# The Brothers Karamazov, The Sufferings of a Soul — The First Ordeal

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c3. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c3.json.


Итак, Митя сидел и диким взглядом озирал присутствующих, не понимая, что ему говорят.  
And so Mitya sat there, surveying those present with a wild look, not understanding what was being said to him.
> Instrumental of manner: «Диким взглядом» — 'with a wild look' — is the instrumental case used adverbially, naming the means or manner with which Mitya scans the room. The instrumental routinely turns a noun into the 'how' of an action without any preposition.
> Imperfective gerund «не понимая»: «Не понимая» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие — 'not understanding' — describing a state that runs simultaneously with the main verb «озирал». Sharing Mitya as its subject, it folds a whole circumstance into one adverbial word, a hallmark of literary narration.
> Dative recipient «ему»: «Ему говорят» — 'they are saying to him' — puts the person addressed in the dative, the case of the one to or for whom something is done. The impersonal third-person plural «говорят» ('they say') has no named subject.
> «озирать» — to gaze around: A bookish, somewhat elevated verb meaning to survey or look all about. It carries more sweep than ordinary «смотреть», fitting the dazed, panoramic stare Dostoevsky gives Mitya.

Вдруг он поднялся, вскинул вверх руки и громко прокричал:  
Suddenly he rose, flung his arms up, and shouted aloud:
> A chain of perfectives: Three perfective past verbs — «поднялся», «вскинул», «прокричал» — march the action forward as a sequence of single completed events: he rose, flung up his arms, and shouted. The perfective is narrative's engine, each verb one decisive step.
> The reflexive «-ся» of intransitive motion: «Подняться» ('to rise') is the -ся middle counterpart of transitive «поднять» ('to raise something'). Here -ся makes the verb intransitive — Mitya rises of his own accord, no object raised.
> The prefix «про-» as 'cried out': The perfective prefix «про-» on «кричать» gives a single, completed burst of crying out. Dostoevsky's verbs of exclamation in this scene — «прокричал», «завопил», «воскликнул», «вскричал» — ring the changes on shouting.

— Не повинен!  
"Not guilty!"
> «повинен» — guilty (bookish short form): «Повинен» is the short-form predicate adjective 'guilty / culpable', loftier and more juridical-archaic than the plainer «виноват». Mitya's choice of this elevated word lends his cry a solemn, almost liturgical ring.
> Short-form predicate adjective: «Повинен» is a short adjective — it has only gender/number, never declines for case, and can stand only as a predicate, never before a noun. The short form carries a categorical, declarative weight well suited to a courtroom-style denial.

В этой крови не повинен!  
"Of this blood I am not guilty!"
> Prepositional «в крови» of the charge: «В этой крови» — 'in/of this blood' — uses в plus the prepositional case to name what one is or is not guilty in. Fronting it ahead of «не повинен» throws the emphatic weight onto 'this blood' specifically.

В крови отца моего не повинен…  
"Of my father's blood I am not guilty…"
> Genitive of possession, inverted: «Крови отца моего» — 'of my father's blood' — stacks genitives: «крови» (the blood) and «отца» (of the father), with the possessive «моего» placed after its noun. Postposed «моего» is a bookish, emphatic word order common in 19th-century prose.
> Possessive «мой» agreeing in the genitive: «Моего» agrees with «отца» in masculine genitive singular — the possessive «мой» declines fully like an adjective to match its noun in gender, number, and case.

Хотел убить, но не повинен!  
"I wanted to kill him, but I am not guilty!"
> Subjectless verb, dropped pronoun: «Хотел убить» drops the pronoun «я» entirely — the masculine -л ending of «хотел» already signals a male first-person speaker. Russian routinely omits subject pronouns when the verb's form makes them redundant.
> Adversative «но»: «Но» ('but') sets the willed intention against the disclaimed deed — the moral hinge of Mitya's whole defense: he wanted to kill, but is not guilty of the killing.

Не я!  
"It was not I!"
> Negating a bare pronoun with «не»: «Не я» — 'not I' — places «не» directly before the word it denies, the nominative pronoun «я». With the verb 'to be' unexpressed in the present, the whole assertion 'it was not I' compresses to two words.

Но только что он успел прокричать это, как из-за занавесок выскочила Грушенька и так и рухнулась исправнику прямо в ноги.  
But no sooner had he managed to shout this than Grushenka darted out from behind the curtains and threw herself down at the very feet of the police captain.
> «только что… как» — 'no sooner… than': The correlative frame «только что… как» renders 'no sooner had he… than…', pairing a just-completed action with the abrupt next event. «Успел прокричать» — 'managed to shout' — uses perfective «успеть» plus infinitive for an action accomplished just in time.
> Dative «исправнику» of the person at whose feet: «Исправнику… в ноги» — 'at the police captain's feet' — puts «исправнику» in the dative, the affected person, while «в ноги» (accusative of motion-toward) marks where she falls. The combination is an idiomatic 'to throw oneself at someone's feet'.
> Expressive «так и» + «рухнуться»: «Рухнуться» is to crash or collapse down heavily; the intensifying «так и» ('just simply') dramatizes the suddenness — she fairly hurled herself to the floor. This colloquial «так и» before a verb conveys an action done emphatically and all at once.

— Это я, я, окаянная, я виновата!  
"It was I, I, accursed creature that I am, I am the guilty one!"
> Emphatic «это» + zero copula: «Это я» — 'it is I' — uses the invariable «это» as a presentative with no verb 'to be', the present-tense copula being simply absent in Russian. «Виновата» is the feminine short-form predicate, agreeing with Grushenka.
> «окаянная» — accursed, damned: A Church-Slavonic-flavored word meaning 'accursed, reprobate', traditionally applied to sinners and to the devil (окаянный). Grushenka brands herself with it in a gesture of self-abasing penitence steeped in religious language.

— прокричала она раздирающим душу воплем, вся в слезах, простирая ко всем руки, — это из-за меня он убил!..  
she cried out in a wail that tore at the soul, all in tears, stretching out her arms to them all, "it was because of me that he killed!.."
> Present active participle «раздирающим»: «Раздирающим» — 'tearing, rending' — is a present active participle in the instrumental, agreeing with «воплем» ('with a wail'). It packs a whole который-clause ('a wail that tears at the soul') into one modifier, a bookish compression typical of Dostoevsky.
> Gerund «простирая» of accompanying gesture: «Простирая» is an imperfective present деепричастие — 'stretching out [her arms]' — describing the gesture that accompanies her cry. «Ко всем» uses к + dative, 'toward everyone'.
> «из-за» + genitive: cause and blame: «Из-за меня» — 'because of me' — uses из-за governing the genitive «меня» to assign cause, and with persons it leans toward blame ('it's my fault'). The same из-за meant literally 'from behind' in «из-за занавесок» a moment earlier.
> «вопль» — a wail, an anguished cry: «Вопль» denotes a loud cry of grief or pain, far stronger than ordinary «крик». It belongs to the heightened, lacerating emotional register Dostoevsky reserves for his characters' moments of breakdown.

Это я его измучила и до того довела!  
"It was I who tormented him and drove him to it!"
> Cleft «это я… кто» for emphasis: «Это я… измучила» — 'it was I who tormented him' — fronts «это я» to single out the agent emphatically, the Russian equivalent of an English cleft 'it was I who…'. Word order, not a relative pronoun, carries the focus.
> «довести до того» — to drive to such a point: The idiom «довести кого-то до того (что…)» means to drive or reduce someone to such a state — here, to push Mitya to the brink. «Измучила» ('tormented to exhaustion') intensifies «мучить» with the prefix из-.

Я и того старичка-покойничка бедного измучила, со злобы моей, и до того довела!  
"And that poor little old man, now dead, I tormented him too, out of my own spite, and drove him to it as well!"
> Pity-laden diminutives «старичок-покойничек»: Both nouns carry the affectionate-pitying diminutive «-ичек/-ичок»: «старичок» (dear little old man) and «покойничек» (poor little dead one). Stacked together with «бедного», they drench old Grigory in tender, almost folk-lament pathos — diminutives here express pity, not size.
> «со злобы» — out of spite (genitive of cause): «Со злобы» uses с(о) + genitive to express the emotional cause of an act — 'out of / from my spite'. This causal с phrase ('из/со страху', 'со злости') is a common idiomatic way to name the feeling that drove a deed.
> «покойник» — the deceased: «Покойник» means 'the deceased, the late one' (from «покой», rest/peace — one who has gone to his rest). Grushenka's diminutive «покойничек» softens it into a grieving endearment for the murdered Fyodor Pavlovich.

Я виноватая, я первая, я главная, я виноватая!  
"I am the guilty one, I first of all, I above all, I am to blame!"
> Long-form predicates with feminine «-ая»: «Первая», «главная», «виноватая» are all long-form adjectives in feminine nominative, used predicatively after an unexpressed copula. The drumbeat of «я… я… я…» with these agreeing forms makes the confession ring like a litany of self-accusation.

— Да, ты виноватая!  
"Yes, you are the guilty one!"
> Colloquial long form «виноватая»: Standard Russian would predicate guilt with the short form «виновата»; the исправник's long-form «виноватая» as a predicate is markedly colloquial and emphatic, almost echoing Grushenka's own phrasing back at her in accusation.

Ты главная преступница!  
"You are the chief criminal!"
> «преступница» — the female criminal: «Преступница» is the feminine of «преступник» ('criminal', literally 'one who steps across [the law]'), formed with the female agent suffix «-ница». «Главная» ('chief, principal') ranks her as the ringleader.

Ты неистовая, ты развратная, ты главная виноватая, — завопил, грозя ей рукой, исправник, но тут уж его быстро и решительно уняли.  
"You are a wild thing, you are a wanton, you are the one most to blame," bawled the police captain, shaking his fist at her — but here he was quickly and firmly silenced.
> Gerund «грозя» + dative «ей»: «Грозя ей рукой» is an imperfective gerund — 'shaking his fist at her' — running alongside «завопил». «Ей» is dative (the one threatened) and «рукой» instrumental (the means). Note the inverted order: verb, then the parenthetical gerund, then the subject «исправник».
> Subjectless third-person plural «уняли»: «Уняли» ('they silenced him') has no stated subject — the bare third-person plural verb means 'people / they', leaving the silencers vague. «Его» is the accusative object; «уж» adds the sense 'at this point, finally'.
> «неистовая», «развратная», «унять»: «Неистовая» means frenzied, raging, unrestrained; «развратная» means depraved or wanton. «Унять» (perfective) is to quiet, check, or restrain someone who has lost control — the others physically calm the captain down.

Прокурор даже обхватил его руками.  
The prosecutor even threw his arms around him.
> Instrumental «руками» of the means: «Руками» — 'with his arms' — is the instrumental naming the bodily instrument of the embrace. The particle «даже» ('even') marks the prosecutor's act as a surprising extreme: he went so far as to physically pin the captain.

— Это уж совсем беспорядок будет, Михаил Макарович, — вскричал он, — вы положительно мешаете следствию… дело портите…  
"This is becoming quite a disorder, Mikhail Makarovich," he exclaimed, "you are positively obstructing the inquiry… you are spoiling the case…"
> Simple future of «быть» (existential/copula): «Будет» here is the simple future of «быть» used existentially with the predicate noun «беспорядок» — 'this will be / there will be sheer disorder'. There is no infinitive, so it is not the compound future. With the particle «уж» ('truly, downright') and «совсем» ('utterly'), the prosecutor predicts the scene degenerating into chaos.
> Dative object of «мешать»: «Мешать» ('to hinder, get in the way of') governs the dative: «мешаете следствию» — 'you are obstructing the inquiry'. The imperfective «мешаете» frames it as an ongoing interference, not a single act.

— почти задыхался он.  
he gasped, almost choking.
> Imperfective «задыхался» of a process: «Задыхался» is imperfective past — 'he was gasping / choking for breath' — viewing the action as an ongoing state rather than a completed event. «Почти» ('almost') tempers it: he was nearly suffocating with agitation.

— Меры принять, меры принять, меры принять!  
"Measures must be taken, measures must be taken, measures must be taken!"
> Infinitive «принять» as urgent command: «Меры принять!» — literally 'measures to take!' — is a bare infinitive used as a peremptory, impersonal command, more forceful and excited than a polite imperative. The threefold repetition conveys the captain's frantic insistence.
> Accusative object «меры»: «Меры» ('measures') is the direct object of «принять» in the accusative; the fixed phrase «принять меры» means 'to take measures / steps'. Word order is inverted (object first) to throw all weight on what must be done.

— страшно закипятился и Николай Парфенович, — иначе положительно невозможно!..  
Nikolai Parfenovich too boiled over dreadfully, "otherwise it is positively impossible!.."
> Inclusive «и» 'too' + inverted subject: Here «и» before «Николай Парфенович» means 'also, too' — the magistrate too boiled over. Russian places this additive «и» right before the word it adds, and the verb-before-subject order is the normal pattern after direct speech.
> «закипятиться» — to boil over: From «кипеть» (to boil), the reflexive «закипятиться» with the inceptive prefix за- means to flare up, get heated, lose one's temper — to start 'boiling'. «Страшно» ('dreadfully') here is a colloquial intensifier, 'terribly'.

— Вместе судите нас!  
"Try us together!"
> Imperative «судите» + accusative «нас»: «Судите нас» — 'judge / try us' — is the plural-polite imperative (addressed to the officials) with «нас» as accusative object. «Вместе» ('together') is fronted to stress her plea to share Mitya's fate.

— продолжала исступленно восклицать Грушенька, всё еще на коленях.  
Grushenka went on exclaiming in a frenzy, still on her knees.
> Imperfective «продолжала… восклицать»: «Продолжать» ('to continue') is inherently imperfective and takes an imperfective infinitive «восклицать» — Grushenka 'went on exclaiming', the action stretched out and repeated. «Исступлённо» ('frenziedly') is the adverb.
> «на коленях» — prepositional of location: «На коленях» — 'on her knees' — uses на + prepositional to mark static position. «Всё ещё» ('still') stresses the continuing posture of her kneeling supplication.

— Вместе казните нас, пойду с ним теперь хоть на смертную казнь!  
"Punish us together — I will go with him now even to the scaffold!"
> Perfective future «пойду»: «Пойду» — 'I will go / set out' — is the simple (perfective) future: a perfective verb of motion conjugated with present-tense endings yields future meaning, no auxiliary needed. It names a single resolved departure.
> Concessive «хоть» — 'even to': «Хоть» here means 'even, if it comes to that' — 'I'll go with him even to execution'. «С ним» uses с + instrumental ('with him'); «на смертную казнь» is accusative of motion-toward, the destination of her vow.

— Груша, жизнь моя, кровь моя, святыня моя!  
"Grusha, my life, my blood, my holy one!"
> «Груша» — pet form of Grushenka: «Груша» is the short, intimate form behind the diminutive «Грушенька» (Agrafena). Mitya's bare «Груша», stripped to the affectionate core of her name, is a cry of raw tenderness.
> «святыня» — holy thing, sacred treasure: «Святыня» means a holy object or relic, something sacred and inviolable (from «святой», holy). Mitya's heaping of «жизнь моя, кровь моя, святыня моя» fuses erotic and religious adoration — Grushenka as his life, his blood, his shrine.

— бросился подле нее на колени и Митя и крепко сжал ее в объятиях.  
Mitya too threw himself down on his knees beside her and clasped her tightly in his arms.
> Reflexive «бросился» + inverted subject: «Бросился» ('threw himself') is the -ся form of «бросить», making it intransitive and reflexive — he flings himself down. The subject «Митя» follows the verb, and «и» means 'too' (Mitya as well as Grushenka kneels).
> «в объятиях» — prepositional of embrace: «Сжал ее в объятиях» — 'clasped her in his arms' — pairs perfective «сжал» (a single firm clasp) with «в объятиях» (в + prepositional, the embrace as a location). «Подле неё» means 'beside her', with the н- prefixed pronoun after a preposition.

— Не верьте ей, — кричал он, — не виновата она ни в чем, ни в какой крови и ни в чем!  
"Don't believe her," he cried, "she is not guilty of anything, not of any blood and not of anything at all!"
> Negative concord: «не… ни… ни…»: Mitya piles up the «ни»-series — «ни в чём… ни в какой крови… ни в чём» — all reinforcing the single «не виновата». Russian demands this negative concord: the main «не» stands and each «ни» phrase ('not in anything, not in any blood') intensifies rather than cancels it.
> Negated imperative + dative «ей»: «Не верьте ей» — 'do not believe her' — combines «не» with the polite-plural imperative «верьте». «Верить» governs the dative, so it is «ей» ('her') not an accusative.

Он помнил потом, что его оттащили от нее силой несколько человек, а что ее вдруг увели, и что опамятовался он уже сидя за столом.  
He remembered afterward that several men had dragged him away from her by force, and that she had suddenly been led off, and that he came to his senses only when he was already sitting at the table.
> Impersonal third-person plural narration: Both «оттащили» ('dragged away') and «увели» ('led off') are subjectless third-person plurals — 'they dragged him', 'she was led off' — with the acted-upon «его» and «её» in the accusative. This vague 'they' suits Mitya's hazy, passive memory of being overpowered.
> Gerund «сидя» of state: «Сидя» is an imperfective gerund — 'while sitting' — describing the posture in which he came to himself. «Опамятовался» ('came to his senses') is a -ся perfective; «за столом» is за + instrumental, 'at the table'.
> «опамятоваться» — to come to one's senses: A somewhat archaic-colloquial verb (from «память», memory) meaning to regain consciousness or composure after a daze or fit. It captures Mitya's surfacing from his fevered blackout.

