the thing lent in the instrumental («суммою», an old/bookish ending for «суммой»). «в три тысячи» specifies the amount.

В лице госпожи Хохлаковой вдруг выразилось необычайное и болезненное волнение.  
In Madame Hohlakov's face there was suddenly expressed an extraordinary and painful agitation.
> Reflexive «выразилось» with fronted location: «В лице… выразилось… волнение» fronts the locative «в лице» ("in her face") for topic, leaving «волнение» as the new-information subject at the end — Russian's topic-first, comment-last flow. «выразилось» is the middle reflexive, "expressed itself."

— Боже! Это он старика отца своего убил! — вскричала она, всплеснув руками.  
"Good God! So it was he who murdered the old man, his father!" she cried, throwing up her hands.
> «Боже!» — the Church-Slavonic vocative: «Боже!» is the old vocative of «Бог» (God), surviving from Church Slavonic in exclamations and prayer — "Good God! O God!" Modern Russian has no living vocative case, but these sacred forms persist in moments of shock, as here.
> Cleft «это он… убил» and reflexive «своего»: «Это он… убил» is an emphatic cleft, "it was he who murdered." «старика отца своего» stacks animate accusatives (genitive-shaped «старика», «отца») with the reflexive possessive «своего» — "his own father," pointing back to «он».
> Gerund «всплеснув» + instrumental: «всплеснув руками» ("throwing up her hands") is a perfective past gerund of the accompanying gesture; «руками» is the instrumental of means. The phrase is a fixed idiom for a sudden gesture of dismay.

— Никаких я ему денег не давала, никаких! О, бегите, бегите!.. Не говорите больше ни слова! Спасайте старика, бегите к отцу его, бегите!  
"I gave him no money, none at all! Oh, run, run!.. Don't say another word! Go and save the old man, run to his father, run!"
> Emphatic «никаких… не» with genitive: «Никаких… денег не давала» piles the ни-word «никаких» onto the genitive of negation «денег» under negated «не давала» — "I gave him no money at all." The repeated «никаких!» hammers the negative concord home in agitation.
> A volley of imperatives: «бегите» (imperative of «бежать»), «спасайте» (of «спасать»), all with the polite/plural «-те», pour out in panic. The imperfective imperatives stress urgent, immediate action — "run! save the old man!" «к отцу» takes the dative of direction.

— Позвольте, сударыня, итак, вы не давали ему денег? Вы твердо помните, что не давали ему никакой суммы?  
"Allow me, madam — so then, you did not give him any money? You are quite certain you gave him no sum at all?"
> «Позвольте» — "allow me / one moment": «Позвольте» (imperative of «позволить») is the courteous "allow me, permit me / one moment," Perhotin reasserting control. «итак» ("and so, thus") draws the inference; «денег» is again the genitive of negation under «не давали».
> «никакой суммы» — genitive of negation again: «никакой суммы» — the ни-determiner «никакой» plus the genitive «суммы» under negated «не давали»: "no sum at all." The drilling repetition of the negated-genitive (денег… суммы) is Perhotin nailing down the alibi's collapse.

— Не давала, не давала! Я ему отказала, потому что он не умел оценить.  
"I did not, I did not! I refused him, because he did not know how to appreciate it.
> «отказать кому» + causal «потому что»: «отказать ему» takes the dative «ему» — "to refuse him." The subordinating «потому что» ("because") opens the reason. «не умел оценить» ("did not know how to appreciate [it]") pairs the past of «уметь» with an imperfective infinitive.

Он вышел в бешенстве и затопал ногами.  
He went out in a rage and stamped his feet.
> «бешенство» — fury, rabies: «бешенство» literally means the disease rabies (from «бешеный», rabid, mad), and is used figuratively for a frenzy of rage. The prepositional «в бешенстве» frames the state he was in — out of his mind with fury.
> Perfective «затопал» — bursting into stamping: The prefix «за-» on «топать» (to stamp) gives an inceptive perfective: not 'stamped' once but 'began to stamp'. Paired with «вышел», both perfectives move the narration forward as discrete completed events.
> Instrumental «ногами»: «ногами» (with his feet) is the instrumental plural, naming the means of the action — the standard way Russian expresses the body part used: «топать ногами», to stamp the feet.

Он на меня бросился, а я отскочила…  
He flung himself at me, and I sprang back...
> Contrastive «а»: The little conjunction «а» here hinges two opposed actions — he lunged, while she sprang away. Untranslatable as a single English word, it marks a shift of subject and a mild contrast rather than full opposition.
> Feminine past «-ла»: «отскочила» carries the feminine singular «-ла» ending: the speaker is Madame Hohlakov, so the past tense agrees in gender rather than person. The prefix «от-» adds the sense of springing away from him.