Подле и сзади него стояли люди с бляхами.  
Beside him and behind him stood men wearing official badges.
> Locative fronting, subject last: The sentence opens with place — «подле и сзади него» ('beside and behind him') — and holds the subject «люди» to the end, the new information. This topic-comment ordering, location first and the newly-seen guards last, mirrors Mitya's dawning awareness.

Напротив него через стол на диване сидел Николай Парфенович, судебный следователь, и всё уговаривал его отпить из стоявшего на столе стакана немного воды: «Это освежит вас, это вас успокоит, не бойтесь, не беспокойтесь», — прибавлял он чрезвычайно вежливо.  
Across the table from him, on the sofa, sat Nikolai Parfenovich, the examining magistrate, who kept urging him to take a little water from the glass standing on the table: "It will refresh you, it will calm you, don't be afraid, don't be uneasy," he added with extreme courtesy.
> Imperfective «уговаривал» + genitive «воды»: «Уговаривал» is imperfective past — he 'kept urging', a repeated, drawn-out effort (reinforced by «всё», 'kept on'). «Немного воды» takes the partitive genitive «воды» — 'a little (of the) water', a quantity-of construction.
> Past active participle «стоявшего»: «Стоявшего на столе стакана» — 'the glass that stood on the table' — uses the past active participle «стоявший» in the genitive (after «из»), agreeing with «стакана». It condenses a который-clause into a single bookish modifier embedded before its noun.
> Negated imperatives of reflexive verbs: «Не бойтесь, не беспокойтесь» — 'don't be afraid, don't be uneasy' — are negated polite imperatives of the -ся verbs «бояться» and «беспокоиться». Both verbs exist only in their reflexive form, the -ся here marking an inward state.

Мите же вдруг, он помнил это, ужасно любопытны стали его большие перстни, один аметистовый, а другой какой-то ярко-желтый, прозрачный и такого прекрасного блеска.  
And suddenly — he remembered this — Mitya became dreadfully curious about the magistrate's large rings, one set with an amethyst and the other with some bright-yellow stone, transparent and of such a beautiful luster.
> Dative experiencer «Мите»: «Мите… любопытны стали… перстни» frames the curiosity impersonally: the rings 'became curious-making to Mitya', with «Мите» in the dative as the one the feeling happens to. This experiencer-in-the-dative pattern lets Dostoevsky render an involuntary, surfacing fascination.
> Contrastive particle «же»: «Мите же» — the particle «же» leans on «Мите» to mark a shift of focus back to Mitya ('as for Mitya, for his part'), setting his odd inner fixation against the surrounding bustle. «Же» colors the topic without adding lexical meaning.
> «перстень» — a (signet) ring: «Перстень» is a finger-ring, often a substantial gemmed or signet one, more formal than the band «кольцо». The magistrate's large amethyst and bright-yellow rings become Mitya's strange anchor of attention during the interrogation.

И долго еще он потом с удивлением вспоминал, что эти перстни привлекали его взгляд неотразимо даже во всё время этих страшных часов допроса, так что он почему-то всё не мог от них оторваться и их забыть, как совершенно неподходящую к его положению вещь.  
And for a long time afterward he recalled with astonishment that those rings had drawn his gaze irresistibly even throughout all those terrible hours of interrogation, so that for some reason he could not tear himself away from them or forget them, as a thing utterly out of keeping with his situation.
> Result clause «так что»: «Так что» ('so that') opens a clause of result — the rings drew his gaze so that he could not tear himself away. «Всё не мог» pairs «всё» ('kept on') with negated «мог» to show a persistent inability.
> Indefinite «почему-то»: «Почему-то» — 'for some reason' — uses the -то clitic on «почему» to mark a real but unknown cause: there was a reason, but Mitya cannot name it. This -то indefinite captures the irrational, unaccountable quality of his fixation.
> Reflexive «оторваться» — to tear oneself away: «Оторваться» is the -ся form of «оторвать» ('to tear off'), turning it intransitive/reflexive: to tear oneself away, detach oneself. The -ся makes the subject both the one who tears and the one torn loose.

Налево, сбоку от Мити, на месте, где сидел в начале вечера Максимов, уселся теперь прокурор, а по правую руку Мити, на месте, где была тогда Грушенька, расположился один румяный молодой человек, в каком-то охотничьем как бы пиджаке, и весьма поношенном, пред которым очутились чернильница и бумага.  
To the left, at Mitya's side, in the place where Maximov had sat at the start of the evening, the prosecutor had now settled himself, while at Mitya's right hand, in the place where Grushenka had then been, a ruddy young man took his seat, in a sort of hunting jacket, and a very shabby one at that, before whom an inkstand and paper had appeared.
> Relative «где» + heavy participial scene-setting: Dostoevsky stages the room with parallel place-clauses ('in the spot where X had sat, now Y settled'), the relative «где» tying each new occupant to a vacated seat. The subjects «прокурор» and «молодой человек» fall after their verbs, the new arrangement as comment.
> Relative «который» in the instrumental after «пред»: «Пред которым» — 'before whom' — shows «который» taking the case its preposition demands (пред + instrumental), while still pointing back to «молодой человек». «Пред» is the bookish/archaic variant of «перед».
> Hedging «какой-то… как бы»: The doubled hedges «в каком-то… как бы пиджаке» ('in some sort of… as it were… jacket') render the narrator's vague, approximate impression — a 'kind of huntsman's jacket, so to speak'. «Поношенном» means 'worn, shabby'.

Оказалось, что это был письмоводитель следователя, которого привез тот с собою. Исправник же стоял теперь у окна, в другом конце комнаты, подле Калганова, который тоже уселся на стуле у того же окна.  
He turned out to be the magistrate's clerk, whom the latter had brought with him. The police captain, meanwhile, now stood by the window, at the other end of the room, beside Kalganov, who had also taken a seat on a chair by that same window.
> Relative «которого» in the accusative: «Которого привёз тот» — 'whom the latter had brought' — puts «который» in the animate accusative (= genitive form «которого») as the object of «привёз». «Тот» ('the latter, that one') refers back to the magistrate, a tidy correlative for tracking who is who.
> Topic-switching «же»: «Исправник же» uses «же» to swing the camera to a new subject — 'the police captain, for his part…' — contrasting his new position by the window with the seating just described. «У окна» is у + genitive, 'by the window'.
> «письмоводитель» — clerk, scribe: Literally 'one who conducts the writing' (письмо + водить), a «письмоводитель» is a clerk or recording secretary who keeps the official paperwork. This is the man with inkstand and paper, brought to transcribe Mitya's interrogation.

— Выпейте воды!  
"Drink some water!"
> Perfective imperative + partitive genitive: «Выпейте» is the perfective polite imperative ('drink [it down]', a single completed act), and «воды» is the partitive genitive — 'some water', an indefinite amount. The pairing is the idiomatic way to offer a drink.

— мягко повторил в десятый раз следователь.  
the magistrate repeated gently, for the tenth time.
> Perfective «повторил» of a completed repetition: «Повторил» is perfective — one completed act of repeating — even as «в десятый раз» ('for the tenth time') tells us how often it has happened. Russian can count discrete completed events this way; «мягко» ('gently') sets the patient tone.

— Выпил, господа, выпил… но… что ж, господа, давите, казните, решайте судьбу!  
"I have drunk, gentlemen, I have drunk… but… well, gentlemen, crush me, execute me, decide my fate!"
> Perfective past «выпил» of a finished act: «Выпил» — 'I have drunk [it]' — is the perfective past, the completed result the magistrate had urged. The bare repeated verb, subject «я» dropped, answers the command with weary completion.
> A triad of imperatives: «Давите, казните, решайте» — 'crush, execute, decide' — three imperatives hurled at the officials, mixing perfective and imperfective for headlong intensity. «Что ж» is an exclamatory 'well then', resigning himself to their judgment.
> «давить» — to crush, press: «Давить» means to press, squeeze, or crush. Mitya's 'crush me!' is the language of self-immolation, inviting them to grind him down — part of his theatrical surrender to punishment.

— воскликнул Митя со страшно неподвижным выпучившимся взглядом на следователя.  
exclaimed Mitya, fixing the magistrate with a dreadfully motionless, bulging stare.
> Past active participle «выпучившимся»: «Выпучившимся» is a past active participle of the -ся verb «выпучиться» ('to bulge'), in the instrumental agreeing with «взглядом» — a 'bulging stare'. Stacked with the adjective «неподвижным» ('motionless'), it builds a dense modifier on the noun «взглядом».
> Instrumental of accompanying manner: «Со… взглядом на следователя» — 'with a… stare fixed on the magistrate' — uses с + instrumental to attach a vivid manner to «воскликнул». The whole phrase paints how Mitya exclaims rather than what he holds.

— Итак, вы положительно утверждаете, что в смерти отца вашего, Федора Павловича, вы не виновны? — мягко, но настойчиво спросил следователь.  
"And so, you positively maintain that you are not guilty of the death of your father, Fyodor Pavlovich?" the magistrate asked gently but insistently.
> «виновен в» + prepositional: «Виновны в смерти» — 'guilty of the death' — governs в + prepositional to name the charge, with «не виновны» the short-form predicate. «Отца вашего» is genitive ('of your father'), the possessive «вашего» postposed for solemnity.

— Не виновен!  
"Not guilty!"
> «виновен» vs «повинен»: Here Mitya answers with the everyday short form «виновен» ('guilty'), where earlier in his outburst he reached for the loftier «повинен». Both are short-form predicate adjectives of guilt; «виновен» is the plain, current legal word.

Виновен в другой крови, в крови другого старика, но не отца моего.  
"Guilty of other blood, of the blood of another old man, but not of my father's."
> Antithetical «другой… но не»: Mitya draws a sharp line with «в другой крови… но не отца моего» — guilty of one blood, not the other. «Другого старика» is genitive ('of another old man'); the repeated «кровь» in the prepositional («в крови») frames each charge.

И оплакиваю!  
"And I mourn it!"
> Imperfective present «оплакиваю»: «Оплакиваю» — 'I mourn / weep for [it]' — is imperfective present, the subject «я» dropped, presenting his grief as an ongoing present state. The suffix «-ива-» marks the imperfective of «оплакать».
> «оплакивать» — to bewail, mourn: From «плакать» (to weep) with the prefix о-, «оплакивать» means to weep over, lament, mourn someone or something. Mitya mourns the blood he did shed — the beating of Grigory — even as he denies the murder.

Убил, убил старика, убил и поверг…  
"I killed, I killed the old man, killed him and laid him low…"
> Hammering perfectives: Four perfective verbs — «убил… убил… убил… поверг» — pound out the confessed deed as completed fact, the repetition itself a kind of self-flagellation. «Старика» is the animate accusative (= genitive form) object.
> «повергнуть» — to strike down, lay low: «Повергнуть» (past «поверг») is an elevated, almost biblical verb meaning to cast down, fell, lay low. Beside the plain «убил», it lifts Mitya's confession into a grander, more tragic key.

Но тяжело отвечать за эту кровь другою кровью, страшною кровью, в которой не повинен… Страшное обвинение, господа, точно по лбу огорошили!  
"But it is hard to answer for that blood with other blood, with terrible blood, of which I am not guilty… It is a terrible accusation, gentlemen, as though I had been struck a blow on the forehead!"
> Impersonal «тяжело» + infinitive: «Тяжело отвечать» — 'it is hard to answer' — is an impersonal construction: the neuter predicative «тяжело» plus an infinitive, with no nominative subject. «Другою кровью» is instrumental ('with other blood'), the means of answering.
> Relative «в которой» + genitive of negation echo: «В которой не повинен» — 'of which I am not guilty' — sends «который» into в + prepositional (feminine, agreeing with «кровью»). «Не повинен» recurs as Mitya's signature short-form disclaimer.
> «огорошить» — to stun, dumbfound: «Огорошить» is a colloquial verb 'to take aback, flabbergast, hit out of the blue'. With «точно по лбу» ('as if on the forehead') and the impersonal plural «огорошили», Mitya describes the accusation as a stunning blow between the eyes.

Но кто же убил отца, кто же убил? Кто же мог убить, если не я?  
"But who, then, killed my father, who killed him? Who could have killed him, if not I?"
> Emphatic interrogative «кто же»: «Кто же убил?» — 'who, then, killed?' — fuses the interrogative «кто» with the particle «же», which presses the question with baffled urgency ('who on earth?'). The doubled «кто же» turns Mitya's bewilderment into incantation.
> Conditional «если не я»: «Если не я» — 'if not I' — is an elliptical condition: 'who could have killed, if it was not I?'. «Мог убить» pairs the modal «мог» with a perfective infinitive for the capacity to have done the single deed.

Чудо, нелепость, невозможность!..  
"A marvel, an absurdity, an impossibility!.."
> Nominative exclamation, zero copula: Three bare nominatives — «чудо, нелепость, невозможность» — stand as a verbless exclamation, the copula absent in the present. The abstract nouns in -ость pile up the sense of something both miraculous and impossible.
> «нелепость» — an absurdity: «Нелепость» means absurdity, nonsense, something preposterous (from «нелепый», absurd). Flanked by «чудо» (marvel) and «невозможность» (impossibility), it casts the whole charge as a senseless impossibility.

— Да, вот кто мог убить…  
"Yes, as for who could have killed him…"
> Presentative «вот кто»: «Вот кто мог убить» — 'here is who could have killed' — uses the deictic «вот» with the interrogative «кто» to point toward an answer the magistrate is about to supply. The trailing «…» leaves the leading remark deliberately suspended.

— начал было следователь, но прокурор Ипполит Кириллович (товарищ прокурора, но и мы будем его называть для краткости прокурором), переглянувшись со следователем, произнес, обращаясь к Мите:  
the magistrate began, but the prosecutor Ippolit Kirillovich (the deputy prosecutor, though we too shall call him the prosecutor for brevity's sake), exchanging a glance with the magistrate, said, turning to Mitya:
> The particle «было» of the interrupted start: «Начал было» uses the special particle «было», which marks an action begun but broken off or undone — 'the magistrate had just started to… (but)'. It signals that the prosecutor cuts in before the magistrate can finish.
> Perfective gerund «переглянувшись»: «Переглянувшись» is a perfective past деепричастие — 'having exchanged a glance' — a completed action prior to the main «произнёс». «Со следователем» is с + instrumental ('with the magistrate'); the reciprocal -ся makes it a mutual look.

— Вы напрасно беспокоитесь за старика слугу Григория Васильева.  
"You are needlessly distressing yourself over the old servant Grigory Vasilyev."
> «беспокоиться за» + accusative: «Беспокоитесь за старика» — 'you are worrying about / on behalf of the old man' — the -ся verb «беспокоиться» takes за + accusative for the person one frets over. «Напрасно» ('in vain, needlessly') gently undercuts Mitya's distress.

Узнайте, что он жив, очнулся и, несмотря на тяжкие побои, причиненные ему вами, по его и вашему теперь показанию, кажется, останется жив несомненно, по крайней мере по отзыву доктора.  
"You should know that he is alive, that he has come round, and that, in spite of the grievous beating dealt him by you — by his account and now by your own — it seems he will undoubtedly remain alive, at least according to the doctor's opinion."
> Imperative «узнайте» + reported «что»-clause: «Узнайте, что…» — 'know that…' — pairs the polite imperative «узнайте» with «что» introducing reported fact. «Жив» is a short-form predicate adjective ('alive'); «очнулся» is the -ся perfective 'came round'.
> Passive participle «причинённые» + instrumental agent: «Причинённые ему вами» — 'inflicted on him by you' — is a past passive participle agreeing with «побои», with the dative «ему» (recipient) and the instrumental «вами» as agent. The agent-in-the-instrumental is the signature of the Russian passive.
> Perfective future «останется»: «Останется» — 'he will remain / stay [alive]' — is the simple perfective future, the prognosis stated as a single settled outcome. «По отзыву доктора» ('according to the doctor's opinion') uses по + dative.
> «тяжкие побои» — grievous blows: «Побои» (plural only) means a beating, blows; «тяжкий» is the elevated, somewhat archaic form of «тяжёлый» ('grave, grievous'), common in legal and biblical diction. Together they name the assault on Grigory in solemn juridical terms.

— Жив?  
"Alive?"
> Short adjective «жив» as one-word question: «Жив?» — 'alive?' — is the masculine short-form predicate adjective alone, the copula and subject understood. A single short adjective can carry a whole astonished question.

Так он жив! — завопил вдруг Митя, всплеснув руками.  
"So he is alive!" Mitya suddenly wailed, throwing up his hands.
> Consequential «так» — 'so then': Here «так» means 'so, then' — drawing a triumphant conclusion: 'so he is alive!'. It is distinct from the «так и» of dramatic emphasis seen earlier; this «так» is an inferential connective.
> Perfective gerund «всплеснув» + instrumental: «Всплеснув руками» is a perfective past gerund — 'having thrown up his hands' — a completed gesture that coincides with the cry «завопил». «Руками» is instrumental, the limbs flung up.
> «всплеснуть руками» — to throw up one's hands: An idiomatic gesture of surprise or strong emotion — to clasp and fling up the hands (as one splashes water, «всплеснуть»). Here it marks Mitya's overwhelming joy that Grigory lives.

Всё лицо его просияло.  
His whole face lit up.
> Perfective «просиял» of sudden change: «Просияло» — 'lit up, shone forth' — is perfective, marking the single instant his face changed. The prefix про- with «сиять» (to shine) gives the inceptive flash of radiance.