И я вам скажу еще, как человеку, от которого теперь уж ничего скрывать не намерена, что он даже в меня плюнул, можете это себе представить?  
And I'll tell you something more, as a man from whom I have no intention now of concealing anything — that he actually spat at me, can you picture such a thing?
> Relative «который» in the genitive: «от которого» — 'from whom' — shows «который» agreeing in masculine singular with «человеку» but taking the genitive its own preposition «от» demands. The clause is set off by commas in the standard way.
> Genitive of negation «ничего»: Under the negated «не намерена скрывать», the object appears as genitive «ничего» (rather than accusative «что»). The negation also triggers double-negation concord: «ничего… не».
> Dative-reflexive «себе»: «представить себе» — literally 'to present to oneself', i.e. to imagine — uses the reflexive pronoun «себе» in the dative. The idiom turns an outward 'present' into the inward 'picture to yourself'.
> «плюнуть» — to spit: «плюнул» (perfective of «плевать») is a single act of spitting. Spitting at someone is a gesture of utter contempt; Hohlakov returns to it three times as the climax of Mitya's outrage.

Но что же мы стоим? Ах, сядьте… Извините, я…  
But why are we standing? Ah, do sit down... Forgive me, I...
> Emphatic particle «же»: «же» here adds exasperated emphasis to the question — 'why on earth are we standing?' It carries no lexical meaning, only the speaker's flustered insistence, a hallmark of Dostoevsky's nervous dialogue.
> Polite imperative «сядьте»: «сядьте» (sit down) is the perfective imperative with the polite/plural ending «-те», addressed to Pyotr Ilyich with «вы». The perfective fits a single, expected act of sitting.

Или лучше бегите, бегите, вам надо бежать и спасти несчастного старика от ужасной смерти!  
Or rather, run, run — you must hurry off and save the wretched old man from a dreadful death!"
> Imperative of a motion verb: «бегите» is the imperative of «бежать» (to run), the unidirectional motion verb — run, in one direction, now. The doubling is sheer agitation; Hohlakov speaks in urgent repetitions throughout.
> Dative-subject «вам надо»: «вам надо» is an impersonal construction: there is no nominative subject, the person under obligation stands in the dative «вам», and the predicate «надо» (it is necessary) is invariable. This experiencer-first pattern saturates the novel's inner life.
> Animate accusative «старика»: «старика» is the accusative of «старик» (old man), an animate masculine noun — so its accusative borrows the genitive ending «-а», keeping object distinct from subject. «несчастного» agrees with it.

— Но если уж он убил его?  
"But what if he has already killed him?"
> Particle «уж» of finality: «уж» (a worn-down «уже», 'already') here intensifies the hypothetical — 'but what if he's already gone and killed him?' It lends the question a note of dread inevitability rather than literal time.

— Ах, боже мой, в самом деле! Так что же мы теперь будем делать? Как вы думаете, что теперь надо делать?  
"Ah, my God, indeed! So what are we to do now? What do you think we ought to do now?"
> «Боже мой!» — my God: «Боже» is the old Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» (God), surviving only in exclamations and prayer. «Боже мой» is the everyday cry of distress, its sacred form long since fossilised into emotion.
> Compound imperfective future: «будем делать» is the imperfective compound future — conjugated «быть» (будем) plus the imperfective infinitive «делать». It names ongoing or open-ended action: 'what are we to be doing now?', fitting her helpless flailing.
> Impersonal «надо делать»: Another subjectless construction: «надо делать», 'one must do / what is to be done', with no nominative agent. The understood experiencer ('we') would stand in the dative if expressed.

Между тем она усадила Петра Ильича и села сама против него.  
Meanwhile she had seated Pyotr Ilyich and sat down herself, facing him.
> Patronymic in the accusative: «Петра Ильича» is name-plus-patronymic both inflected to the accusative as the object of «усадила». «Ильича» (from «Илья») is the respectful patronymic; the full name-and-patronymic mode signals her polite address.
> «против» + genitive: «против него» (facing him / opposite him) shows the preposition «против» governing the genitive «него» (with the prepositional н-prefix on the third-person pronoun).

Петр Ильич вкратце, но довольно ясно изложил ей историю дела, по крайней мере ту часть истории, которой сам сегодня был свидетелем, рассказал и о сейчашнем своем посещении Фени и сообщил известие о пестике.  
Pyotr Ilyich set out for her, briefly but quite clearly, the history of the affair — at least that part of it of which he himself had been a witness that day — told her also of his just-completed visit to Fenya, and passed on the news about the pestle.
> «который» governed by a noun: «которой… был свидетелем» — 'of which he was a witness'. «свидетель чего» takes a genitive complement, so the relative «которой» appears in the genitive feminine, agreeing with «часть» but cased by its own role.
> Predicate instrumental «свидетелем»: After past-tense «был», the predicate noun «свидетель» takes the instrumental «свидетелем», not the nominative — the standard rule for naming a role one had: 'he was a witness'.
> «сейчашний» — just-now's: «сейчашний» is a colloquial adjective coined from «сейчас» (just now), meaning 'the recent / just-completed'. It is bookish-casual, the kind of nonce-formation that gives Dostoevsky's narration its lively texture.

Все эти подробности донельзя потрясли возбужденную даму, которая вскрикивала и закрывала глаза руками…  
All these particulars shook the overexcited lady beyond measure; she kept crying out and covering her eyes with her hands...
> «донельзя» — to the utmost: «донельзя» (literally 'to-impossible') is an emphatic adverb meaning 'beyond all measure, utterly'. Built from «до» + «нельзя» (impossible), it intensifies «потрясли» — shook her past the limit.
> Imperfective of repeated action: «вскрикивала» and «закрывала» are imperfective pasts conveying repeated, habitual action — she kept crying out and kept covering her eyes, again and again. The imperfective paints the ongoing background to the scene.
> Instrumental of means «руками»: «руками» (with her hands) is the instrumental plural naming the means; «глаза» (eyes) is the accusative object. The pairing 'object + instrumental tool' is the standard frame: to cover the eyes with the hands.