— Господи, благодарю тебя за величайшее чудо, содеянное тобою мне, грешному и злодею, по молитве моей!..  
"Lord, I thank Thee for the greatest of miracles, wrought by Thee for me, a sinner and a villain, in answer to my prayer!.."
> Vocative «Господи»: «Господи» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «Господь» ('Lord') — the special address form that survives only in prayer and exclamation. Modern Russian has otherwise lost the vocative case, but devotional cries keep it alive.
> Passive participle «содеянное» + instrumental agent + dative: «Содеянное тобою мне» — 'wrought by Thee for me' — is a past passive participle agreeing with «чудо», the agent «тобою» in the instrumental and the beneficiary «мне» in the dative. «Грешному и злодею» stand in apposition to «мне», also dative.
> «содеянное» — wrought, done (Slavonic): «Содеять» is a high, Church-Slavonic verb for 'to do, accomplish', its participle «содеянное» belonging to scriptural register. Coupled with «величайшее чудо» (superlative 'greatest miracle') and «грешному» ('sinner'), Mitya's thanksgiving speaks pure liturgical Russian.

Да, да, это по молитве моей, я молился всю ночь!..  
"Yes, yes, it is in answer to my prayer, I prayed all night long!.."
> «по молитве» — по + dative of cause: «По молитве моей» — 'in answer to / by virtue of my prayer' — uses по + dative to mean 'in accordance with, as a result of'. The postposed possessive «моей» lends the phrase a prayerful, formal cadence.
> Imperfective «молился» of duration: «Молился» (imperfective past of the -ся verb «молиться») views the praying as a process spread over time — fitting «всю ночь» ('all night long'), the accusative of duration. Imperfective is the natural aspect for an action that filled a stretch of time.

— и он три раза перекрестился.  
and he crossed himself three times.
> Reflexive «перекреститься» + count of times: «Перекрестился» is the -ся perfective 'crossed himself' (the action turned back on the doer), and «три раза» ('three times') counts the completed gesture. The numeral phrase «три раза» takes «раза» in the genitive singular after «три».

Он почти задыхался.  
He was almost choking.
> Imperfective «задыхался» repeated: The narrator returns to imperfective «задыхался» — 'he was choking [with emotion]' — presenting Mitya's breathlessness as a continuing state, echoing the earlier «почти задыхался» of the prosecutor. The repetition links their shared agitation.

— Так вот от этого-то самого Григория мы и получили столь значительные показания на ваш счет, что…  
"Well, it is precisely from this same Grigory that we have received such weighty testimony against you that…"
> Emphatic clitic «-то» on «этого»: «От этого-то самого Григория» — 'from this very Grigory' — uses the emphatic «-то» clitic (distinct from the indefinite -то) to underline a known referent: 'this same one, mind you'. Reinforced by «самого» ('the very'), it drives the irony home.
> Bookish «столь» + «на ваш счёт»: «Столь значительные» — 'such weighty' — uses the bookish «столь» ('so, to such a degree') for «такие». «На ваш счёт» idiomatically means 'concerning you, against you' (на + accusative), here the incriminating testimony.

— стал было продолжать прокурор, но Митя вдруг вскочил со стула.  
the prosecutor began to continue, but Mitya suddenly leapt up from his chair.
> «стал было» — began but was cut off: Again the particle «было» marks an action started and at once thwarted — 'the prosecutor was just beginning to go on (but…)'. Paired with «стал» ('began') and the interruption that follows, it is a favorite device for stop-and-start dialogue.
> Perfective «вскочил» + «со стула»: «Вскочил» is a perfective verb of sudden upward motion — 'leapt up' — one abrupt completed jump. «Со стула» uses с + genitive for motion off/from a surface ('up from the chair').

— Одну минуту, господа, ради бога одну лишь минутку; я сбегаю к ней… — Позвольте!  
"One minute, gentlemen, for God's sake, just one little minute; I'll run to her…" — "Permit me!"
> Perfective future «сбегаю»: «Сбегаю» — 'I'll run [there and back]' — is the simple perfective future of «сбегать», whose prefix с- gives a quick there-and-back trip. «К ней» (к + dative) marks the goal, Grushenka.
> Diminutive «минутку» of pleading: «Минутку» is the diminutive of «минута» — 'just one little minute' — softening the request into an entreaty. Combined with «ради бога» ('for God's sake') and «лишь» ('only'), it makes Mitya's plea urgent yet humble.
> Polite imperative «позвольте»: «Позвольте!» — 'Permit (me)! / Allow!' — is the perfective polite imperative of «позволить», used both to ask leave and, as here, to check or interrupt someone. Its clipped courtesy cuts Mitya's dash short.

В эту минуту никак нельзя!  
"At this moment it is absolutely impossible!"
> Impersonal «нельзя» — no subject: «нельзя» (it is impossible / not allowed) heads a subjectless impersonal clause: there is no nominative, and any person affected would stand in the dative. Doubled with «никак» (in no way), it slams the door absolutely — "absolutely impossible."

— даже чуть не взвизгнул Николай Парфенович и тоже вскочил на ноги.  
Nikolai Parfenovich very nearly shrieked, and he too sprang to his feet.
> «чуть не» + perfective past = 'all but': «чуть не» plus a perfective past verb means an action that almost-but-didn't happen: «чуть не взвизгнул» — he very nearly shrieked. The perfective «взвизгнул» pictures the single completed yelp that was on the verge of bursting out.
> «взвизгнуть» — to give a sudden shriek: An expressive, semelfactive verb: the prefix «вз-» (up, sudden onset) plus the «-ну-» suffix of a one-off act gives "to let out a single shrill yelp." Used of the magistrate, it is faintly comic and undignified.
> «вскочить на ноги» — to spring up: Literally "to leap onto one's feet." The prefix «вс-/вз-» again marks an abrupt upward jerk; the idiom conveys a startled, involuntary jump rather than a calm rising.

Митю обхватили люди с бляхами на груди, впрочем он и сам сел на стул…  
Men with badges on their chests seized Mitya, though he sat down on the chair of his own accord…
> Object first: «Митю» fronted: The accusative «Митю» (animate, so it borrows the genitive-style ending) opens the sentence ahead of its subject «люди». Russian's free word order lets the patient stand as topic — "Mitya — men seized him" — keeping the spotlight on Mitya.
> «сам» — '(him)self', of his own accord: The intensifier «сам» stresses that the subject acted on his own: "he sat down himself," i.e. without being forced. Paired with «и» it concedes the point — though they grabbed him, he was already sitting down willingly.

— Господа, как жаль! Я хотел к ней на одно лишь мгновение… хотел возвестить ей, что смыта, исчезла эта кровь, которая всю ночь сосала мне сердце, и что я уже не убийца!  
"Gentlemen, what a pity! I only wanted to go to her for a single moment… I wanted to bring her word that the blood is washed away, gone, that blood which sucked at my heart all night long, and that I am no longer a murderer!"
> «на» + accusative for a span of time: «на одно мгновение» (for a single instant) uses «на» with the accusative to mark the intended duration of an effect — he wanted to go to her for just one moment. The particle «лишь» ('only') sharpens the smallness of the request.
> «возвестить» — to proclaim, announce: A bookish, solemn verb (lit. "to bring tidings"), with the elevated «воз-» prefix and a faintly Scriptural ring — to herald glad news. Mitya casts his message to Grushenka as an annunciation, fitting his rapturous mood.
> Short passive participle «смыта»: «смыта» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «смытый» (washed away), agreeing in feminine singular with «кровь». The short form states a resulting condition — the blood stands washed-off — and is the bookish core of the periphrastic passive.
> Relative «которая» + dative of the affected part: «которая» agrees with feminine «кровь» but takes nominative as subject of its own clause. Note «сосала мне сердце» — the dative «мне» marks the possessor whose heart was being gnawed, a vivid Russian way of saying "sucked at my heart."
> «сосать сердце» — to gnaw at the heart: An expressive idiom: «сосать» (to suck) used of a dull, draining ache that "sucks" or gnaws at one's heart. The imperfective past «сосала» stretches the torment across «всю ночь» (all night long).

Господа, ведь она невеста моя!  
"Gentlemen, she is my betrothed, after all!"
> Particle «ведь» — 'after all, you see': «ведь» appeals to what the speaker takes as shared, self-evident knowledge: "she is my betrothed, after all — surely you understand!" It carries no literal English word, only the urgency of an obvious truth pressed on the listener.
> Zero copula: "she [is] my betrothed": The present-tense "is" is simply absent; «она невеста моя» links subject and nominative predicate with no verb. The possessive «моя» trails after its noun for emphasis — a warm, slightly elevated rhythm.
> «невеста» — bride / betrothed: More than "fiancée": «невеста» covers the whole span from betrothed woman to bride at the altar. Mitya's claim on Grushenka as his «невеста» is half-defiant, half-exultant.

— восторженно и благоговейно проговорил он вдруг, обводя всех глазами.  
he suddenly pronounced, rapturous and reverent, casting his eyes over them all.
> Gerund «обводя» — simultaneous action: «обводя» is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие»): "casting his eyes round." Indeclinable, it pins an attendant action onto the main verb «проговорил», sharing its subject — he spoke while sweeping his gaze over them all.
> «благоговейно» — with reverent awe: A Church-flavoured adverb from «благоговение» (reverent awe before the holy). Pairing «восторженно» (rapturously) with «благоговейно» casts Mitya's outburst in the key of religious ecstasy.

— О, благодарю вас, господа!  
"Oh, I thank you, gentlemen!"

О, как вы возродили, как вы воскресили меня в одно мгновение!..  
"Oh, how you have revived me, how you have raised me from the dead in a single instant!.."
> Perfective «возродили / воскресили» — instant result: Both verbs are perfective past, viewing the rebirth as a single accomplished act — "how you have revived, how you have resurrected me" — and the phrase «в одно мгновение» (in one instant) underlines that completeness.
> «воскресить» — to raise from the dead: The verb of Christ's Resurrection («Воскресение»), here applied to Mitya's relief: the gentlemen have "resurrected" him. The religious charge is deliberate — his exoneration feels like rising from the grave.

Этот старик — ведь он носил меня на руках, господа, мыл меня в корыте, когда меня трехлетнего ребенка все покинули, был отцом родным!..  
"That old man — why, he used to carry me about in his arms, gentlemen, he washed me in the tub when, a three-year-old child, everyone had abandoned me — he was a true father to me!.."
> «ведь» + multidirectional «носил»: «носил» is the multidirectional motion verb (carrying about, to and fro), the right choice for habitual cradling rather than one trip. With «ведь» Mitya pleads a shared memory: "why, he used to carry me in his arms."
> «меня… ребенка» in apposition (accusative): «меня трехлетнего ребенка» stacks the pronoun and a full agreeing phrase in the accusative — "me, a three-year-old child" — all governed by «покинули». The adjective «трехлетнего» and noun «ребенка» take the animate accusative ending matching the genitive.
> «отец родной» — a true, blood father: «родной» means one's own by blood / dearly one's own; «отец родной» is the very father Mitya lacked. Note the instrumental «отцом родным» after «был» — the predicate-instrumental framing the role Grigory filled.

— Итак вы…  
"And so you…"
> «итак» — 'and so, therefore': A bookish discourse connector, "and so / thus," gathering up what came before to draw a conclusion. The magistrate's measured «Итак вы…» ("And so you…") sets a procedural tone against Mitya's flood of feeling.

— начал было следователь. — Позвольте, господа, позвольте еще одну минутку, — прервал Митя, поставив оба локтя на стол и закрыв лицо ладонями, — дайте же чуточку сообразиться, дайте вздохнуть, господа.  
the magistrate began, but "Permit me, gentlemen, permit me just one more little minute," Mitya interrupted, planting both elbows on the table and burying his face in his hands, "do let me collect myself a little, let me catch my breath, gentlemen."
> Particle «было» — an action begun and cut off: The frozen particle «было» after a perfective past marks an action that was just begun or about to happen but was interrupted: «начал было» — "he had begun, but…" Here it neatly captures the magistrate starting to speak only for Mitya to break in.
> Two perfective gerunds «поставив», «закрыв»: Both are perfective past gerunds in «-в» («деепричастие»), naming completed actions accompanying «прервал»: having planted his elbows and buried his face, he interrupted. They compress two prior gestures into adverbial modifiers of the main verb.
> Imperatives + the urging «же»: A volley of polite plural imperatives — «позвольте» (permit), «дайте» (give/let) — softens his demand. The particle «же» in «дайте же» adds insistent appeal: "do let me," pressing the request without rudeness.
> «сообразиться» — to collect one's wits: Reflexive «-ся» form: to get one's bearings, gather one's thoughts. Mitya begs a moment «сообразиться… вздохнуть» — to pull himself together and catch his breath.
> «чуточку» — 'just a tiny bit': A coaxing diminutive of «чуть» (a little): "a wee bit, just a smidgen." The expressive «-очк-» suffix makes the plea childlike and disarming.

Всё это ужасно потрясает, ужасно, не барабанная же шкура человек, господа!  
"All of this shakes one terribly, terribly — a man is not a drumhide, gentlemen!"
> Particle «же» + zero copula: "A man is not, after all, a drumhide!" — «же» insists on the obvious, and the present "is not" is unspoken, leaving the bare negation «не… человек». The negated predicate noun stays nominative because the verb "to be" is absent.
> «барабанная шкура» — a drumhide: Literally the stretched hide of a drum («барабан»). Mitya's image: a man is not a senseless skin to be pounded on without flinching — he feels every blow of this ordeal.

— Вы бы опять водицы…  
"You might have a little more water…"
> Bare «бы» — a gentle suggestion: An elliptical conditional: «вы бы… водицы» implies a softened "you might [take] a little water." The particle «бы», with the verb left unsaid, turns a command into a tactful nudge — exactly the timid magistrate's manner.
> Partitive genitive «водицы»: The genitive «водицы» (rather than accusative «водицу») gives a partitive sense — "some water, a little of it." The diminutive «водица» (dear little water) makes the offer homely and kind.
> «водица» — affectionate 'water': A folk-tender diminutive of «вода» built with «-иц-». It softens the offering of water, the kind of caressing form heard in solicitous everyday speech.

— пролепетал Николай Парфенович.  
Nikolai Parfenovich murmured.
> «пролепетать» — to murmur falteringly: From «лепетать» (to babble, prattle), with «про-» marking the brief utterance: to murmur or stammer out a few words. It paints Nikolai Parfenovich as hesitant and tongue-tied beside the surging Mitya.

Митя отнял от лица руки и рассмеялся.  
Mitya took his hands away from his face and burst out laughing.
> Two perfectives chain the events: «отнял» (took away) and «рассмеялся» (burst out laughing) are perfective pasts that push the narrative forward step by step. The «рас-» prefix on «рассмеяться» marks the sudden bursting-into of laughter.

Взгляд его был бодр, он весь как бы изменился в одно мгновение.  
His look was buoyant; he seemed altogether changed in a single instant.
> Short adjective «бодр» as predicate: «бодр» is the short (predicative) form of «бодрый» (brisk, buoyant, cheerful), agreeing with masculine «взгляд». Short adjectives serve only as predicates and lend a clipped, literary tone — "his look was buoyant."
> «как бы» — 'as it were', hedging: «как бы» softens the verb to a seeming: "he seemed, as it were, to have changed." It signals the narrator's qualified observation rather than a flat fact — a favourite Dostoevskian hedge.

Изменился и весь тон его: это сидел уже опять равный всем этим людям человек, всем этим прежним знакомым его, вот точно так, как если бы все они сошлись вчера, когда еще ничего не случилось, где-нибудь в светском обществе.  
His whole tone had changed as well: here sat once more a man on equal terms with all these people, with all these former acquaintances of his, exactly as if they had all met the day before, when nothing had yet happened, somewhere in polite society.
> Verb-first inversion for emphasis: The clause leads with the verb «Изменился» before the subject «весь тон его» — "changed too had his whole tone." Fronting the verb, picked up from the previous sentence, gives the shift rhetorical weight.
> Heavy modifier before its noun «человек»: The noun «человек» (a man) sits at the end after a long preceding modifier «равный всем этим людям» (equal to all these people), with «равный» governing the dative «всем этим людям». The end-weighted noun keeps the new, key word last.
> Counterfactual «как если бы» + «бы»: "As if they had all met yesterday" — «как если бы» plus the past-form verb «сошлись» with «бы» builds an irrealis comparison. The conditional «бы» makes the gathering purely hypothetical, framing Mitya's odd new ease.

Заметим, однако, кстати, что у исправника Митя, в начале его прибытия к нам, был принят радушно, но потом, в последний месяц особенно, Митя почти не посещал его, а исправник, встречаясь с ним, на улице например, сильно хмурился и только лишь из вежливости отдавал поклон, что очень хорошо заприметил Митя.  
Let us note, however, in passing, that at the police captain's house Mitya, in the early days of his arrival among us, had been received cordially, but later, in the last month especially, Mitya had scarcely visited him at all, while the captain, meeting him in the street, for instance, would frown heavily and return his bow only out of politeness — a thing Mitya had marked very well.
> Authorial «Заметим» — 'let us note': A 1st-person-plural perfective («let us note»), the narrator's intrusive aside that turns aside from the scene to supply background. The chatty «однако» (however) and «кстати» (by the way) are hallmarks of Dostoevsky's gossipy chronicler-narrator.
> Periphrastic passive «был принят»: «был принят» is «быть» plus the short past passive participle of «принять» (to receive) — "was received" — agreeing masculine with Mitya. The instrumental agent is unspoken; the host «исправник» is understood. The whole sentence then pivots on «но потом» to the cooling that followed.
> Imperfective gerund «встречаясь» — repeated meetings: «встречаясь» (meeting), an imperfective present gerund of the reflexive «встречаться», attaches a recurring circumstance to the main clause: whenever the captain met Mitya, he would frown. The imperfective suits the habitual sense.
> «заприметить» — to take careful note of: A colloquial perfective from «приметить» (to spot, notice) with an extra «за-»: to mark, to clock something for oneself. "A thing Mitya had marked very well" — he had registered the captain's coldness.

С прокурором был знаком еще отдаленнее, но к супруге прокурора, нервной и фантастической даме, иногда хаживал с самыми почтительными, однако, визитами, и даже сам не совсем понимая, зачем к ней ходит, и она всегда ласково его принимала, почему-то интересуясь им до самого последнего времени.  
With the prosecutor he was even less closely acquainted, but to the prosecutor's wife, a nervous and fanciful lady, he sometimes paid the most respectful visits, though without quite knowing himself why he called on her, and she always received him kindly, taking an interest in him for some reason right up until the most recent times.
> Iterative «хаживал» — 'used to go': «хаживал» is a special iterative-habitual past of «ходить», with the «-ива-» suffix marking repeated action long ago: "he used to call now and then." Such frequentatives are bookish and faintly archaic, colouring the chronicle's retrospection.
> Gerund «понимая» + embedded question: The imperfective gerund «понимая» (understanding) governs an indirect question «зачем… ходит» (why he goes). «сам» stresses that even he himself did not quite grasp his motive — a typically Dostoevskian flicker of self-opacity.
> «интересоваться» + instrumental: The reflexive verb «интересоваться» (to take an interest in) governs the instrumental: «интересуясь им» — "taking an interest in him." Here in gerund form, it names the prosecutor's wife's lingering curiosity about Mitya.

Со следователем же познакомиться еще не успел, но, однако, встречал и его и даже говорил с ним раз или два, оба раза о женском поле.  
With the magistrate he had not yet managed to become acquainted, but he had nonetheless met him too, and had even spoken with him once or twice, both times about the fair sex.
> «не успел» + perfective infinitive: «успеть» (to manage in time) plus a perfective infinitive means "to get round to / manage to"; negated, «не успел познакомиться» = "had not yet managed to get acquainted." The construction frames the acquaintance as a goal not reached.
> «женский пол» — the fair sex: Literally "the female sex," a slightly arch, dated turn for women in general. That Mitya's only talks with the magistrate had been «о женском поле» is a quietly comic touch, given the womanizing at the heart of his troubles.

— Вы, Николай Парфеныч, искуснейший, как я вижу, следователь, — весело рассмеялся вдруг Митя, — но я вам теперь сам помогу.  
"You, Nikolai Parfenych, are a most skillful magistrate, as I can see," Mitya suddenly laughed merrily, "but I shall help you myself now."
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «искуснейший» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «искусный» (skillful), formed with «-ейш-»: "a most skillful magistrate." This suffixal superlative is more elevated than the everyday «самый искусный» and suits Mitya's grandiloquent flattery.

О господа, я воскрешен… и не претендуйте на меня, что я так запросто и так прямо к вам обращаюсь.  
"Oh gentlemen, I am risen from the dead… and don't hold it against me that I address you so casually and so directly."
> Negated imperative «не претендуйте»: An imperfective imperative under negation, the usual form for a request not to do something: "don't hold it against me." «претендовать на кого-то» here colloquially means to take offence at / have a grievance against someone.
> «что» — reporting the reason: The subordinator «что» ("that") introduces the content of the reproach he wards off: "that I address you so casually." The reflexive «обращаюсь» («обращаться к кому-то» — to address someone) governs «к вам».
> «воскрешён» — 'I am resurrected': The short past passive participle of «воскресить»: "I am risen from the dead." Mitya keeps reaching for Easter language to name his sudden relief, casting the night's ordeal as death and his exoneration as resurrection.

К тому же я немного пьян, я это вам скажу откровенно.  
"Besides, I am a little drunk, I'll tell you that frankly."
> «к тому же» — 'besides, what's more': A common additive connector, "besides / moreover," tacking on a further admission. Mitya uses it to confess, almost cheerfully, that he is also a little drunk.

Я, кажется, имел честь… честь и удовольствие встречать вас, Николай Парфеныч, у родственника моего Миусова…  
"I believe I had the honor… the honor and the pleasure of meeting you, Nikolai Parfenych, at the house of my kinsman Miusov…"
> «у» + genitive = 'at the house of': «у родственника моего Миусова» uses «у» with the genitive to mean "at the home of my kinsman Miusov." The phrase «имел честь» (had the honour) is a set polite formula of drawing-room courtesy.

Господа, господа, я не претендую на равенство, я ведь понимаю же, кто я такой теперь пред вами сижу.  
"Gentlemen, gentlemen, I lay no claim to equality, for I do understand who I am, sitting here now before you."
> Stacked particles «ведь… же»: Mitya piles up both modal particles — «ведь» (after all) and «же» (insistent) — around «понимаю»: "for I do understand, you know." The doubling is colloquial, almost ungrammatically emphatic, conveying his agitated earnestness.
> Archaic «пред» + instrumental: «пред вами» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед вами» (before you), governing the instrumental — a bookish, slightly solemn variant. The clause «кто я такой… сижу» (who I am, sitting here) folds an embedded identity-question into self-abasement.

На мне лежит… если только показания на меня дал Григорий… то лежит — о, конечно, уж лежит — страшное подозрение!  
"There lies upon me… if it really is Grigory who has given testimony against me… then there lies — oh, of course, there surely lies — a terrible suspicion!"
> «лежать на ком-то» — to weigh upon: «на мне лежит подозрение» — literally "a suspicion lies upon me" — frames suspicion as a weight pressing down, with «на мне» (prepositional) marking the one it rests on. The subject «подозрение» is held back to the very end for dramatic suspense.
> Conditional «если только» — 'if indeed': «если только» (if indeed / if it really is the case) opens a real conditional with the indicative «дал» — no «бы» here, since it is a possible fact, not a hypothetical. Mitya is reasoning about whether Grigory really testified.
> «дать показания» — to give testimony: A fixed legal collocation: «давать/дать показания» — to give evidence, make a deposition. «показания» is the plural noun for formal testimony, the very thing the inquest is built on.

Ужас, ужас — я ведь понимаю же это!  
"Horror, horror — for I do understand it!"
> Doubled «ведь… же» again: Mitya repeats his stacked-particle tic — «ведь… же» bracketing «понимаю» — for the second time in as many breaths. The verbal echo characterizes his feverish, looping speech under stress.

Но к делу, господа, я готов, и мы это в один миг теперь и покончим, потому что, послушайте, послушайте, господа.  
"But to business, gentlemen, I am ready, and we shall finish it now in a single instant, because — listen, listen, gentlemen."
> Perfective future «покончим»: «покончим» is a perfective verb in present-form endings, which yields future meaning: "we shall finish (and be done) in a single instant." The perfective insists on completion — the matter wrapped up at one stroke.
> Repeated imperative «послушайте»: The polite plural imperative of «послушать», doubled for urgency: "listen, listen." Such emphatic repetition of commands is a constant rhythm of Mitya's pleading speech.
> «к делу» — 'to business / to the point': An idiomatic call to get down to the matter at hand, "to business." «дело» (affair, matter, case) here carries the legal flavour of the «дело» being conducted against him.

Ведь если я знаю, что я не виновен, то уж, конечно, в один миг покончим!  
"For if I know that I am not guilty, then of course we shall finish in a single instant!"
> «если… то» conditional frame: A correlative conditional: «если… то» ("if… then") pairs the protasis «если я знаю» with the apodosis «то… покончим». Opening «Ведь» (after all) and «уж, конечно» (why, of course) load the inference with Mitya's certainty.
> Short adjective «виновен» — 'guilty': «виновен» is the short predicative form of «виновный/виноватый» (guilty), the form proper to verdicts and confessions of fault. Negated «не виновен» it states the plea — "I am not guilty" — that the whole chapter circles.

Так ли?  
"Is that not so?"
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Так ли?» — "Is that so? / Is it not so?" The enclitic «ли» turns the affirmation «так» (so) into a tense yes/no question, more pointed and literary than mere rising intonation. Mitya presses for assent.

Так ли?  
"Is that not so?"
> «ли» repeated — anxious insistence: The same «Так ли?» fired off a second time. Repetition of the «ли»-question intensifies Mitya's craving for agreement, a small grammatical signal of his rattled state.

Митя говорил скоро и много, нервно и экспансивно и как бы решительно принимая своих слушателей за лучших друзей своих.  
Mitya spoke fast and at length, nervously and expansively, as though resolutely taking his listeners for his very best friends.
> «как бы» + gerund «принимая»: «как бы» (as it were) hedges the narrator's reading, while the imperfective gerund «принимая» (taking) names Mitya's attitude as he talked: "as though resolutely taking his listeners for his best friends." The gerund shares the subject of «говорил».
> «принимать за» — to take someone for: The idiom «принимать кого-то за кого-то» (to take X for Y) governs «за» plus accusative: «за лучших друзей своих» — for his best friends. Note reflexive «своих» (his own), pointing back to Mitya as subject.
> «экспансивно» — expansively, effusively: A bookish Latinate adverb (rare in plain speech), naming an outpouring, demonstrative manner. Paired with «нервно», it captures Mitya's overflowing, unguarded volubility.

— Итак, мы пока запишем, что вы отвергаете взводимое на вас обвинение радикально, — внушительно проговорил Николай Парфенович и, повернувшись к писарю, вполголоса продиктовал ему, что надо записать.  
"And so, for now we shall record that you radically reject the accusation brought against you," Nikolai Parfenovich pronounced impressively, and, turning to the clerk, dictated to him in an undertone what was to be set down.
> Present passive participle «взводимое»: «взводимое» is the rare bookish present passive participle in «-мое», from «взводить» (here "to level / bring [a charge]"): "the accusation being brought against you." It agrees neuter with «обвинение» and condenses a whole который-clause into one solemn modifier.
> Gerund «повернувшись» — prior action: The perfective past gerund «повернувшись» (having turned) precedes the main verb «продиктовал» (dictated): first he turned to the clerk, then dictated. The reflexive «-сь» marks the middle/change-of-orientation sense of «повернуться».

— Записывать?  
"Record it?"
> Bare imperfective infinitive as question: A one-word incredulous question, the imperfective infinitive «записывать» (to be writing down) standing alone: "Record [it]?" The imperfective stresses the ongoing process of taking it all down, which alarms Mitya.

Вы хотите это записывать?  
"You wish to record that?"
> «хотеть» + imperfective infinitive: «хотите… записывать» pairs the modal «хотеть» with the imperfective infinitive, viewing the writing-down as an activity rather than a single act — "you wish to be recording that?" His dismay is at the ongoing documentation itself.

Что ж, записывайте, я согласен, даю полное мое согласие, господа…  
"Well, record it then, I agree, I give my full consent, gentlemen…"
> Imperfective imperative «записывайте» — go ahead: The imperfective imperative «записывайте» grants permission for an ongoing activity: "go on, write it down." Imperfective imperatives often signal acquiescence or invitation, where the perfective «запишите» would order a single completed jotting.
> «что ж» — resigned 'well then': A worn-smooth particle phrase («что» + «ж», reduced «же») meaning "well, all right then," marking grudging assent. It opens Mitya's capitulation: very well, record it.

Только видите…  
"Only, you see…"

Стойте, стойте, запишите так: «В буйстве он виновен, в тяжких побоях, нанесенных бедному старику, виновен».  
"Wait, wait, write it down like this: 'Of violent assault he is guilty, of the grievous beating inflicted on the poor old man, guilty.'"
> Imperfective vs perfective imperative side by side: «Стойте» (imperfective, "stop, hold on") halts the action, while «запишите» (perfective, "write down [this one thing]") demands a single specific entry. The contrast shows aspect at work in commands — one ongoing, one a discrete deed.
> «виновен в» + prepositional: Guilt is constructed with «виновен в чём-то» — «в буйстве», «в… побоях» — the offences in the prepositional case after «в». Mitya frames his own formal confession, fronting each charge before the verdict «виновен».
> «буйство» — violent disorder: «буйство» denotes a furious, riotous rampage — wild, uncontrolled violence. Mitya readily owns the «буйство» and the «побои» (a beating, blows) dealt to Grigory, while denying the murder itself.

Ну там еще про себя, внутри, в глубине сердца своего виновен — но это уж не надо писать, — повернулся он вдруг к писарю, — это уже моя частная жизнь, господа, это уже вас не касается, эти глубины-то сердца то есть…  
"Well, and then within himself, inside, in the depths of his own heart, guilty too — but that need not be written down," he turned suddenly to the clerk, "that is now my private life, gentlemen, that is now no concern of yours, those depths of the heart, that is to say…"
> Impersonal «не надо» + infinitive: «не надо писать» — "that need not be written" — is an impersonal necessity construction: the invariable «надо» (one must / it is needed) with a bare infinitive and no nominative subject. The particle «уж» softens it to "that, now, needn't be put down."
> Reflexive possessive «своего»: «сердца своего» — "of his own heart," with «свой» pointing back to the clause's subject. Placed after its noun, «своего» gives the phrase a meditative, slightly elevated fall: in the depths of one's own heart.
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «глубины-то» singles out and dwells on a known topic — "those depths of the heart, I mean." This emphatic «-то» (distinct from the indefinite «кто-то») is a feature of intimate, musing speech.
> «касаться» — to concern, to be one's business: «это вас не касается» is the set phrase "that's no concern of yours / none of your business." The reflexive «касаться» governs the genitive «вас» (its genitive and accusative forms coincide). Mitya draws a sharp line between the punishable deed and the private guilt of the heart.

Но в убийстве старика отца — не виновен!  
"But of the murder of my father, the old man — not guilty!"
> Charge fronted before the verdict: Again «виновен в чём-то»: «в убийстве» (in the murder) stands first in the prepositional, then the dash and «не виновен». Fronting the dreadful charge and holding back the denial mirrors Mitya's rhetorical staging of his plea.
> Genitive of the object: «старика отца»: «убийство» (murder) takes a genitive complement naming the victim — «старика отца», "of the old man, my father," both animate-masculine genitives in apposition. The piling of «старика» and «отца» heightens the horror of patricide.

Это дикая мысль!  
"It is a wild notion!"
> «дикий» — wild, monstrous, absurd: «дикий» literally means "wild, feral," but applied to «мысль» (a thought / notion) it means outlandish, monstrous, preposterous. "A wild notion" — Mitya recoils from the very idea as savage and unthinkable.

Это совершенно дикая мысль!..  
"It is an utterly wild notion!.."
> Intensifier «совершенно»: «совершенно» (utterly, completely) ramps the repeated «дикая мысль» up a notch: "an utterly wild notion." The near-verbatim repetition of s101 with one added intensifier mimics Mitya's mounting agitation.

Я вам докажу, и вы убедитесь мгновенно.  
"I will prove it to you, and you will be convinced in an instant."
> Perfective futures «докажу», «убедитесь»: Both are perfective verbs in present-form endings giving future sense: «докажу» (I will prove [it]) and «убедитесь» (you will be convinced). The reflexive «убедиться» means "to become convinced for oneself," governing «в чём-то».

Вы будете смеяться, господа, сами будете хохотать над вашим подозрением!..  
"You will laugh, gentlemen, you yourselves will roar with laughter at your own suspicion!.."
> Compound future «будете + infinitive»: «будете смеяться» / «будете хохотать» is the imperfective compound future: «быть» conjugated plus an imperfective infinitive, naming a sustained future action — "you will [go on] laughing." The imperfective fits the prolonged, helpless mirth Mitya predicts.
> «хохотать» — to roar with laughter: Stronger than «смеяться»: «хохотать» is loud, full-throated, helpless laughter — to guffaw, roar. The escalation from «смеяться» to «сами будете хохотать» promises that the suspicion will collapse into outright absurdity.

— Успокойтесь, Дмитрий Федорович, — напомнил следователь, как бы, видимо, желая победить исступленного своим спокойствием.  
"Calm yourself, Dmitri Fyodorovich," the magistrate reminded him, evidently wishing, as it were, to subdue the frantic man by his own composure.
> Instrumental of means «спокойствием»: «победить… своим спокойствием» — "to subdue [him] by his own composure" — uses the instrumental «спокойствием» to name the means. The substantivized adjective «исступленного» (the frenzied one) is the animate-accusative object.
> «исступлённый» — frenzied, beside oneself: «исступление» is a state of frenzy, transport, raving — being utterly beside oneself. Substantivized here as "the frantic man," it names Mitya as the magistrate sees him: a man to be calmed by cool deliberation.

— Прежде чем будем продолжать допрос, я бы желал, если вы только согласитесь ответить, слышать от вас подтверждение того факта, что, кажется, вы не любили покойного Федора Павловича, были с ним в какой-то постоянной ссоре…  
"Before we go on with the interrogation, I should like, if only you will agree to answer, to hear from you a confirmation of the fact that, it seems, you did not love the late Fyodor Pavlovich, that you were in some sort of constant quarrel with him…"
> Conditional «я бы желал» — polite softening: «я бы желал» ("I should like") is the past-form verb «желал» plus «бы» — the subjunctive used to soften a wish into deferential politeness. The magistrate's request is framed as a tentative would-wish, not a demand.
> Real conditional «если… согласитесь»: A genuine (not hypothetical) condition: «если… согласитесь» with the perfective future «согласитесь» — "if you will (consent to) agree." No «бы», because the magistrate treats Mitya's consent as a live possibility.
> Indefinite «какой-то» — 'some sort of': «какой-то» (some, a certain — specific but vague) softens the magistrate's careful insinuation: "in some sort of constant quarrel." The «-то» marks a real but unspecified state, a diplomatically blurred way to raise the feud.