— Представьте, я всё это предчувствовала! Я одарена этим свойством, всё, что я себе ни представлю, то и случится.  
"Just imagine, I had a presentiment of all this! I am gifted with that faculty — whatever I picture to myself comes to pass.
> «предчувствовать» — to have a presentiment: «предчувствовать» is «пред-» (fore-) + «чувствовать» (to feel): to feel beforehand, to have a foreboding. The imperfective past «предчувствовала» suits a standing inner sense rather than a single event.
> Concessive «ни» and correlative «то»: «что… ни представлю» uses «ни» concessively — 'whatever I picture', no matter what — while «всё… то и случится» is the correlative «то» resuming the subject. «случится» is perfective future, stating the inevitable outcome.
> Short passive participle «одарена»: «одарена» is the short-form feminine past passive participle of «одарить» (to endow), used predicatively: 'I am gifted'. The agent or means, «этим свойством», stands in the instrumental — 'endowed with this faculty'.

И сколько, сколько раз я смотрела на этого ужасного человека и всегда думала: вот человек, который кончит тем, что убьет меня.  
And how many, how many times have I looked at that dreadful man and always thought: there is a man who will end by murdering me.
> Imperfective for repeated looking: «смотрела» is imperfective past, exactly right for 'how many times I looked' — an action repeated across time. The repetition «сколько, сколько раз» reinforces the iterative reading.
> «кончить тем, что» + perfective future: «кончит тем, что убьёт» — 'will end by killing' — pairs two perfective futures inside a fixed idiom «кончить тем, что» (to end up doing). «который» is the relative pronoun introducing the man's fated act.

И вот так и случилось… То есть, если он убил теперь не меня, а только отца своего, то, наверное, потому, что тут видимый перст божий, меня охранявший, да и сверх того, сам он постыдился убить, потому что я ему сама, здесь, на этом месте, надела на шею образок с мощей Варвары-великомученицы…  
And so it has come about... That is, if just now he has murdered not me but only his own father, then it is no doubt because here there was a visible finger of God, watching over me — and besides, he was himself ashamed to kill me, because it was I who, with my own hands, here, on this very spot, hung about his neck a little icon containing relics of Saint Barbara the Great Martyr...
> Contrastive «не… а» and reflexive «свой»: «не меня, а… отца» sets up the 'not X but Y' contrast with «а». «отца своего» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» — his own father, belonging to the clause's subject — and shows the postposed adjective typical of period prose.
> Past active participle «охранявший»: «охранявший» is the imperfective past active participle of «охранять» (to guard) — 'who was watching over [me]'. It declines and agrees with «перст» like an adjective, compressing a «который»-clause into a bookish modifier.
> Reflexive «-ся» in «постыдиться»: «постыдился» (was ashamed) is a «-ся» verb expressing an inner change of state — there is no separate object 'oneself'; the «-ся» makes the feeling reflexive/middle. «сам» intensifies: he himself, of his own accord.

И как же я была близка в ту минуту от смерти, я ведь совсем подошла к нему, вплоть, и он всю свою шею мне вытянул!  
And how close I was to death at that moment — why, I had gone right up to him, close up against him, and he stretched out his whole neck to me!
> Short adjective «близка»: «близка» is the short-form feminine of «близкий» (near), used predicatively with «была» — 'how close I was'. The short form is the bookish, predicate-only form, carrying a sense of a temporary state.
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to the listener's understanding — 'why, I had gone right up to him, you see'. It assumes shared evidence and gives her account its breathless, confiding tone.
> Prefixed motion «подойти»: «подошла» is the perfective of «подходить/подойти» — to approach, come up to — a prefixed motion verb where «под-» gives the direction 'up to'. It governs «к + dative»: «к нему», up to him.

Знаете, Петр Ильич (извините, вас, кажется, вы сказали, зовут Петром Ильичом)… знаете, я не верю в чудеса, но этот образок и это явное чудо со мною теперь — это меня потрясает, и я начинаю опять верить во всё что угодно.  
You know, Pyotr Ilyich (forgive me — it is Pyotr Ilyich, I think you said your name was?)... you know, I do not believe in miracles, but this little icon and this manifest miracle that has happened to me now — it shakes me to the core, and I am beginning to believe again in anything whatever.
> Instrumental with «звать»: «зовут Петром Ильичом» — 'they call [you] Pyotr Ilyich' — puts the name in the instrumental after «звать». Both name and patronymic inflect: «Петром Ильичом», the standard way to report what someone is called.
> «верить в» + accusative: «верить в чудеса» (to believe in miracles) takes «в» plus the accusative, distinct from «верить кому» (to believe someone) which takes the dative. «чудеса» is the irregular plural of «чудо» (miracle).
> Imperfective present «потрясает»: Here the imperfective present «потрясает» (shakes me, deeply) names a state going on right now — the present tense exists only for imperfectives. Contrast the perfective «потрясли» of s70, which reported a completed jolt.
> «что угодно» — anything whatever: «что угодно» is a fixed indefinite phrase, 'anything you please / anything at all'. The «угодно» is from «угодный» (pleasing); the whole expresses sweeping, indiscriminate readiness to believe.