Здесь, по крайней мере, четверть часа назад, вы, кажется, изволили произнести, что даже хотели убить его: «Не убил, — воскликнули вы, — но хотел убить!»  
"Here, at least a quarter of an hour ago, you were pleased, it seems, to declare that you had even wanted to kill him: 'I did not kill him,' you exclaimed, 'but I wanted to kill him!'"
> «изволить» — deferential 'were pleased to': «изволить» plus an infinitive is an old courtly auxiliary meaning "to deign / be pleased to" do something — «изволили произнести», "you were pleased to declare." In the magistrate's mouth it is studiedly polite, with a faint ironic formality.
> Aspect contrast: «не убил» vs «хотел убить»: The perfective «убил» (killed — as a completed deed) is negated — "I did not kill" — and set against «хотел убить» (wanted to kill), where the wish is imperfective but its object «убить» perfective. The whole drama of the chapter sits in that gap between deed and desire.
> «четверть часа» — a quarter of an hour: «четверть» is a fourth/quarter; «четверть часа» = fifteen minutes. The magistrate fixes the time precisely to confront Mitya with his own recent words.

— Я это воскликнул?  
"I exclaimed that?"
> Word order makes the question: With no «ли» and no inversion, «Я это воскликнул?» is marked as a question by intonation alone — fronting «Я» throws the stress onto the astonished "I": did I exclaim that? The bare structure conveys genuine surprise.

Ох, это может быть, господа!  
"Oh, it may well be so, gentlemen!"
> «может быть» — 'it may be / perhaps': An impersonal modal phrase, "it may be (so), perhaps," with «может» as 3rd-person «мочь» and a bare «быть». Mitya half-concedes the magistrate's point without quite committing to the memory.
> Interjection «ох» — a heavy sigh: «ох» voices a sigh of distress, weariness, or rueful acknowledgement — heavier and more inward than «ах». It marks Mitya's pained admission: "oh, it may well be so."

Да, к несчастию, я хотел убить его, много раз хотел… к несчастию, к несчастию!  
"Yes, to my misfortune, I did want to kill him, I wanted to many times… to my misfortune, to my misfortune!"
> Imperfective «хотел» — repeated desire: «хотел» here is imperfective past for a recurring state — "I wanted to many times." The adverbial «много раз» (many times) leans naturally on the imperfective's habitual/iterative reading: the wish came back again and again.
> «к несчастию» — 'to my misfortune': «к несчастию» (older spelling of «к несчастью») is a fixed parenthetical, "unfortunately / to one's misfortune," using «к» plus dative. Repeated three times, it turns the admission into a refrain of self-reproach.

— Хотели.  
"You wanted to."
> Bare imperfective past as a flat echo: A single word: «Хотели» (you wanted to), the imperfective past, returned to Mitya by the magistrate as a quiet, conclusive restatement. With the subject and object dropped, the verb alone coolly seals the admission.

Не согласитесь ли вы объяснить, какие, собственно, принципы руководствовали вас в такой ненависти к личности вашего родителя?  
"Would you not agree to explain what principles, precisely, guided you in such hatred toward the person of your parent?"
> Negated «ли»-question for politeness: «Не согласитесь ли вы…?» — "Would you not agree to…?" — combines negation «не» with the interrogative «ли» to make an extra-courteous request. This negative-interrogative softening is the magistrate's habitual delicate register.
> «руководствовать» + accusative object: «руководствовали вас» — "guided you" — with «вас» as accusative object and «принципы» as nominative subject. The interrogative «какие» (which / what sort of) agrees with «принципы», opening an embedded question about Mitya's motives.
> «родитель» — formal 'parent': «родитель» (parent) and «личность» (the person, personality) are coolly formal, even bureaucratic, words. The magistrate's stiff phrasing — "hatred toward the person of your parent" — clinically distances the raw fact of father and son.

— Что ж объяснять, господа!  
"What is there to explain, gentlemen!"
> «что объяснять» — rhetorical infinitive: A bare infinitive «объяснять» under interrogative «что» forms a rhetorical question with no subject: "what is there to explain?" The particle «ж» adds weary exasperation. The imperfective treats explaining as a pointless activity.

— угрюмо вскинул плечами Митя, потупясь.  
Mitya shrugged his shoulders gloomily, casting his eyes down.
> Gerund «потупясь» — manner accompanying: «потупясь» is a perfective gerund (variant of «потупившись», from reflexive «потупиться» — to drop one's eyes) attached to «вскинул плечами»: he shrugged, eyes cast down. The «-ясь» form is the older/bookish gerund ending.
> «вскинуть плечами» — to shrug: «вскинуть плечами» (to jerk the shoulders up) is the gesture of a shrug; «угрюмо» (gloomily, sullenly) colours it. Together with «потупясь» (eyes lowered) it paints Mitya's sudden sullen withdrawal.

— Я ведь не скрывал моих чувств, весь город об этом знает — знают все в трактире.  
"After all, I never concealed my feelings — the whole town knows of it, everyone in the tavern knows."
> Genitive of negation «чувств»: Under negation «не скрывал», the object shifts to the genitive «(моих) чувств» rather than accusative «чувства» — the genitive of negation, natural with an abstract object. «ведь» pleads the obviousness: "after all, I never hid my feelings."

Еще недавно в монастыре заявил в келье старца Зосимы…  
"Only the other day I declared it at the monastery, in the cell of the elder Zosima…"
> «в келье» — prepositional of location: «в келье» (in the cell), prepositional after «в» for location, locates the scene. The verb «заявил» (declared, made known) is perfective — a single public declaration Mitya now recalls.
> «старец» — a holy elder: «старец» (genitive «старца») is not merely "old man" but the technical title of a monastic elder of recognized spiritual authority — a «старчество» tradition central to the novel. Zosima is its embodiment.

В тот же день, вечером, бил и чуть не убил отца и поклялся, что опять приду и убью, при свидетелях…  
"That very same day, in the evening, I beat my father and all but killed him, and I swore that I would come again and kill him, before witnesses…"
> Aspect telling the story: «бил» (imperfective — was beating, hammered away) gives way to «чуть не убил» (perfective — all but killed, a single near-deed); then the future vow «приду и убью» chains two perfective futures: "I'll come and kill." Aspect alone choreographs the whole violent memory.
> Reported vow with «что»: «поклялся, что…» (swore that…) introduces direct-style reported speech keeping Mitya's own 1st-person futures «приду», «убью». Russian often preserves the original tense in such reports, so the vow stays vivid and present.

О, тысяча свидетелей!  
"Oh, a thousand witnesses!"
> «тысяча» + genitive plural: «тысяча» (a thousand) governs the genitive plural «свидетелей» (witnesses), like other large numerals. Hyperbolically thrown out — "a thousand witnesses!" — it is Mitya damning himself with reckless honesty.

Весь месяц кричал, все свидетели!..  
"The whole month long I shouted it, everyone is a witness!.."
> Imperfective «кричал» over a span: «кричал» (was shouting / kept shouting) is imperfective past, stretched across «весь месяц» (the whole month) — durative, repeated action. The accusative «весь месяц» marks the time-span filled by the shouting.

Факт налицо, факт говорит, кричит, но — чувства, господа, чувства, это уж другое.  
"The fact is plain, the fact speaks, it cries out — but feelings, gentlemen, feelings, that is another matter altogether."
> Personified «факт» with present verbs: The imperfective presents «говорит, кричит» (speaks, cries out) personify «факт» (the fact) as a living accuser. Asyndetic piling — «говорит, кричит» — gives the line a hammering, rhetorical rhythm.
> Zero copula + «уж»: 'that's another matter': «это уж другое» — "that's quite another thing" — links «это» to the neuter «другое» with no verb, while «уж» (a worn form of «уже») adds emphatic finality. Mitya pivots from the damning facts to the separate question of inner feeling.
> «налицо» — present, in evidence: «налицо» is an adverb meaning "on hand, plainly present, in evidence" — "the fact is there for all to see." It is the language of officialdom and reckoning, here turned by Mitya against himself.

Видите, господа, — нахмурился Митя, — мне кажется, что про чувства вы не имеете права меня спрашивать.  
You see, gentlemen," Mitya frowned, "it seems to me that you have no right to question me about my feelings.
> Genitive after negation: «Иметь право» (to have the right) is negated as «не имеете права» — the object «право» shifts from accusative to genitive «права» under negation, a classic genitive of negation with an abstract noun.
> Dative experiencer «мне кажется»: «Кажется» (it seems) is impersonal: there is no nominative subject, and the one to whom it seems stands in the dative — «мне» (to me). This subjectless, dative-first framing is the natural Russian way to voice a perception.
> «нахмуриться» — to frown: A perfective reflexive verb in -ся: «нахмурился» means he knit his brows, frowned over. The -ся here marks a change of facial state rather than a true reflexive action on oneself.

Вы хоть и облечены, я понимаю это, но это дело мое, мое внутреннее дело, интимное, но… так как я уж не скрывал моих чувств прежде… в трактире, например, и говорил всем и каждому, то… то не сделаю и теперь из этого тайны.  
You may be vested with authority, I understand that, but this is my affair, my own inner affair, an intimate one, and yet… since I never hid my feelings before — in the tavern, for instance, and told everyone, every last person — then… then I shall make no secret of it now either.
> «облечён» — vested with authority: From bookish «облечь» (to invest, clothe with), the short passive participle «облечены» means 'you are vested/clothed [with office]'. Mitya means the officials are robed in legal authority; the word carries an almost ceremonial, ecclesiastical ring.
> Concessive «хоть и»: «Хоть и… но…» is a concessive frame: 'although you are vested…, still this is my affair.' «Хоть» (even though) sets up the concession that «но» then answers.
> «трактир» — the tavern: A «трактир» was a traditional Russian inn or eating-house serving food, tea, and drink to ordinary folk and travellers — a notch lower and earthier than a restaurant, and a recurring stage for the public scenes Mitya here recalls.
> Idiom «всем и каждому»: «Всем и каждому» — literally 'to everyone and to each' — is a fixed emphatic idiom meaning 'to anyone and everyone, every last soul', stressing how indiscriminately Mitya broadcast his feelings.
> Perfective future «не сделаю»: «Сделаю» is a perfective form conjugated with present-tense endings, which yields future meaning: 'I shall (not) make.' The perfective frames the act of making-a-secret as a single completed event he refuses to perform.

Видите, господа, я ведь понимаю, что в этом случае на меня улики страшные: всем говорил, что его убью, а вдруг его и убили: как же не я в таком случае?  
You see, gentlemen, I do understand that in this case the evidence against me is terrible: I told everyone I would kill him, and then suddenly he is killed — so how could it not be me in such a case?
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'you see, after all'. It softens Mitya's admission into something he and his listeners both already grasp, a hallmark of his confiding, headlong speech.
> «улика» — a piece of evidence: An «улика» is specifically incriminating evidence, a clue pointing to guilt (not neutral «доказательство»). «Улики страшные» — terrible evidence — with the adjective placed after the noun for spoken emphasis.
> Aspect: «убью» vs «убили»: Both forms are perfective «убить»: «убью» is perfective future ('I will kill [him dead]'), «убили» perfective past ('they killed him'). The pair makes Mitya's grim logic — threat fulfilled — turn on the same completed-act verb.
> Insistent «же» in «как же»: «Как же» — 'how then, how indeed' — uses the particle «же» to press the rhetorical question. The elliptical «как же не я?» ('how then could it not be me?') has no verb, the «я» alone carrying the predication.

Ха-ха!  
Ha-ha!

Я вас извиняю, господа, вполне извиняю.  
I forgive you, gentlemen, I forgive you entirely.
> Imperfective for the bare act: «Извиняю» is imperfective present ('I forgive / I excuse you'), repeated with «вполне» (entirely). The imperfective here states the act flatly and fully, without the resultative 'once and for all' colour a perfective «извиню» would add.

Я ведь и сам поражен до эпидермы, потому что кто ж его убил, наконец, в таком случае, если не я?  
For I myself am struck to the very skin, because who, after all, could have killed him in such a case, if not I?
> Mock-learned «до эпидермы»: «Эпидерма» (epidermis) is a Latinate medical word Mitya tosses in for 'to the very skin' — a comic, self-dramatising flourish typical of his half-educated, theatrical eloquence under pressure. The native idiom would be «до глубины души» (to the depths of the soul).
> Intensive «сам» + short participle: «Сам» ('[my]self') intensifies the subject — 'I myself am struck'. «Поражён» is a short passive participle in predicate use, stating Mitya's resulting state of shock rather than naming an agent.
> «ж» as clipped «же»: «Ж» is the reduced spoken form of the particle «же», fused onto «кто» to give the question urgency: 'who on earth killed him?' Dostoevsky writes the spoken contraction to catch Mitya's breathless delivery.

Ведь не правда ли?  
Isn't that so?
> Tag question «не правда ли?» with «ведь»: «Не правда ли?» is the standard tag — 'isn't that so?' — and «ли» here is the interrogative particle seeking agreement. Opening «ведь» piles on the appeal to the hearer: 'after all, isn't it true?'

Если не я, так кто же, кто же?  
If not I, then who else, who else?
> «если… так…» and emphatic «кто же»: Colloquial «так» here answers «если» like 'then' ('if not I, then who'). The doubled «кто же, кто же?» drives the question home with the particle «же», a rhetorical structure Dostoevsky loves for a cornered, insistent voice.

Господа, — вдруг воскликнул он, — я хочу знать, я даже требую от вас, господа: где он убит?  
Gentlemen," he suddenly exclaimed, "I want to know, I even demand it of you, gentlemen: where was he killed?
> Perfective «воскликнуть» — exclaimed: «Воскликнул» is perfective past of «воскликнуть» (to exclaim, cry out): a single, punctual outburst that moves the scene forward, against the imperfective background of the dialogue.
> «требовать от» + genitive: «Требовать» (to demand) governs the person demanded-from with «от» + genitive: «от вас» ('of you'). The preposition «от» always takes the genitive, fixing the source of the demand.
> Short passive participle «убит»: «Убит» is the short form of the past passive participle «убитый» (killed), used predicatively: 'where was he killed?' The short participle states the result as a fact, the standard way to build a Russian passive of result.

Как он убит, чем и как?  
How was he killed, with what, and how?
> Instrumental «чем» — with what: «Чем» is the instrumental of «что», asking 'with what [instrument]?' — the case of means and tool. Mitya wants to know the murder weapon, and Russian marks that 'with-what' purely by case, no preposition.

Скажите мне, — быстро спросил он, обводя прокурора и следователя глазами.  
Tell me," he asked quickly, running his eyes over the prosecutor and the investigator.
> Imperfective gerund «обводя»: «Обводя» is the present (imperfective) деепричастие of «обводить» — 'running [his eyes] over', an action simultaneous with «спросил». The gerund shares Mitya's subject and economically layers a second, attendant action onto the main verb.
> Instrumental of means «глазами»: «Глазами» (with [his] eyes) is instrumental, the means by which he 'runs over' the two men. Russian routinely puts the body part or instrument of such verbs in the instrumental.

— Мы нашли его лежащим на полу, навзничь, в своем кабинете, с проломленною головой, — проговорил прокурор.  
— We found him lying on the floor, on his back, in his study, his skull battered in," said the prosecutor.
> Participle «лежащим» as object complement: «Лежащим» is the present active participle of «лежать» (lying), in the instrumental to agree as a secondary predicate after «нашли его» — 'found him [in a state of] lying'. This participle-in-the-instrumental complement is a bookish, precise touch of the prosecutor's speech.
> «навзничь» — flat on the back: An adverb meaning 'on his back, face up' (its opposite is «ничком», face down). A single dense word doing what English needs a phrase for; here it pins the grim posture of the corpse.
> «проломленный» — with skull battered in: Past passive participle of «проломить» (to break/stave in): 'with his skull broken open'. Note the bookish long-form instrumental ending «-ою» (= modern «-ой»), an archaic flavour typical of 19th-century prose.
> «кабинет» — the study: Here «кабинет» is the private study or office of the house — Fyodor Pavlovich's own room — not a 'cabinet' in the English political or furniture sense. A common false friend.

— Страшно это, господа!  
— This is terrible, gentlemen!
> Short neuter «страшно» as predicate: «Страшно» is the short/adverbial neuter form used predicatively — 'this is terrible/frightful'. Russian states such impersonal evaluations with the bare neuter predicative, here fronted for emotional weight before «это».

— вздрогнул вдруг Митя и, облокотившись на стол, закрыл лицо правою рукой.  
— Mitya shuddered suddenly and, propping himself on the table with his elbow, covered his face with his right hand.
> Chain of perfectives: «Вздрогнул» (gave a shudder) and «закрыл» (covered) are both perfective pasts — instantaneous, completed gestures strung in sequence. The perfective chain renders Mitya's quick, punctual reaction.
> Past gerund «облокотившись»: «Облокотившись» is a perfective past деепричастие in -вшись of the reflexive «облокотиться» (to lean on one's elbow): 'having propped himself [on the table]', a completed action just prior to «закрыл лицо».
> Instrumental of means «рукой»: «Рукой» (with [his] hand) is instrumental — the means of covering the face. The archaic long ending «правою» (= «правой») matches the elevated narration; «правая рука» is the right hand.

— Мы будем продолжать, — прервал Николай Парфенович.  
— We shall continue," interrupted Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Compound future «будем продолжать»: The imperfective future: «будем» (we shall be) + the imperfective infinitive «продолжать» (to continue). It names an ongoing resumption — 'we shall go on' — rather than a single completed act.

— Итак, что же тогда руководило вас в ваших чувствах ненависти?  
— So then, what was it that guided you in these feelings of hatred?
> Period syntax «руководить» + accusative: Modern Russian has «руководить» govern the instrumental, but the 19th-century construction here takes the accusative «вас» — 'what guided you'. This older government is a small but telling archaism of the period.
> Genitive «ненависти» qualifying a noun: «Чувствах ненависти» — 'feelings of hatred' — uses the genitive «ненависти» (of hatred) to specify the feelings, the genitive's basic 'of' relation between two nouns.