Слыхали вы о старце Зосиме?.. А впрочем, я не знаю, что говорю…  
Have you heard of the elder Zosima?.. But there — I don't know what I'm saying...
> «слыхать» — the colloquial 'to hear': «слыхали» is from «слыхать», a folksy-colloquial variant of «слышать» (to hear), often with an iterative shade ('have you ever heard'). The form lends her speech an offhand, chatty register.

И представьте, ведь он и с образком на шее в меня плюнул… Конечно, только плюнул, а не убил, и… и вон куда поскакал!  
And just imagine, even with the icon on his neck he spat at me... Of course, he only spat, he didn't kill me, and... and look where he galloped off to!
> «ведь» and concessive «и»: «ведь» again appeals to shared astonishment, while «и с образком» uses «и» concessively — 'even with the icon on his neck'. The diminutive «образком» (instrumental of «образок») is the small icon from s73.
> Inceptive «поскакал»: «поскакал» is the «по-» perfective of «скакать» (to gallop), with the inceptive sense 'set off galloping'. «вон куда» (look where!) is a gesturing exclamation pointing after the departed rider.

Но куда ж мы-то, нам-то теперь куда, как вы думаете?  
But where are we to go, where are we to go now, what do you think?"
> The topic clitic «-то»: «мы-то… нам-то» use the emphatic clitic «-то», which underlines a known topic — 'as for us, where are we to go?'. Distinct from indefinite «-то», this hyphenated «-то» spotlights the contrast: never mind him, what about us.
> Dative of direction with ellipsis: «нам куда [идти]?» leaves the verb of motion unspoken — 'where are we to go?' — a common Russian ellipsis. «нам» is the dative of the implied impersonal 'must we go', reinforcing the subjectless flavour.

Петр Ильич встал и объявил, что пойдет теперь прямо к исправнику и всё ему расскажет, а там уж как тот сам знает.  
Pyotr Ilyich rose and announced that he would now go straight to the police captain and tell him everything, and after that it would be for the captain himself to know what to do.
> Perfective futures in reported speech: «пойдёт» and «расскажет» are perfective futures (of «пойти» and «рассказать»), reporting his announced single, completed acts: he will go and will tell. Indirect speech in Russian keeps the original tense.
> Correlative «тот» and particle «уж»: «как тот сам знает» — 'as he himself knows [best]' — uses the distal demonstrative «тот» to point to the исправник, with «сам» (himself) and the resigned «уж». The whole idiom leaves the next step to the captain's own discretion.

— Ах, это прекрасный, прекрасный человек, я знакома с Михаилом Макаровичем. Непременно, именно к нему.  
"Ah, he is a splendid, splendid man, I am acquainted with Mikhail Makarovich. By all means — to him, precisely.
> «знаком с» + instrumental: «знакома с» (acquainted with) governs «с» plus the instrumental: «с Михаилом Макаровичем», name-and-patronymic both inflected. «знакома» is the short feminine adjective agreeing with the speaker.
> «непременно» — without fail: «непременно» means 'certainly, by all means, without fail' — built on «премена» (change), literally 'unchangeably'. It is one of Hohlakov's favourite emphatic fillers, recurring through the scene.

Как вы находчивы, Петр Ильич, и как хорошо это вы всё придумали; знаете, я бы никак на вашем месте этого не придумала!  
How resourceful you are, Pyotr Ilyich, and how well you've thought it all out; you know, in your place I should never have thought of it at all!"
> Conditional «бы» + genitive of negation: «я бы… не придумала» is the conditional: past-form verb plus the particle «бы», 'I should never have thought of it'. The negated object shifts to genitive «этого» (rather than accusative «это»), with «никак» reinforcing the negation.
> «на вашем месте» — in your place: «на вашем месте» (in your place) is a set idiom for hypotheticals, taking «на» + prepositional «месте». It naturally pairs with the «бы» conditional that follows: in your place, I would...

— Тем более что я и сам хороший знакомый исправнику, — заметил Петр Ильич, всё еще стоя и видимо желая как-нибудь поскорее вырваться от стремительной дамы, которая никак не давала ему проститься с ней и отправиться.  
"All the more so since I am myself a good acquaintance of the police captain's," remarked Pyotr Ilyich, still on his feet and plainly wishing somehow to break away as quickly as he could from the impetuous lady, who would by no means let him take his leave of her and be off.
> Gerunds «стоя» and «желая»: «стоя» (standing) and «желая» (wishing) are imperfective present gerunds («деепричастия»), expressing attendant circumstance simultaneous with «заметил»: he remarked, while standing and wishing to escape. Both share the main subject, Pyotr Ilyich.
> Relative clause with negation: «которая… не давала» — 'who would by no means let [him]' — has the relative «которая» as nominative subject of its own clause, agreeing in feminine with «дамы». «никак не» is emphatic negation: in no way did she let him.
> «стремительный» — impetuous: «стремительная» (from «стремиться», to strive/rush) means 'headlong, impetuous, vehement'. Applied to Hohlakov it captures her unstoppable rush of words, the very quality Pyotr Ilyich is trying to break away from.

— И знаете, знаете, — лепетала она, — придите сказать мне, что там увидите и узнаете… и что обнаружится… и как его решат и куда осудят.  
"And you know, you know," she babbled, "come and tell me what you see and learn there... and what comes to light... and how they decide his case and where they sentence him.
> «лепетать» — to babble: «лепетать» means to babble or prattle, the indistinct speech of a child or of someone overwhelmed. The narrator's choice of «лепетала» quietly characterises Hohlakov's flustered, half-coherent flow.
> Imperative «придите»: «придите» is the perfective imperative of «прийти» (to come), a prefixed motion verb, with the polite «-те». The bare infinitive «сказать» that follows expresses purpose: come [in order] to tell me.
> Impersonal 3rd-person plural: «решат… осудят» are perfective futures with an unexpressed 'they' — the indefinite-personal construction where a bare 3rd-plural verb means 'people / the authorities' will decide and sentence. English renders it 'how they decide his case'.

Скажите, ведь у нас нет смертной казни?  
Tell me — we have no death penalty here, do we?
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «нет смертной казни» — 'there is no death penalty' — puts the absent subject in the genitive after «нет», the obligatory genitive of negation in existentials. «ведь» turns it into an appealing tag question.

Но непременно придите, хоть в три часа ночи, хоть в четыре, даже в половине пятого… Велите меня разбудить, растолкать, если вставать не буду… О боже, да я и не засну даже.  
But do come, without fail, even at three in the morning, even at four, even at half past four... Have them wake me, shake me awake, if I won't get up... Oh God, but I shan't even fall asleep.
> Concessive «хоть»: «хоть… хоть…» means 'even at... even at...', the concessive particle granting any of the named hours. «в три часа ночи» is the accusative-of-time construction for clock time.
> Imperative «велите» + infinitive: «велите» (order, command) is the polite imperative of «велеть»; it governs the bare infinitives «разбудить, растолкать» — 'order [someone] to wake, to shake me'. «растолкать» (to shake awake) is vivid, almost violent.
> Negated compound future: «не буду вставать» is the imperfective compound future negated — 'if I won't [keep trying to] get up'. The imperfective «вставать» suits the attempted, ongoing process of waking, against a flat refusal to rouse.
> Perfective future «не засну»: «не засну» is the perfective future of «заснуть» (to fall asleep) negated — 'I shan't [even manage to] fall asleep'. The perfective denies the single completed event of dropping off; «да… и… даже» pile on emphasis.

Знаете, не поехать ли мне самой с вами?..  
You know, hadn't I better go along with you myself?.."
> «не… ли» tentative question + dative: «не поехать ли мне?» is a deliberative question: the interrogative particle «ли» plus a dative subject «мне» and infinitive — 'hadn't I better go?'. The «не…ли» frame softens it into a tentative proposal. «самой» (myself) is the dative-feminine intensifier «сам/сама», agreeing with the dative subject «мне» — an emphatic intensifier, not a reflexive pronoun, and not instrumental.
> Motion verb «поехать»: «поехать» (perfective of «ехать», to go by vehicle) is the right choice for setting off on a journey — by carriage, not on foot. Russian splits English 'go' between «идти/пойти» (on foot) and «ехать/поехать» (riding).

— Н-нет-с, а вот если бы вы написали вашею рукой сейчас три строки, на всякий случай, о том, что денег Дмитрию Федоровичу никаких не давали, то было бы, может быть, не лишнее… на всякий случай…  
"N-no, ma'am — but here's a thought: if you were to write three lines with your own hand right now, just in case, stating that you gave Dmitry Fyodorovich no money of any kind, it might perhaps not come amiss... just in case..."
> The deferential particle «-с»: The «-с» tacked onto «нет» is the «словоер» — a clipped relic of «сударь» ('sir/madam') once added for politeness or deference. By Dostoevsky's day it marks obsequiousness or fussy respect; Pyotr Ilyich's stammered «н-нет-с» is markedly deferential to the lady.
> Counterfactual «если бы… то было бы»: A full conditional sentence: «если бы вы написали» (if you were to write) plus the «бы» main clause «было бы не лишнее» (it would not be amiss). Both halves take past-form verbs with «бы», the standard irrealis pattern.
> Archaic instrumental «вашею»: «вашею рукой» (with your own hand) is the instrumental of means. «вашею» is the older, fuller instrumental-feminine ending «-ею» for «-ой», a bookish 19th-century form that flavours the formal request.
> Genitive of negation «денег»: «денег… не давали» negates the giving, so the object «деньги» appears as genitive «денег»; «никаких» ('of no kind') reinforces it. Reporting that she gave 'no money of any kind' — exactly the exonerating point of the note.

— Непременно! — восторженно прыгнула к своему бюро госпожа Хохлакова.  
"By all means!" Madame Hohlakov sprang rapturously to her writing-desk.
> Inverted word order for effect: The verb «прыгнула» leads, the adverb «восторженно» fronts it, and the subject «госпожа Хохлакова» comes last — a markedly inverted order that throws weight onto her rapturous bound to the desk. Free word order lets Russian stage the action this way.
> «бюро» — writing-desk: «бюро» (an indeclinable French loan) here means a writing-bureau or escritoire — the desk she springs to. Such French furniture-words populate the genteel households of the Russian novel.