Вы, кажется, заявляли публично, что чувство ревности?  
You declared publicly, it seems, that it was a feeling of jealousy?
> «что» introducing reported content: Subordinating «что» (that) opens the reported claim — 'declared… that it was a feeling of jealousy'. The bare nominative «чувство ревности», with no copula, supplies the zero-copula predicate of the embedded statement.

— Ну да, ревность, и не одна только ревность.  
— Well, yes, jealousy, and not jealousy alone.
> «не… только» — not only: «Не одна только ревность» — 'not jealousy alone'. «Не» negates, «одна только» ('one only / merely') is the scalar focus, together meaning 'not just jealousy [but more besides]'.

— Споры из-за денег?  
— Disputes over money?
> «из-за» + genitive — because of / over: The compound preposition «из-за» governs the genitive «денег» (money) and here means 'over, on account of' — 'disputes over money'. «Деньги» is a plurale tantum whose genitive is «денег».

— Ну да, и из-за денег.  
— Well, yes, over money too.

— Кажется, спор был в трех тысячах, будто бы недоданных вам по наследству.  
— The quarrel, it seems, concerned three thousand, supposedly owed to you and withheld from your inheritance.
> Numeral phrase declined in the prepositional: «В трёх тысячах» — 'about/concerning three thousand'. After «в» the whole numeral phrase declines into the prepositional: «трёх» (of три) and «тысячах» both take prepositional endings. The number governs «тысяча», and the preposition then governs the number.
> «будто бы» — supposedly: «Будто бы» (as if, supposedly) flags the claim as reported and not vouched for by the speaker — the investigator's careful distancing. The participle «недоданных» (under-paid, withheld) is a past passive participle in the genitive agreeing with «тысячах».

— Какое трех!  
— What do you mean, three!
> Dismissive exclamatory «какое!»: «Какое!» here is not a question but an indignant brush-off — 'what three! / three nothing!' The neuter «какое» idiomatically rejects the figure just quoted, a vivid spoken-Russian gesture of denial.

Больше, больше, — вскинулся Митя, — больше шести, больше десяти может быть.  
More, more," Mitya flared up, "more than six, more than ten, perhaps.
> «вскинуться» — to flare up: A perfective -ся verb meaning to start up suddenly, fly out, bristle — 'flared up'. The -ся and the prefix «вс-» (sharply upward) give the sense of a quick, jerking emotional eruption fitting Mitya.
> «больше» + genitive of the numeral: Comparative «больше» (more than) governs the genitive, so the numerals appear as «шести» and «десяти» (genitive of шесть, десять). 'More than six, more than ten' — quantity compared via the genitive.

Я всем говорил, всем кричал!  
I told everyone, I shouted it to everyone!
> Imperfective for repeated shouting: Both «говорил» and «кричал» are imperfective past — 'I kept telling, kept shouting'. The imperfective conveys the habitual, repeated broadcasting of his grievance, with «всем» (to everyone, dative) the indiscriminate audience.

Но я решился, уж так и быть, помириться на трех тысячах.  
But I resolved — so be it — to settle for three thousand.
> Idiom «так и быть» — so be it: «(Уж) так и быть» is a fixed resigned concession — 'oh, all right then; so be it' — used when one grudgingly agrees to settle. «Уж» adds the weary, final note of giving in.
> Perfective resolve «решился помириться»: «Решился» (perfective, made up his mind) + the perfective infinitive «помириться» (to make peace, settle) — a single resolved decision. The reflexive -ся on «помириться» gives the reciprocal 'come to terms' sense.

Мне до зарезу нужны были эти три тысячи… так что тот пакет с тремя тысячами, который, я знал, у него под подушкой, приготовленный для Грушеньки, я считал решительно как бы у меня украденным, вот что, господа, считал своим, всё равно как моею собственностью…  
I needed those three thousand desperately… so that that packet with the three thousand in it, which I knew was under his pillow, made ready for Grushenka, I counted as good as stolen from me — that is the thing, gentlemen — I counted it as my own, exactly as if it were my own property…
> Idiom «до зарезу» — desperately: «До зарезу нужны» means 'needed to the point of being cut/slaughtered' — i.e. desperately, badly, vitally. A vivid colloquial idiom: the money was needed as if his life depended on it.
> Instrumental predicates after «считал»: «Считать» (to consider X [as] Y) puts the predicate Y in the instrumental: «украденным» (stolen), «своим» (one's own), «собственностью» (property). The string of instrumentals shows Mitya reclassifying the money as already his.
> Hedging «как бы»: «Как бы» ('as if, as it were') hedges each claim — 'as good as stolen', 'as if it were my own'. Mitya half-acknowledges the legal fiction even as he insists on it, and the repeated «как бы» marks his uneasy self-justification.

Прокурор значительно переглянулся со следователем и успел незаметно мигнуть ему.  
The prosecutor exchanged a meaningful glance with the investigator and managed to wink at him unnoticed.
> Reciprocal -ся + «с» instrumental: «Переглянуться с кем-то» (to exchange a glance with someone) is a reciprocal -ся verb; the partner stands after «с» (with) in the instrumental — «со следователем». The mutual glance is built into the verb's reflexive form.
> «успеть» + perfective infinitive: «Успеть» (to manage / have time to) takes a perfective infinitive «мигнуть» (to wink, once): 'managed to wink'. The pairing stresses a single, completed action accomplished just in time and unnoticed («незаметно»).

— Мы к этому предмету еще возвратимся, — проговорил тотчас следователь, — вы же позволите нам теперь отметить и записать именно этот пунктик: что вы считали эти деньги, в том конверте, как бы за свою собственность.  
— We shall return to this matter later," the investigator said at once, "but for now you will permit us to note and record precisely this point: that you considered this money, in that envelope, as if it were your own property.
> Polite «же» softening a request: «Вы же позволите нам» — 'you will, of course, permit us' — where «же» lends a coaxing, taken-for-granted tone. «Позволите» is perfective future used as a courteous near-imperative.
> Diminutive «пунктик»: «Пунктик» is the diminutive of «пункт» (point, item) — 'this little point'. The -ик suffix here is faintly bureaucratic and ingratiating, the investigator making the damaging admission sound like a trivial formality.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «Свою собственность» — 'one's own property', where «свой» points back to the clause's subject (Mitya). The investigator quotes Mitya's own framing precisely, and «свой» (not «его») is what locks the ownership to Mitya himself.

— Пишите, господа, я ведь понимаю же, что это опять-таки на меня улика, но я не боюсь улик и сам говорю на себя.  
— Write it down, gentlemen, for I understand quite well that this too is evidence against me, but I am not afraid of evidence and testify against myself.
> Imperative «пишите»: «Пишите!» is the plural/polite imperative of imperfective «писать» — 'write [it down]!'. The imperfective imperative invites them to get on with the ongoing act of recording, a shade more inviting than a perfective «запишите».
> Doubled particles «ведь… же»: Mitya stacks «ведь» (after all) and «же» (insistent) in one clause for maximum spoken emphasis — 'why, I do understand'. Such particle clusters are pure texture of excited, sincere speech.
> Emphatic «опять-таки»: «Опять-таки» — 'yet again, once more (you see)' — where the clitic «-таки» reinforces «опять» with a note of 'even so'. It flags that this is, once more, evidence stacking against him.
> «сам» and reflexive «на себя»: «Сам» ('myself, of my own accord') plus «на себя» ('against myself', the reflexive pronoun себя after на) — Mitya stresses that he testifies against his own self voluntarily. «Себя» has no nominative and points back to the subject.

Слышите, сам!  
Do you hear — against myself!
> Elliptical emphatic «сам»: The whole exclamation is the bare intensifier «сам!» ('against myself — myself!'), the verb left out and the single word carrying all the force. Mitya seizes on his own self-incrimination as proof of his honesty.

Видите, господа, вы, кажется, принимаете меня совсем за иного человека, чем я есть, — прибавил он вдруг мрачно и грустно.  
You see, gentlemen, you seem to take me for an altogether different man than I am," he added suddenly, gloomy and sorrowful.
> «принимать за» — to take for: «Принимать кого-то за кого-то» means 'to take someone for [someone else]'; the second person follows «за» in the accusative — «за иного человека» (for a different man). The archaic «чем я есть» ('than I am') uses the rare overt copula «есть».
> Bookish «иной» — other, different: «Иной» (other, a different one) is a more literary, elevated synonym of «другой». «Совсем за иного человека» — 'for an altogether different man' — lends Mitya's complaint a touch of formal pathos.
> Adverbs of manner «мрачно и грустно»: «Мрачно и грустно» (gloomily and sorrowfully) are adverbs modifying how «прибавил» (he added). The neuter -о adverbial forms describe the emotional manner of the speech, a frequent Dostoevskian way of coloring dialogue tags.

— С вами говорит благородный человек, благороднейшее лицо, главное — этого не упускайте из виду — человек, наделавший бездну подлостей, но всегда бывший и остававшийся благороднейшим существом, как существо, внутри, в глубине, ну, одним словом, я не умею выразиться…  
— The man speaking to you is an honorable man, a most honorable being — and this is the chief thing, do not lose sight of it — a man who has done a whole abyss of vile things, but who has always been and remained a most honorable being, as a being, within, in his depths — well, in a word, I cannot express myself…
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «Благороднейший» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «благородный» (noble, honorable) formed with «-ейш-»: 'a most noble [person/being]'. This elevated superlative, repeated, raises Mitya's self-defense to almost solemn pitch.
> «лицо» — a person, a 'figure': Beyond 'face', «лицо» means a person regarded formally — an individual, a personage. «Благороднейшее лицо» here = 'a most honorable individual/being', a slightly official, weighty word.
> «бездна подлостей» — an abyss of vile deeds: «Бездна» (abyss, chasm) is used hyperbolically for 'a vast amount', and «подлость» is a base, mean, despicable act. «Наделавший бездну подлостей» — 'who has done a whole abyss of vile things' — is vintage Karamazov self-flagellation.
> Chain of past active participles: Three past active participles in «-вший» — «наделавший» (having done), «бывший» (having been), «остававшийся» (having remained) — pile up to describe the one «человек». Such participial chains, condensing several который-clauses, are a signature of dense literary Russian.

Именно тем-то и мучился всю жизнь, что жаждал благородства, был, так сказать, страдальцем благородства и искателем его с фонарем, с Диогеновым фонарем, а между тем всю жизнь делал одни только пакости, как и все мы, господа… то есть, как я один, господа, не все, а я один, я ошибся, один, один!..  
It is precisely this that has tormented me all my life, that I thirsted for honor, was, so to speak, a martyr to honor and a seeker of it with a lantern, with Diogenes' lantern, and yet all my life I did nothing but base things, like all of us, gentlemen… that is, like me alone, gentlemen, not all — I alone, I was mistaken — alone, alone!..
> «страдалец» — a martyr, sufferer: A «страдалец» is one who suffers, a martyr — religiously tinged. «Страдалец благородства», 'a martyr to honor' (genitive «благородства»), casts Mitya's longing for nobility as a kind of passion endured.
> «пакость» — a dirty, nasty trick: «Пакость» is a mean, dirty, shabby act — petty filth rather than grand sin. «Делал одни только пакости» — 'did nothing but base/dirty things' — a deliberately self-debasing word against the lofty «благородство».
> Emphatic «тем-то» + reflexive «мучился»: «Тем-то» (instrumental «тем» of тот + the clitic «-то») foregrounds the cause — 'it is precisely by this that I was tormented'. «Мучился» is the reflexive «мучиться» (to be tormented, suffer), the -ся turning the verb inward on the subject.

Господа, у меня голова болит, — страдальчески поморщился он, — видите, господа, мне не нравилась его наружность, что-то бесчестное, похвальба и попирание всякой святыни, насмешка и безверие, гадко, гадко!  
Gentlemen, my head aches," he grimaced in suffering, "you see, gentlemen, I did not like the look of him, there was something dishonorable in it, boastfulness and the trampling of every sacred thing, mockery and unbelief — loathsome, loathsome!
> Possessor «у меня» for body states: Russian says 'with me the head aches' — «у меня голова болит» — using «у» + genitive «меня» for the possessor of an aching body part, with «голова» the nominative subject of «болит». The English 'my head aches' restructures this entirely.
> Dative experiencer with «нравиться»: «Нравиться» (to please) takes the one who likes in the dative «мне» and the thing liked as nominative subject «наружность» — literally 'his appearance was not pleasing to me'. Under negation it reads 'I did not like'. A core dative-experiencer pattern.
> Charged moral-religious vocabulary: Mitya's catalogue of Fyodor's repellence is steeped in religious language: «святыня» (a sacred/holy thing), «попирание» (a trampling-under-foot, a bookish verbal noun), and «безверие» (unbelief, godlessness). The 'trampling of every holy thing' frames the father's cynicism as sacrilege.
> «гадко» — loathsome: «Гадко» (from «гадкий», vile, disgusting; cf. «гад», a reptile/vermin) is an adverbial-predicative 'it is loathsome'. The doubling — «гадко, гадко!» — is Mitya's visceral recoil, repetition standing in for intensity.

Но теперь, когда уж он умер, я думаю иначе.  
But now that he is dead, I think otherwise.
> «когда» clause and finalizing «уж»: «Когда» (now that / when) opens the temporal clause; «уж» (= «уже», already) marks the death as an accomplished fact that has changed everything. «Умер» is perfective past — the completed event behind Mitya's new feeling.

— Как это иначе?  
— How otherwise?

— Не иначе, но я жалею, что так его ненавидел.  
— Not otherwise, but I am sorry that I hated him so.
> «жалеть, что…» — to be sorry that: «Жалею, что…» introduces the cause of regret with «что» (that): 'I am sorry that I hated him so'. «Ненавидел» is imperfective past — the sustained, ongoing state of hatred he now regrets.

— Чувствуете раскаяние?  
— Do you feel remorse?
> «раскаяние» — repentance: «Раскаяние» is repentance, contrition — a word with strong moral-religious weight, the inner turning the novel everywhere probes. The magistrate's clinical question 'do you feel repentance?' invites exactly the confession Mitya then declines to give.

— Нет, не то чтобы раскаяние, этого не записывайте.  
— No, not exactly remorse — don't write that down.
> Hedge «не то чтобы»: «Не то чтобы…» is a fixed hedging frame — 'not exactly / not that it's…'. Mitya half-rejects the word «раскаяние», qualifying rather than denying outright, a finely calibrated spoken evasion.
> Negated imperative + genitive object: «Не записывайте» is a negative imperfective imperative ('don't write down'), and its object appears in the genitive «этого» (of this) — the genitive of negation typical with negated verbs and a pronoun object.

Сам-то я нехорош, господа, вот что, сам-то я не очень красив, а потому права не имел и его считать отвратительным, вот что!  
I myself am no good, gentlemen, that's the thing, I myself am not very handsome, and therefore I had no right to consider him repulsive either — that's the thing!
> Topic clitic «-то» on «сам»: The clitic «-то» on «сам» ('I, for my part / as for myself') flags Mitya himself as the contrastive topic — 'I'm no great prize myself'. Short predicative adjectives «нехорош» and «красив» state his self-assessment bluntly.
> Genitive of negation «права»: Again «не имел права» — 'had no right' — with «право» in the genitive «права» under the negated «иметь». Word order fronts «права» before «не имел» for emphasis, the case still signalling the negation.
> Instrumental predicate «отвратительным»: «Считать его отвратительным» — 'to consider him repulsive' — puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental «отвратительным», the case Russian uses for the second term of «считать кого-то кем/каким».

Это, пожалуй, запишите.  
That, perhaps, you may write down.
> Hedging particle «пожалуй» + imperative: «Пожалуй» means 'perhaps, I suppose, if you like' — a mild concessive hedge. With the perfective imperative «запишите» ('write [this] down') it grants permission half-willingly: 'that, perhaps, you may record'.

Проговорив это, Митя стал вдруг чрезвычайно грустен.  
Having said this, Mitya suddenly grew exceedingly sorrowful.
> Past gerund «проговорив»: «Проговорив это» — 'having said this' — is a perfective past деепричастие in «-в», naming the completed action just before «стал… грустен». It shares Mitya's subject and frames the sequence in one tight clause.
> «стать» + short adjective: «Стал… грустен» — 'grew sorrowful' — pairs the perfective «стать» (to become) with the short adjective «грустен», which states the new resulting state. The short form, predicative only, is the bookish choice here.

Уже давно постепенно с ответами на вопросы следователя он становился всё мрачнее и мрачнее.  
For a long while now, gradually, as he answered the investigator's questions, he had been growing gloomier and gloomier.
> «всё» + repeated comparative: «Всё мрачнее и мрачнее» — 'gloomier and gloomier' — uses «всё» before a comparative to mean 'progressively more', and doubles the comparative «мрачнее» for the sense of a steady, deepening change. «Становился» is imperfective, the process unfolding over time.
> «с» + instrumental marking accompaniment in time: «С ответами» here means 'as/along with [his] answers' — the preposition «с» governs the instrumental «ответами» to mark concurrent progression, woven with «постепенно» (gradually).

И вдруг как раз в это мгновение разразилась опять неожиданная сцена.  
And suddenly, at just that moment, an unexpected scene broke out once more.
> «разразиться» — to break out, burst forth: A vivid perfective -ся verb used of storms and outbursts ('разразилась гроза' — a storm broke). «Разразилась… сцена» — 'a scene broke out' — lends the sudden disturbance the force of a thunderclap.
> «как раз» — at just [this moment]: «Как раз» means 'exactly, precisely, just'; «как раз в это мгновение» pins the timing — 'at just that very instant'. A common adverbial intensifier of coincidence.