— И знаете, вы меня поражаете, вы меня просто потрясаете вашею находчивостью и вашим умением в этих делах… Вы здесь служите? Как это приятно услышать, что вы здесь служите…  
"And you know, you amaze me, you simply astound me with your resourcefulness and your skill in these matters... Are you in the service here? How pleasant it is to hear that you are in the service here..."
> Instrumental of cause + present tense: «поражаете… потрясаете… находчивостью» — the imperfective present verbs name an ongoing effect, and «находчивостью» (resourcefulness) is the instrumental naming what astounds her: 'you astound me with your resourcefulness'.

И еще говоря это, она быстро начертала на полулисте почтовой бумаги три крупные следующие строчки:  
And, still saying this, she quickly traced on a half-sheet of notepaper the following three large lines:
> Gerund «говоря» + perfective main verb: «говоря» (imperfective present gerund, 'while saying') sets the simultaneous circumstance for the perfective main verb «начертала» (traced out, completed). The gerund shares her subject and overlaps in time with the writing.
> «начертать» — to trace, inscribe: «начертать» is a bookish, somewhat solemn verb for writing or inscribing (cf. «черта», a line/stroke), grander than plain «написать». The narrator's slightly elevated choice gently mocks the ceremony of her three scrawled lines.

«Никогда в жизни моей я не давала взаймы несчастному Дмитрию Федоровичу Карамазову (так как он всё же теперь несчастен) трех тысяч рублей сегодня, да и никаких других денег никогда, никогда! В том клянусь всем, что есть святого в нашем мире.  
"Never in my life have I lent the unfortunate Dmitry Fyodorovich Karamazov (for unfortunate he is, after all, now) three thousand roubles today, nor any other money ever, ever! To this I swear by all that is holy in our world.
> Negative concord + genitive of negation: «Никогда… не давала» pairs the negative adverb «никогда» with «не» — obligatory negative concord. Under the negation the object goes genitive: «трёх тысяч рублей» (rather than accusative). «давать взаймы» is the idiom 'to lend'.
> Case after the numeral: «трёх тысяч рублей» shows numeral government: «тысяч» is genitive plural after «три» (re-declined here because the whole phrase is itself genitive of negation), and «рублей» genitive plural depending on «тысяч». Numbers above four pull their nouns into the genitive plural.
> «клясться» + instrumental and partitive genitive: «клянусь всем» — 'I swear by all' — has «клясться» governing the instrumental «всем» (by what one swears). «что есть святого» uses a partitive genitive «святого», 'whatever there is of the holy', a bookish, almost liturgical turn.

Хохлакова».  
Hohlakov."

— Вот эта записка! — быстро обернулась она к Петру Ильичу.  
"There is the note!" she turned quickly back to Pyotr Ilyich.
> Verb–subject inversion: «обернулась она» places the verb before the pronoun subject, a narrative inversion that keeps the action foremost. «обернуться» is a «-ся» verb (to turn round); «к Петру Ильичу» is «к» + dative.

— Идите же, спасайте. Это великий подвиг с вашей стороны.  
"Go now, save them. It is a great deed on your part."
> Imperfective imperatives «идите, спасайте»: Both imperatives are imperfective, urging immediate engagement in the process — 'be off, get saving!' The imperfective imperative often conveys urgency or invitation to start; «же» adds insistent emphasis.

И она три раза его перекрестила.  
And she made the sign of the cross over him three times.

Она выбежала провожать его даже до передней.  
She even ran out to see him as far as the entrance hall.
> «выбежать» + infinitive of purpose: «выбежала» (perfective of «выбегать», to run out) is a prefixed motion verb; the imperfective infinitive «провожать» (to see off) gives the purpose. «до передней» — «до» + genitive — marks the limit: as far as the entrance hall.
> «передняя» — the entrance hall: «передняя» is the front hall or anteroom of a house, where guests are received and see-off happens — a substantivised adjective ('the front [room]'). The genteel domestic vocabulary of the Russian household.

— Как я вам благодарна! Вы не поверите, как я вам теперь благодарна за то, что вы зашли ко мне к первой.  
"How grateful I am to you! You wouldn't believe how grateful I am to you now for having come to me first.
> Short adjective «благодарна» + dative: «благодарна» is the short feminine of «благодарный» (grateful), used predicatively, and it governs the dative of the person thanked: «вам». The short form is the natural predicate here — 'how grateful I am to you!'
> «за то, что» — 'for the fact that': «за то, что» is the causal construction 'for [the fact] that', with «за» + accusative correlative «то» pointing forward to the «что»-clause. «зашли… к первой» — you came to me first — uses «зайти», a prefixed perfective of motion.

Как это мы с вами не встречались? Мне очень лестно бы было вас принимать и впредь в моем доме.  
How is it that you and I have never met? I should be delighted to receive you in my house from now on.
> Impersonal conditional «мне… лестно бы было»: An impersonal conditional: the experiencer in the dative «мне», the predicate adverb «лестно» (flattering, gratifying), and «бы было» making it hypothetical — 'I should be delighted'. There is no nominative subject at all.
> «впредь» — henceforth: «впредь» is a bookish adverb meaning 'henceforth, from now on, in future'. Slightly formal, it suits the genteel register of her invitation to receive him 'впредь в моём доме'.

И как это приятно слышать, что вы здесь служите… и с такою точностью, с такою находчивостью… Но вас они должны ценить, вас должны наконец понять, и всё, что я бы могла для вас сделать, то поверьте… О, я так люблю молодежь!  
And how pleasant it is to hear that you are in the service here... and with such exactness, such resourcefulness... But they must value you, they must come at last to appreciate you, and whatever I might be able to do for you, then believe me... Oh, I do so love the young!
> Fronted object «вас» for emphasis: The object «вас» is fronted twice, before the subject «они» — 'you they must value, you they must appreciate'. Free word order lets her hammer the topic to the front; the cases keep object and subject clear despite the order.
> Conditional «бы могла»: «я бы могла… сделать» is the conditional 'whatever I might be able to do', with «бы» plus past-form «могла». The «бы» leans on «я», showing the particle's mobility — it need not sit on the verb.
> «молодёжь» — the young, youth: «молодёжь» is a collective singular noun (feminine, soft «-ь») meaning 'young people' as a body. Hohlakov's gushing 'я так люблю молодёжь!' treats the young en masse — a touch of the era's earnest enthusiasm for 'the rising generation'.

Я влюблена в молодежь. Молодые люди — это основание всей теперешней страждущей нашей России, вся надежда ее… О, идите, идите!..  
I am in love with the young. Young people are the foundation of our whole long-suffering Russia today, all her hope... Oh, go, go!.."
> Zero copula with «это»: «Молодые люди — это основание…» has no verb 'are': the present-tense copula is zero, and «это» links subject to predicate, both nominative. The dash marks where English would put 'are'.
> Church-Slavonic participle «страждущий»: «страждущей» is the Church-Slavonic present active participle of «страдать» (to suffer) — 'long-suffering' — with the non-Russian «жд» of the Slavonic stem (cf. native «страдающий»). Its elevated, scriptural tone lends her flourish about 'suffering Russia' a pulpit grandeur.

Но Петр Ильич уже выбежал, а то бы она его так скоро не выпустила.  
But Pyotr Ilyich had already run off, or else she would not have let him go so soon.
> «а то» + counterfactual «бы»: «а то бы… не выпустила» is an elliptical counterfactual: 'or else she would not have let him go'. «а то» ('otherwise') sets up the implied condition, and «бы… не выпустила» supplies the conditional result.

Впрочем, госпожа Хохлакова произвела на него довольно приятное впечатление, даже несколько смягчившее тревогу его о том, что он втянулся в такое скверное дело.  
All the same, Madame Hohlakov had made a rather pleasant impression on him, one that even somewhat softened his anxiety at having been drawn into so vile an affair.
> Past active participle «смягчившее»: «смягчившее» is the perfective past active participle of «смягчить» (to soften), agreeing in neuter with «впечатление»: 'an impression that even somewhat softened his anxiety'. It packs a «которое»-clause into one adjectival word — typical literary compression.
> Reflexive «втянуться»: «втянулся» is a «-ся» verb, the middle/passive of «втянуть» (to draw in): he got himself drawn into the affair. The «-ся» turns the transitive 'draw in' into 'become drawn in', stressing that it happened to him.
> «скверный» — vile, nasty: «скверный» means foul, vile, wretched — stronger than 'bad'. «такое скверное дело» ('so vile an affair') registers Pyotr Ilyich's distaste at being entangled in a possible murder.

Вкусы бывают чрезвычайно многоразличны, это известно.  
Tastes, as everyone knows, can be extraordinarily various.
> «многоразличный» — manifold, various: «многоразличны» is the short plural of «многоразличный», a bookish compound ('many-various') meaning extraordinarily diverse. The aphoristic «Вкусы бывают чрезвычайно многоразличны» is the narrator's dry generalisation about taste.
> Iterative «бывают»: «бывают» (from «бывать», the iterative-habitual counterpart of «быть») states a general truth — tastes 'happen to be / tend to be' various. It is the verb for recurring or characteristic states, fitting a maxim.

«И вовсе она не такая пожилая, — подумал он с приятностью, — напротив, я бы принял ее за ее дочь».  
"And she isn't elderly at all," he thought with pleasure; "on the contrary, I'd have taken her for her own daughter."
> Conditional «принял бы за»: «я бы принял… за» is the conditional of «принять за» (to take [someone] for): 'I'd have taken her for...'. «бы» plus past-form «принял» yields the irrealis; «за её дочь» — «за» + accusative — names what he'd mistake her for.
> Invariable possessive «её»: «её» (her) is a frozen genitive third-person possessive — it never changes for the gender, number, or case of «дочь». Note it is not «свою»: a reflexive «свою дочь» would mean his own daughter, not hers.

Что же до самой госпожи Хохлаковой, то она была просто очарована молодым человеком.  
As for Madame Hohlakov herself, she was simply charmed by the young man.
> «что до… то…» topic frame: «что до X, то…» — 'as for X, then...' — is a bookish correlative that lifts «госпожа Хохлакова» to the genitive (after «до») as topic, resumed by «то… она». «же» adds a transitional emphasis. A neat device for switching focus to her.
> Short passive participle «очарована»: «очарована» is the short feminine past passive participle of «очаровать» (to charm/enchant): 'she was charmed'. The agent stands in the instrumental — «молодым человеком», by the young man — the standard passive frame.