Дело в том, что Грушеньку хоть давеча и удалили, но увели не очень далеко, всего только в третью комнату от той голубой комнаты, в которой происходил теперь допрос.  
The point was that, although Grushenka had been removed earlier, she had not been led far away — only as far as the third room from that blue room in which the interrogation was now taking place.
> Concessive «хоть… и… но»: «Хоть… и… но…» frames the concession — 'although she had been removed earlier, still they had led her only…'. The impersonal third-person plurals «удалили» and «увели» (they removed / led away) leave the agent unnamed, a common Russian way to render an English passive.
> «давеча» — a little while ago: «Давеча» is a folksy, now-archaic adverb meaning 'earlier today, a little while back'. Its homely register colours the narration with the everyday speech of the provincial setting.
> «допрос» — the interrogation: «Допрос» is a formal interrogation or examination of a suspect or witness — the legal procedure now underway. The whole chapter is structured as Mitya's «допрос», his 'ordeal' before prosecutor and magistrate.

Это была маленькая комнатка в одно окно, сейчас за тою большою комнатой, в которой ночью танцевали и шел пир горой.  
It was a little room with a single window, just beyond that large room in which they had danced in the night and the feast had gone on in full swing.
> Diminutive «комнатка»: «Комнатка» is the diminutive of «комната» (room) — 'a little room'. The -ка suffix conveys smallness with a touch of homely intimacy, suiting the cramped 'one-window' space.
> Idiom «пир горой»: «Пир горой» — literally 'a feast [piled] in a mountain' — is a set idiom for a lavish, riotous banquet in full swing. With «шёл» (went on) it recalls the wild revelry of the night before at Mokroye.

Там сидела она, а с ней пока один только Максимов, ужасно пораженный, ужасно струсивший и к ней прилепившийся, как бы ища около нее спасения.  
There she sat, and with her, so far, only Maximov, terribly shaken, terribly frightened and clinging to her, as though seeking his salvation beside her.
> Stacked past active participles: Three participles describe Maximov: «пораженный» (struck/shaken), «струсивший» (having lost his nerve), «прилепившийся» (having clung). Two are past active participles in «-вший/-ший», compressing several clauses about him into one richly modified phrase.
> «струсить» — to lose one's nerve: From «трус» (a coward), «струсить» means to take fright, to chicken out. «Струсивший» — 'having grown frightened/cowardly' — paints the timid Maximov clinging to Grushenka for safety, half comic, half pathetic.
> Gerund «ища» + «как бы»: «Ища» is the present (imperfective) деепричастие of «искать» (to seek): 'as if seeking salvation beside her', simultaneous with his clinging. «Как бы» hedges it to 'as though', and «спасения» is the genitive object «искать» often governs.

У ихней двери стоял какой-то мужик с бляхой на груди.  
At their door stood some peasant with a badge on his chest.
> Non-standard «ихней» for «их»: «Ихний» (here «ихней», genitive) is a colloquial, substandard possessive 'their' in place of the invariable literary «их». Dostoevsky lets it slip into the narrative voice to catch a folk, lower-class coloring around the peasant guard.

Грушенька плакала, и вот вдруг, когда горе уж слишком подступило к душе ее, она вскочила, всплеснула руками и, прокричав громким воплем: «Горе мое, горе!», бросилась вон из комнаты к нему, к своему Мите, и так неожиданно, что ее никто не успел остановить.  
Grushenka was weeping, and then suddenly, when grief had pressed too hard upon her soul, she sprang up, threw up her hands and, crying aloud in a loud wail, "My grief, my grief!", rushed out of the room toward him, toward her Mitya, and so unexpectedly that no one had time to stop her.
> «подступить к» + dative: «Подступить к чему-то» (to come up close to, press upon) governs «к» + dative «душе» — 'when grief had pressed too close to her soul'. The prefixed perfective «подступило» marks the completed onset that triggers her cry.
> Perfective chain of sudden acts: A rapid string of perfective pasts — «вскочила» (sprang up), «всплеснула» (threw up [her hands]), «бросилась» (rushed) — each a single completed motion. The perfectives fire off Grushenka's burst of action one after another.
> Idiom «всплеснуть руками»: «Всплеснуть руками» is the characteristic Russian gesture of throwing up one's hands and clasping them in grief or astonishment. «Руками» is instrumental (with [her] hands). The phrase instantly signals a folk lament.
> Folk lament «Горе мое, горе!»: Grushenka's cry 'My grief, my grief!' echoes the cadence of traditional Russian keening (причитание) over the dead. «Горе» (grief, woe) repeated in this vocative-like apostrophe gives her outburst the ring of peasant lament.
> Diminutive + «свой» in apposition: «К своему Мите» — 'to her [own] Mitya' — uses the reflexive possessive «свой» (belonging to the clause subject, Grushenka) plus the affectionate diminutive «Митя» of Дмитрий. Together they wrap the rush toward him in tenderness.

Митя же, заслышав вопль ее, так и задрожал, вскочил, завопил и стремглав бросился к ней навстречу, как бы не помня себя.  
And Mitya, hearing her wail, trembled all over, sprang up, gave a shout, and dashed headlong to meet her, as if beside himself.
> Past gerund «заслышав»: «Заслышав» — 'on catching the sound of, having heard' — is a perfective past деепричастие of «заслышать», the prefix «за-» giving the sense of the first moment of hearing. It marks the instant cause of all the verbs that follow.
> «стремглав» — headlong: «Стремглав» is a vivid bookish adverb meaning 'headlong, at breakneck speed' (from an old root for 'rushing head-first'). «Стремглав бросился» — 'dashed headlong' — gives Mitya's lunge its reckless velocity.
> Idiom «не помня себя»: «Не помнить себя» — literally 'not remembering oneself' — means to be beside oneself, out of one's wits with emotion. «Помня» is the gerund of «помнить»; «как бы… не помня себя» = 'as if beside himself'. «Себя» is the reflexive pronoun.

Но им опять сойтись не дали, хотя они уже увидели друг друга.  
But again they were not allowed to come together, though they had already caught sight of each other.
> Impersonal «не дали» + dative: «Им… не дали сойтись» — 'they were not allowed to come together' — is an agentless third-person plural ('they didn't let'), with the prevented persons in the dative «им». «Дать» + infinitive means 'let/allow', here negated. A natural Russian rendering of the English passive.
> Reciprocal «друг друга»: «Друг друга» ('each other') is the reciprocal pronoun: the first «друг» is frozen, the second declines for case (here accusative). «Увидели друг друга» — 'caught sight of each other', the concession «хотя» introduces.

Его крепко схватили за руки: он бился, рвался, понадобилось троих или четверых, чтобы удержать его.  
They seized him firmly by the arms: he struggled and tore at them, and it took three or four men to hold him back.
> «схватить за» + accusative body part: «Схватить кого-то за руки» — to seize someone by the arms — names the person as direct object «его» and the gripped part after «за» in the accusative «руки». Russian regularly marks the grasped body part this way.
> Animate genitive after the numeral: «Троих или четверых» are the animate accusative/genitive forms of three and four (referring to men): with animate beings the numeral takes these special forms. The impersonal «понадобилось» ('it took, was needed') governs them.
> Imperfective reflexives of struggle: «Бился» (struggled, thrashed) and «рвался» (tore/strained to break free) are imperfective -ся verbs in the past — the ongoing, durative effort of resistance against the perfective grip of «схватили».

Схватили и ее, и он видел, как она с криком простирала к нему руки, когда ее увлекали.  
They seized her too, and he saw how she stretched out her arms to him with a cry as she was dragged away.
> «видел, как…» — saw how/that: Russian renders 'saw her stretching out her arms' as «видел, как она простирала руки» — 'saw how she was stretching out her arms', with «как» introducing the perceived action and the imperfective «простирала» giving its ongoing nature.
> «простирать» — to stretch forth: «Простирать руки» (to stretch out, hold forth one's arms) is a somewhat elevated, almost liturgical verb of supplication or yearning. It lends Grushenka's gesture as she is «увлекали» (dragged off) a note of imploring pathos.

Когда кончилась сцена, он опомнился опять на прежнем месте, за столом, против следователя, и выкрикивал, обращаясь к ним:  
When the scene was over, he came to himself again in his former place, at the table, opposite the investigator, and he was crying out, turning to them:
> «опомниться» — to come to one's senses: «Опомнился» is a perfective -ся verb: 'he came to himself / recovered his wits'. The -ся turns the action inward, and the perfective marks the single moment of regaining awareness «на прежнем месте» (in his former place).
> Gerund «обращаясь» + «к» dative: «Обращаясь к ним» — 'turning to them' — is the present gerund of «обращаться» (to turn/address oneself), simultaneous with «выкрикивал». «Обращаться к кому-то» governs «к» + dative «ним».
> Imperfective «выкрикивал»: «Выкрикивал» is imperfective past — 'was crying out, kept shouting out' — durative and repeated, the background against which the sudden scene had just played out. Contrast the perfective «выкрикнуть» (to shout out once).

— Что вам в ней?  
— What is she to you?
> Idiomatic dative «что вам в ней?»: An elliptical idiom — literally 'what [is] to you in her?' — meaning 'what do you want with her? what is she to you?'. «Вам» is dative (to you), «в ней» prepositional (in her), and the verb 'is' is omitted entirely.

Зачем вы ее мучаете?  
Why do you torment her?
> Imperfective «мучить» — to torment: «Мучаете» (you torment) is imperfective present — the continuing, repeated cruelty Mitya accuses them of. Note the active «мучить» here, versus the reflexive «мучиться» (to be tormented) he used of himself earlier.

Она невинна, невинна!..  
She is innocent, innocent!..
> Short adjective «невинна»: «Невинна» is the short feminine form of «невинный» (innocent), used predicatively — 'she is innocent'. The short form, doubled for emphasis, asserts the state absolutely, a more emphatic and bookish choice than the long «невинная».

Его уговаривали прокурор и следователь.  
The prosecutor and the investigator tried to calm him.
> Imperfective «уговаривать» — tried to persuade: «Уговаривали» is imperfective past, and here carries the 'conative' sense of an attempt — 'were trying to calm/talk him round'. The imperfective leaves the outcome open, where perfective «уговорили» would mean they succeeded.

Так прошло некоторое время, минут десять; наконец в комнату поспешно вошел отлучившийся было Михаил Макарович и громко, в возбуждении, проговорил прокурору:  
Some time passed in this way, about ten minutes; at last Mikhail Makarovich, who had been absent, came hurrying into the room and said aloud to the prosecutor, in agitation:
> Approximation by inversion «минут десять»: Reversing noun and numeral — «минут десять» instead of «десять минут» — signals approximation: 'about ten minutes'. The noun «минут» stays in the genitive plural the numeral demands; only the word order changes the meaning to 'roughly'.
> Past participle + the particle «было»: «Отлучившийся» is a past active participle ('who had stepped away') modifying Mikhail Makarovich; the particle «было» signals an action begun or completed but then reversed — he had absented himself but has now returned. This «было» of the interrupted/undone action is a distinctly literary touch.

— Она удалена, она внизу, не позволите ли мне сказать, господа, всего одно слово этому несчастному человеку?  
— She has been taken away, she is downstairs — will you not allow me, gentlemen, to say just one word to this unhappy man?
> Short passive participle «удалена»: «Удалена» is the short feminine past passive participle of «удалить» (to remove): 'she has been taken away'. With an implied «была/есть» this short participle builds the resultative passive — the standard Russian way to state 'X has been done'.
> Polite request «не… ли»: «Не позволите ли мне…?» — 'will you not allow me…?' — combines negation «не», the interrogative particle «ли», and a perfective future to make a deferential request. This «не… ли?» pattern is the courteous, tentative way to ask permission.
> «несчастный» — unhappy, wretched: «Несчастный» means unfortunate, wretched, poor — pitying rather than merely 'unhappy'. The captain's choice of «несчастный человек» for the accused Mitya quietly reveals his sympathy, the warmth that prompts his plea.

При вас, господа, при вас!  
In your presence, gentlemen, in your presence!
> «при» + prepositional: The preposition «при» governs the prepositional case (here «вас»), expressing 'in the presence of' / 'in the time of'. The phrase «при вас» means 'in your presence', with the police captain insisting he speak openly before the officials.

— Сделайте милость, Михаил Макарович, — ответил следователь, — в настоящем случае мы не имеем ничего сказать против.  
— By all means, Mikhail Makarovich," the investigator answered, "in the present case we have nothing to say against it.
> «сделайте милость» — 'be so kind': A polite, slightly old-fashioned formula of assent, literally 'do (me) the kindness'. «милость» (favour, mercy, grace) gives it a courtly, deferential warmth typical of period speech.
> Negative concord with «ничего»: Russian requires double negation: the verb keeps «не» even though «ничего» ('nothing') is already negative — literally 'we do not have nothing to say against'. The genitive «ничего» is the standard negated form of «что».

— Дмитрий Федорович, слушай, батюшка, — начал, обращаясь к Мите, Михаил Макарович, и всё взволнованное лицо его выражало горячее отеческое почти сострадание к несчастному, — я твою Аграфену Александровну отвел вниз сам и передал хозяйским дочерям, и с ней там теперь безотлучно этот старичок Максимов, и я ее уговорил, слышь ты?  
— Dmitri Fyodorovich, listen, my dear fellow," Mikhail Makarovich began, turning to Mitya, his whole agitated face expressing an ardent, almost fatherly compassion for the unhappy man, "I took your Agrafena Alexandrovna downstairs myself and handed her over to the landlord's daughters, and that little old man Maximov is with her there now, never leaving her side, and I talked her round — do you hear me?
> «батюшка» — affectionate 'my dear fellow': Literally 'little father' (a diminutive of «батя»), but here used as a warm, fatherly form of address to a younger man, not a kinship term. The same word also titles an Orthodox priest; tone decides the sense.
> Imperfective gerund «обращаясь»: «обращаясь» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие in -я, marking an action simultaneous with the main verb «начал» — 'turning to Mitya, he began'. It shares the main clause's subject and is a hallmark of literary narration.
> «старичок» — the affectionate 'little old man': A diminutive of «старик» with the suffix -ок, conveying tender, slightly amused warmth toward old Maximov rather than mere smallness. English 'that little old man' catches the affectionate tinge.
> «слышь ты» — colloquial 'd'you hear': «слышь» is a contracted, folksy form of «слышишь» ('you hear'), used as a buttonholing tag in speech. With «ты» it underscores the captain's plain, intimate, almost peasant manner of talking to Mitya.

— уговорил и успокоил, внушил, что тебе надо же оправдаться, так чтоб она не мешала, чтоб не нагоняла на тебя тоски, не то ты можешь смутиться и на себя неправильно показать, понимаешь?  
— I talked her round and calmed her, I impressed on her that you have to clear yourself, so that she should not get in the way, should not bring despondency down on you, or else you might grow flustered and testify wrongly against yourself — do you understand?
> Dative subject of necessity: «надо» (must, one has to) is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject; the person obliged stands in the dative — «тебе надо» = 'you have to'. The particle «же» adds insistence ('you do have to, after all').
> «чтоб» + past form for purpose: «чтоб» (a colloquial «чтобы») introduces a purpose clause whose verb takes the irrealis past form: «чтоб она не мешала» = 'so that she should not interfere'. This что-+-бы fusion always governs the past-form subjunctive, never a present.
> «нагонять тоску» — to bring on dejection: «нагонять/нагнать тоску» idiomatically means to induce gloom or anguish in someone. «тоска» is the famous, near-untranslatable Russian word for a heavy spiritual longing or ache; the genitive «тоски» is the partitive/negated object here.

Ну, одним словом, говорил, и она поняла.  
Well, in a word, I spoke to her, and she understood.
> «одним словом» — 'in a word': A fixed adverbial phrase, 'in short / to sum up', in the instrumental case («одним словом», 'with one word'). It marks the speaker drawing his rambling explanation to a point.
> Aspect contrast: process vs result: Imperfective «говорил» views the talking as an ongoing process ('I kept speaking'), while perfective «поняла» marks a single completed result ('she grasped it'). The pairing is classic Russian narrative: a stretch of activity capped by its outcome.

Она, брат, умница, она добрая, она руки у меня, старого, полезла было целовать, за тебя просила.  
She is a clever one, brother, she is kind-hearted — she made to kiss the hands of an old man like me, she pleaded for you.
> «умница» — 'a clever one': A warm noun of praise for an intelligent, sensible person, applicable to either sex (it stays grammatically feminine in -а). Here, affectionate admiration for Grushenka's good sense.
> The particle «было» — an aborted action: «было» after a perfective verb marks an action that was begun or about to happen but was checked or undone — 'she started to kiss my hands (but I stopped her)'. «у меня, старого» = 'of me, an old man', genitive of possession with the adjective agreeing.

Сама послала меня сюда сказать тебе, чтоб ты за нее был спокоен, да и надо, голубчик, надо, чтоб я пошел и сказал ей, что ты спокоен и за нее утешен.  
She sent me here herself to tell you to be at peace about her, and indeed I must, my dear boy, I must go and tell her that you are at peace and consoled on her account.
> Indirect command with «чтоб» + short adjective: After «сказать» (tell), «чтоб» introduces a reported command in the irrealis past form. «спокоен» is the predicative short form of «спокойный», stating a temporary state ('be at ease'); short adjectives are the bookish, predicate-only form.
> «голубчик» — 'my dear (little dove)': A tender diminutive vocative built on «голубь» (dove), one of Russian's most affectionate endearments — 'dear fellow, my dear'. It pours the captain's fatherly tenderness over Mitya.
> Impersonal «надо» + purpose clause: The bare «надо» ('it is necessary') is again impersonal; the duty falls to a dative-understood speaker, and the «чтоб»-clause spells out the act with a past-form verb «пошел и сказал». The repetition «надо… надо» conveys urgent insistence.