«Столько уменья, столько аккуратности и в таком молодом человеке в наше время, и всё это при таких манерах и наружности.  
"So much ability, so much conscientiousness, and in so young a man, in our day and age — and all of it together with such manners and such looks.
> «столько» + genitive: The quantity word «столько» (so much) governs the genitive: «уменья», «аккуратности» are genitive singulars of «уменье» (ability) and «аккуратность» (conscientiousness). Quantifiers behave like the numerals in pulling their noun into the genitive.
> «при» + prepositional: «при таких манерах и наружности» uses «при» (here 'together with, given') governing the prepositional case. «при» is one of the prepositions fixed to the prepositional, expressing accompanying circumstance.

Вот говорят про современных молодых людей, что они ничего не умеют, вот вам пример» и т. д., и т. д.  
People go about saying that today's young men are good for nothing — well, here's an example for you," and so on, and so on.
> Indefinite-personal «говорят»: «говорят» (they say) with no expressed subject is the indefinite-personal: 'people say, it is said'. The «что»-clause reports the content; «ничего не умеют» shows negative concord ('can do nothing').
> «про» + accusative (animate): «про» (about, concerning) governs the accusative; «молодых людей» is the animate-plural accusative borrowing the genitive ending — 'about young people'. «людей» is the irregular plural of «человек».

Так что об «ужасном происшествии» она просто даже позабыла, и только уж ложась в постель и вдруг вновь вспомнив о том, «как близка была от смерти», она проговорила: «Ах, это ужасно, ужасно!»  
So thoroughly, in fact, that she simply forgot about the "dreadful affair" altogether, and only as she was getting into bed, suddenly remembering once more "how close she had been to death," did she murmur: "Ah, it's dreadful, dreadful!"
> Paired gerunds, imperfective and perfective: «ложась» (imperfective present gerund, 'as she was getting into bed') gives a simultaneous frame, while «вспомнив» (perfective past gerund, 'having remembered') gives a prior, completed act — both leaning on the main verb «проговорила». A characteristic literary chaining of «деепричастия».
> Perfective «позабыть»: «позабыла» is the perfective of «позабыть» (a slightly colloquial, intensified 'to forget'), reporting the single completed lapse: she clean forgot. «просто даже» piles on the narrator's wry emphasis.

Но тотчас же заснула самым крепким и сладким сном.  
But she fell asleep at once, in the soundest and sweetest of slumbers.
> Instrumental of the cognate object: «заснула… сном» pairs the verb with its own cognate noun in the instrumental — 'fell asleep with the soundest sleep'. «самым крепким и сладким» is the superlative «самый» declined to agree, fronting the intensity of her slumber.

Я бы, впрочем, и не стал распространяться о таких мелочных и эпизодных подробностях, если б эта сейчас лишь описанная мною эксцентрическая встреча молодого чиновника с вовсе не старою еще вдовицей не послужила впоследствии основанием всей жизненной карьеры этого точного и аккуратного молодого человека, о чем с изумлением вспоминают до сих пор в нашем городке и о чем, может быть, и мы скажем особое словечко, когда заключим наш длинный рассказ о братьях Карамазовых.  
I would not, by the way, have gone on at such length about details so trivial and episodic, had this eccentric meeting of the young official with the by-no-means-old widow, just described, not afterward become the foundation of the entire life's career of this exact and meticulous young man — a thing recalled with amazement to this day in our little town, and about which, perhaps, we too shall say a special word when we bring our long tale of the Karamazov brothers to its close.
> Long-range counterfactual sentence: The whole sentence is one counterfactual: main clause «я бы не стал распространяться» (I would not have dwelt) and condition «если б… не послужила» (had it not become). Both halves take «бы»/«б» plus past-form verbs, framing a contrary-to-fact past.
> Embedded past passive participle: «описанная мною» — 'described by me' — is a past passive participle («описать») agreeing with «встреча», with its agent «мною» in the instrumental, all wedged before the noun. Stacking a participial phrase inside the noun group is a signature of dense 19th-century prose.
> Predicate instrumental «основанием»: «послужить основанием» — 'to serve as the foundation' — takes the predicate noun in the instrumental, «основанием», the role-naming case after «служить». «карьеры» is the genitive 'of the career' depending on it.
> «вдовица» — the bookish 'widow': «вдовица» is an archaic, slightly Slavonic-flavoured diminutive-poetic form of «вдова» (widow), common in older and ecclesiastical Russian. The narrator's choice — 'the by-no-means-old вдовица' — adds a faintly ironic, old-fashioned colour to Hohlakov.
> Diminutive «словечко»: «словечко» is the affectionate-diminutive of «слово» (word), via «-ечко» — 'a little word, a brief word'. The narrator's coy 'we too shall say a special словечко' uses the diminutive for a light, intimate promise to the reader.
> Diminutive «городок»: «городок» is the diminutive of «город» (town), here neutral-affectionate — 'our little town'. The narrator's first-person «наш» casts him as a fellow townsman, a recurring device of intimacy in the novel's chronicle voice.
---

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.