Итак, успокойся, пойми ты это.  
So calm yourself, understand that.
> Reflexive imperative «успокойся»: A perfective imperative with reflexive -ся: 'calm yourself'. The -ся makes the verb intransitive/middle (the calming happens to oneself), and the perfective stem asks for a single decisive settling-down.
> Imperative with emphatic «ты»: «пойми» is the perfective imperative of «понять» (understand). The normally-dropped pronoun «ты» is added for insistence — 'do understand this, you' — a colloquial intensifier in commands.

Я пред ней виноват, она христианская душа, да, господа, это кроткая душа и ни в чем не повинная.  
I am at fault before her — she is a Christian soul, yes, gentlemen, hers is a gentle soul and one guilty of nothing.
> «виноват перед» + instrumental; archaic «пред»: «виноват» is the short adjective 'guilty/at fault'; one is guilty 'before' someone — «перед ней» (instrumental). «пред» is the elevated, bookish short form of «перед», common in 19th-century prose.
> «ни… не» — emphatic double negation: «ни в чем не повинная» = 'guilty in nothing', with «ни» intensifying the «не» before the adjective in obligatory negative concord. «повинный» (culpable, guilty) is a bookish near-synonym of «виноватый».

Так как же ей сказать, Дмитрий Федорович, будешь сидеть спокоен аль нет?  
So what shall I tell her, Dmitri Fyodorovich — will you sit quietly or not?
> Dative infinitive question + «же»: A subjectless deliberative construction: dative «ей» ('to her') plus infinitive «сказать» asks 'what am I to tell her?'. «как же» fronts the modal particle «же», lending exasperated insistence ('so what on earth am I to say?').
> «аль» — folk 'or': «аль» is a colloquial, dialectal variant of «или» / «али» ('or'), here in «спокоен аль нет» ('quiet or not'). It paints the captain's homely, popular speech.

Добряк наговорил много лишнего, но горе Грушеньки, горе человеческое, проникло в его добрую душу, и даже слезы стояли в глазах его.  
The good fellow had said much that was beside the point, but Grushenka's grief, the grief of a human being, had pierced his kind soul, and there were even tears standing in his eyes.
> «добряк» — 'the good-natured fellow': A noun for a kindly, soft-hearted man, formed from «добрый» with the suffix -як. Mildly affectionate, faintly amused — the narrator's wry warmth toward the rambling captain.
> «наговорить лишнего» — to say too much: The prefix на- on «говорить» gives a perfective of accumulated quantity ('to talk a lot of'); «лишнего» (genitive of «лишнее», 'the superfluous') means he said much that was unnecessary or out of place.
> Word order and apposition: The subject «горе» is restated in apposition («горе Грушеньки, горе человеческое») before the verb «проникло», broadening one woman's grief into 'human grief'. The neuter «проникло» agrees with neuter «горе».

Митя вскочил и бросился к нему.  
Mitya sprang up and rushed to him.
> Perfectives of sudden motion; reflexive «бросился»: Two perfective past verbs chain abrupt completed events. «бросился» (rushed, threw himself) is reflexive -ся, marking the self-directed movement, and «к нему» ('toward him') takes the dative after «к».

— Простите, господа, позвольте, о, позвольте!  
— Forgive me, gentlemen, allow me — oh, allow me!
> Polite imperatives in -ите: Both «простите» (forgive) and «позвольте» (allow, permit) are polite/plural imperatives in -те, addressed to the gentlemen. «позвольте» + infinitive is the courtly way to ask leave to do something.

— вскричал он, — ангельская, ангельская вы душа, Михаил Макарович, благодарю за нее!  
— he cried out, "you have an angelic, an angelic soul, Mikhail Makarovich, I thank you for her sake!
> Fronting and repetition for emphasis: The predicate adjective «ангельская» ('angelic') is fronted and doubled before the subject «вы душа», a passionate inversion that throws the weight onto the quality. Russian's free word order lets emotion reorder the clause.
> «благодарить за» + accusative: 'To thank for' is «благодарить за» + accusative; «за нее» = 'for her (sake)'. Mitya thanks the captain on Grushenka's behalf.

Буду, буду спокоен, весел буду, передайте ей по безмерной доброте души вашей, что я весел, весел, смеяться даже начну сейчас, зная, что с ней такой ангел-хранитель, как вы.  
I will, I will be calm, I will be cheerful — tell her, out of the boundless kindness of your soul, that I am cheerful, cheerful, that I shall even begin to laugh this very moment, knowing that she has such a guardian angel as you with her.
> Compound future of «быть» + short adjectives: «буду» is the future of «быть» (I will be); with short-form adjectives «спокоен», «весел» it states future states ('I will be calm, cheerful'). The triple repetition with shifting word order is sheer agitated insistence.
> Present gerund «зная»: «зная» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «знать», 'knowing' — an attendant circumstance simultaneous with the main verbs, sharing Mitya's subject. It compresses 'because I know' into one adverbial word.

Сейчас всё покончу и только что освобожусь, сейчас и к ней, она увидит, пусть ждет!  
I shall finish everything at once, and the moment I am free, I'll go straight to her — she shall see, let her wait!
> Perfective futures with «сейчас»: «покончу» and «освобожусь» are perfective verbs conjugated like a present but meaning the future — 'I'll finish' / 'I'll be free' — each a single completed act. «сейчас» ('at once, in a moment') reinforces the imminence.
> Third-person imperative with «пусть»: Russian forms a 'let him/her' command with «пусть» (or «пускай») plus a third-person verb: «пусть ждет» = 'let her wait'. It is the standard way to issue an imperative to someone not directly addressed.

Господа, — оборотился он вдруг к прокурору и следователю, — теперь всю вам душу мою открою, всю изолью, мы это мигом покончим, весело покончим — под конец ведь будем же смеяться, будем?  
Gentlemen," he turned suddenly to the prosecutor and the investigator, "now I will open my whole soul to you, I will pour out everything, we shall finish this in a flash, finish it cheerfully — in the end we shall be laughing, shan't we?
> Archaic «оборотился»; reflexive turn: «оборотиться» is an older, more literary variant of «обернуться/повернуться» ('to turn round'), with reflexive -ся marking the self-directed movement. The inverted «оборотился он» (verb before subject) is narrative period style.
> Emphatic fronting and perfective futures: The object «всю… душу мою» is split and fronted around the dative «вам» for passionate emphasis; «открою» and «изолью» are perfective futures ('I will open / pour out'). The discontinuous word order is pure spoken urgency.
> Particles «ведь» and «же»; tag question: «ведь» appeals to shared understanding ('after all, surely'), «же» insists, and the repeated «будем?» turns the compound future «будем смеяться» into a coaxing tag question ('we shall be laughing, shan't we?'). The pile-up of particles is the texture of Dostoevsky's dialogue.

Но, господа, эта женщина — царица души моей!  
But, gentlemen, this woman is the queen of my soul!
> Zero copula + genitive of possession: 'This woman is the queen of my soul' has no verb 'to be' in the present — Russian leaves the copula unexpressed («эта женщина — царица»). «души моей» is genitive 'of my soul', the possessor following its head in elevated order.

О, позвольте мне это сказать, это-то я уж вам открою…  
Oh, let me say this — this much at least I will reveal to you…
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and «уж»: The hyphenated clitic «-то» on «это» stresses a known topic — 'this much, at any rate' — distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то». The particle «уж» adds further emphatic resolve to the perfective future «открою».

Я ведь вижу же, что я с благороднейшими людьми: это свет, это святыня моя, и если б вы только знали!  
For I do see that I am among the most honorable of men: she is light, she is my holy thing, and if only you knew!
> Stacked particles «ведь» and «же»: Mitya stacks two modal particles in one breath: «ведь» ('after all, you see') and «же» (insistence), wrapping the plain «вижу» ('I see/realise') in earnest appeal. Such particle clusters are a signature of excited spoken Russian.
> Superlative suffix «-ейш-»: «благороднейшими» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «благородный» ('noble, honourable'), formed with -ейш- — 'the most honourable'. The instrumental plural follows «с» ('among/with'). The -ейший superlative is markedly literary.
> Conditional with «если б»: «если б» (= «если бы») plus the past-form verb «знали» builds an unreal conditional / wistful exclamation — 'if only you knew'. The particle «бы» here is clipped to «б», and «только» ('only') heightens the longing.

Слышали ее крики: «С тобой хоть на казнь!» А что я ей дал, я, нищий, голяк, за что такая любовь ко мне, стою ли я, неуклюжая, позорная тварь и с позорным лицом, такой любви, чтоб со мной ей в каторгу идти?  
You heard her cries: "With you, even to the scaffold!" And what did I ever give her — I, a beggar, a pauper — why such love for me, am I worth it, a clumsy, shameful creature with a shameful face, worth such love that she would go to penal servitude with me?
> «нищий», «голяк» — beggar and pauper: «нищий» is a beggar/destitute; «голяк» is a more colloquial, expressive word for a penniless wretch (from «голый», 'bare, naked'). The pairing dramatizes Mitya's sense of his own worthlessness.
> Question particle «ли»; genitive after «стоить»: «стою ли я» fronts the focused verb with the enclitic «ли» to form the self-questioning 'am I worth…'. The verb «стоить» ('to be worth') governs the genitive «такой любви» ('such love').
> «тварь» — 'creature' (self-abasing): «тварь» originally means 'creature, created being' (from «творить», to create); used of a person it is a harsh, self-debasing or abusive word ('vile creature'). Mitya turns it against himself: 'a clumsy, shameful creature'.

За меня в ногах у вас давеча валялась, она, гордая и ни в чем не повинная!  
Just now she grovelled at your feet for my sake — she, who is proud and guilty of nothing!
> «давеча» — 'just now, a while ago': A colloquial, old-fashioned adverb meaning 'a little while ago, earlier today'. It dates the speech as 19th-century and folksy; modern Russian would say «недавно» or «только что».
> «валяться в ногах» — to grovel at someone's feet: «валяться в ногах (у кого-то)» is a vivid idiom for abasing oneself, throwing oneself at someone's feet to beg. «у вас» ('at your feet', genitive after «у») makes the officials the addressees of her pleading.
> Negative concord «ни… не» again: The same emphatic double negation as earlier: «ни в чем не повинная» = 'guilty in nothing', the «ни»-word demanding «не» before «повинная». The pairing with «гордая» ('proud') sharpens the pathos of her self-abasement.

Как же мне не обожать ее, не вопить, не стремиться к ней, как сейчас?  
How can I not adore her, not cry out, not strain toward her, as I did just now?
> Dative + negated infinitives; rhetorical «как же»: A rhetorical-question pattern: dative «мне» plus a string of negated infinitives ('how am I not to adore, not cry out, not strain…'). «как же» fronts the insistent «же», and the triple «не + infinitive» means he cannot help doing these things.
> «вопить» — to wail, cry out: «вопить» is an expressive imperfective verb for crying out loudly, wailing or howling — far more violent than «кричать». It conveys the raw, unrestrained pitch of Mitya's feeling.

О господа, простите!  
Oh, gentlemen, forgive me!

Но теперь, теперь я утешен!  
But now, now I am consoled!
> Short passive participle «утешен»: «утешен» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «утешённый» ('consoled'), from perfective «утешить». With an implied present 'to be' it states a resulting condition — 'I am consoled' — the standard periphrastic passive of result.

И он упал на стул и, закрыв обеими ладонями лицо, навзрыд заплакал.  
And he sank down on a chair and, covering his face with both palms, wept aloud.
> Perfective gerund «закрыв» + instrumental of means: «закрыв» is a perfective past деепричастие ('having covered'), marking an action completed just before or as he sinks down. «обеими ладонями» is the instrumental of means — 'with both palms', the instrument of covering.
> «навзрыд» — sobbing aloud: «навзрыд» is an expressive adverb meaning 'with sobs, breaking down in tears'; «заплакал» is the inceptive perfective ('burst into tears'). Together: he broke into loud, convulsive weeping.

Но это были уже счастливые слезы.  
But these were already happy tears.
> «это были» — agreement with the plural complement: The demonstrative «это» ('these were…') stays invariable, but the verb «были» and adjective «счастливые» agree with the plural predicate noun «слезы». «уже» ('already, by now') marks the turn from grief to joy.

Он мигом опомнился.  
In a moment he had collected himself.
> Reflexive perfective «опомниться»: «опомниться» (to come to oneself, collect oneself) exists only with -ся and is perfective — a single recovery of composure. «мигом» ('in a flash', instrumental of «миг') stresses how suddenly Mitya steadies himself.

Старик исправник был очень доволен, да, кажется, и юристы тоже: они почувствовали, что допрос вступит сейчас в новый фазис.  
The old police captain was very pleased, and so, it seemed, were the lawyers too: they sensed that the interrogation was about to enter a new phase.
> Reported clause with «что»; perfective future: «что» introduces a reported-fact clause after «почувствовали» ('they sensed'). Inside it, perfective «вступит» ('will enter') is a perfective future viewed from the past — the interrogation was about to enter a new phase.

Проводив исправника, Митя просто повеселел.  
Having seen the captain out, Mitya simply grew merry.
> Perfective gerund «проводив»: «проводив» is a perfective past деепричастие ('having seen out'), naming an action completed before the main verb «повеселел». It shares the subject (Mitya) and neatly subordinates one event to the next.
> Inceptive perfective «повеселел»: Built from «весёлый» (merry) with the prefix по-, «повеселеть» is an inceptive perfective — 'to grow/become merry', the onset of a new state. «просто» ('simply') underlines the completeness of the change of mood.

— Ну, господа, теперь ваш, ваш вполне.  
— Well, gentlemen, now I am yours, entirely yours.
> Possessive predicate with zero copula: 'Now I am yours, entirely yours' has no verb: the possessive «ваш» stands as predicate with the present copula unexpressed. The repetition «ваш, ваш вполне» drives home Mitya's wholehearted surrender to the questioning.

И… если б только не все эти мелочи, то мы бы сейчас же и сговорились.  
And… if only it weren't for all these trifles, we would come to an understanding this very instant.
> Counterfactual with «бы» in both clauses: A full unreal conditional: «если б… не» sets the hypothetical condition ('if only it weren't for…'), and the main clause «мы бы… сговорились» carries its own «бы» with a past-form perfective ('we would come to terms'). The correlative «то» ('then') links them.

Я опять про мелочи.  
There I go about the trifles again.
> «про» — colloquial 'about'; «мелочи»: «про» + accusative is the conversational equivalent of «о» + prepositional, 'about/concerning'. «мелочи» ('trifles, petty details') becomes Mitya's running refrain — the minor facts he keeps dismissing yet cannot stop returning to.

Я ваш, господа, но, клянусь, нужно взаимное доверие — ваше ко мне и мое к вам — иначе мы никогда не покончим.  
I am yours, gentlemen, but, I swear, there must be mutual trust — yours toward me and mine toward you — otherwise we shall never finish.
> Deponent-style reflexive «клянусь»: «клясться» ('to swear, vow') exists only in the -ся form; «клянусь» = 'I swear'. Such verbs have no non-reflexive counterpart, the -ся being part of the lexical verb itself.
> Possessives with «к» + dative: The neuter possessives «ваше» and «мое» stand for «доверие» ('trust'), each modified by «к» + dative ('toward me' / 'toward you'). The chiastic balance «ваше ко мне — мое к вам» mirrors the reciprocity Mitya demands.

Для вас же говорю.  
I say this for your own sake.
> «для» + genitive; emphatic «же»: «для вас» ('for your sake') is «для» + genitive, the case this preposition always governs. The particle «же» adds insistence — 'it is for you that I say it'.

К делу, господа, к делу, и, главное, не ройтесь вы так в душе моей, не терзайте ее пустяками, а спрашивайте одно только дело и факты, и я вас сейчас же удовлетворю.  
To the matter, gentlemen, to the matter, and, above all, do not go rummaging so in my soul, do not torment it with trifles, but ask me only about the matter and the facts, and I shall satisfy you at once.
> Negated imperative with emphatic «вы»: «не ройтесь» is the negated imperative of reflexive «рыться» ('to rummage, dig'); the added pronoun «вы» and «так» ('so') intensify the rebuke. Negated imperatives in Russian are typically imperfective, fitting the sense 'don't keep rummaging'.
> Imperfective imperative + instrumental of means: «не терзайте» ('do not torment') is an imperfective negated command; «пустяками» ('with trifles') is the instrumental of means/instrument. «пустяки» joins «мелочи» as Mitya's contemptuous word for petty details.
> Perfective future «удовлетворю»: «удовлетворю» is a perfective future ('I shall satisfy [you]'), a single completed act promised for the immediate moment («сейчас же», 'right away'). The accusative «вас» is its object.

А мелочи к черту!  
And the trifles to the devil!
> «к черту!» — 'to the devil!': An emphatic dismissive exclamation, «к чёрту» = 'to the devil with it / damn it', here a verbless cry ('and the trifles — to the devil!'). «чёрт» (devil) anchors a whole family of Russian curses and oaths.

Так восклицал Митя.  
So Mitya exclaimed.
> Inverted word order; imperfective «восклицал»: Verb-before-subject inversion («восклицал Митя») is the narrator's framing style. Imperfective «восклицал» ('was exclaiming') views the outburst as a stretch of impassioned speech rather than one finished act.

Допрос начался вновь.  
The interrogation began anew.
> Reflexive «начался»; bookish «вновь»: «начался» is the perfective reflexive of «начаться» ('to begin', intransitive) — the interrogation begins of itself, with -ся giving the middle/inchoative sense. «вновь» ('anew, again') is the more literary equivalent of «снова».
---

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.