# The Brothers Karamazov, The Second Ordeal

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c4. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c4.json.


— Вы не поверите, как вы нас самих ободряете, Дмитрий Федорович, вашею этою готовностью…— заговорил Николай Парфенович с оживленным видом и с видимым удовольствием, засиявшим в больших светло-серых навыкате, очень близоруких впрочем, глазах его, с которых он за минуту пред тем снял очки.— И вы справедливо сейчас заметили насчет этой взаимной нашей доверенности, без которой иногда даже и невозможно в подобной важности делах, в том случае и смысле, если подозреваемое лицо действительно желает, надеется и может оправдать себя.  
"You would not believe how you yourself encourage us, Dmitri Fyodorovich, by this readiness of yours," began Nikolai Parfenovich with an animated air and with a visible pleasure that shone in his big, light-grey, slightly protruding — though very near-sighted — eyes, from which a moment before he had removed his spectacles. "And you have just rightly remarked upon this mutual confidence of ours, without which it is sometimes simply impossible to proceed in matters of such gravity — in the case and in the sense, that is, where the suspected person genuinely wishes, hopes, and is able to clear himself."
> Archaic instrumental in -ою: «вашею этою готовностью» is the instrumental of means — 'by this readiness of yours'. Note the old bookish feminine instrumental ending -ою (modern -ой): «вашею», «этою» in place of «вашей», «этой». This longer ending is a deliberately elevated, 19th-century literary flavour, fitting the magistrate's florid courtesy.
> Past active participle «засиявшим»: «засиявшим» (from perfective «засиять», to begin to shine) is a past active participle in the suffix -вш-, agreeing with «удовольствием» in the instrumental — 'a pleasure that shone'. Such participles compress a whole «который»-clause into one adjective and are a hallmark of Dostoevsky's dense descriptive sentences.
> «навыкате» — bulging eyes: «глаза навыкате» means protruding, slightly bulging eyes. The frozen adverbial «навыкате» (from «выкатить», to roll out) survives almost only in this set phrase — a precise physiognomic detail Dostoevsky uses to fix the magistrate's face.
> Relative «который» in the genitive: «без которой» — 'without which' — shows «который» taking the case its own clause demands: the preposition «без» forces the genitive, while the gender/number (feminine singular) still agree with the antecedent «доверенности» (confidence). The clause then runs impersonally — «невозможно» with no nominative subject.

С нашей стороны мы употребим всё, что от нас зависит, и вы сами могли видеть даже и теперь, как мы ведем это дело… Вы одобряете, Ипполит Кириллович?— обратился он вдруг к прокурору.  
For our part, we will do everything that depends on us, and you have been able to see for yourself, even now, how we are conducting this affair... Do you approve, Ippolit Kirillovich?" he asked, turning suddenly to the prosecutor.
> Perfective future «употребим»: «употребим» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present, which yields future meaning — 'we will apply/do everything'. There is no auxiliary; the completed future sits in the ending itself, against the imperfective «зависит» (depends), an ongoing state.
> Reflexive «обратиться» + dative: «обратился» carries the reflexive clitic -ся and means 'turned (to address someone)'; it governs «к прокурору», where the preposition «к» takes the dative. The -ся here is the middle/intransitive type, not a true reflexive object.

— О, без сомнения,— одобрил прокурор, хотя и несколько суховато сравнительно с порывом Николая Парфеновича.  
"Oh, beyond a doubt," the prosecutor approved, though somewhat more dryly than the burst of feeling from Nikolai Parfenovich.
> «суховато» — a touch dryly: «суховато» softens «сухо» (dryly, curtly) with the attenuating suffix -оват-, meaning 'somewhat / a touch dry'. It captures the prosecutor's measured coolness against the magistrate's warmer «порыв» (burst of feeling).
> Concessive «хотя и»: «хотя и» is the bookish concessive 'although, even if', opening a dependent clause that grants a contrast — here, that the prosecutor agreed but did so 'somewhat dryly'. The reinforcing particle «и» is idiomatic with «хотя».

Замечу раз навсегда: новоприбывший к нам Николай Парфенович, с самого начала своего у нас поприща, почувствовал к нашему Ипполиту Кирилловичу, прокурору, необыкновенное уважение и почти сердцем сошелся с ним.  
Let me note, once and for all: Nikolai Parfenovich, newly arrived among us, had from the very outset of his career here conceived an extraordinary respect for our prosecutor, Ippolit Kirillovich, and had come to feel almost a kinship of heart with him.
> Perfective future as narrator's aside: «Замечу» (perfective «заметить») is again a perfective-future form used by the chronicler-narrator — 'let me note'. The completed sense fits a single deliberate remark; «раз навсегда» means 'once and for all'.
> «поприще» — career, field of endeavour: «поприще» is an elevated, Church-Slavonic-flavoured word for one's field of activity or career (originally a measure of distance, a 'course' or 'arena'). «с самого начала своего у нас поприща» — 'from the very outset of his career here' — lends the sentence a stately, bookish register.
> Instrumental of manner «сердцем»: «сердцем» is the instrumental of «сердце» (heart), here adverbial — 'in his heart / by way of the heart he grew close to him'. The instrumental routinely marks the means or respect in which something is true.

Это был почти единственный человек, который безусловно поверил в необычайный психологический и ораторский талант нашего «обиженного по службе» Ипполита Кирилловича и вполне верил и в то, что тот обижен.  
He was nearly the only man who believed unconditionally in the uncommon psychological and oratorical gift of our "wronged in the service" Ippolit Kirillovich, and who fully believed, too, that the man had indeed been wronged.
> «обиженный по службе» — passed over in the service: «обиженный по службе» — literally 'wronged/aggrieved in the service' — is the running epithet for the prosecutor, a man who feels his official career has cheated him of due recognition. The author wraps it in quotation marks as a fixed, half-ironic label.
> «поверить в» vs «верить, что»: Note the two constructions: «поверил в талант» (perfective, 'came to believe in the talent', with «в» + accusative) versus «верил в то, что тот обижен» (imperfective, 'believed that he was wronged', with the correlative «то, что»). The aspect contrast pairs a single act of conviction with a standing belief.

О нем слышал он еще в Петербурге.  
He had heard of him even back in Petersburg.
> Topic-fronting word order: The sentence opens with «О нем» ('about him') rather than the subject «он», throwing the new emphasis onto the object and onto «еще в Петербурге» (already back in Petersburg). Free case-marked word order lets Russian lead with the topic and end on the news.

Зато в свою очередь молоденький Николай Парфенович оказался единственным тоже человеком в целом мире, которого искренно полюбил наш «обиженный» прокурор.  
And in his turn the youthful Nikolai Parfenovich proved to be likewise the one man in all the world whom our "wronged" prosecutor sincerely came to love.
> Predicate instrumental «единственным человеком»: «оказался единственным … человеком» — 'proved to be the one man' — puts the predicate complement in the instrumental after «оказаться». Verbs like «оказаться», «стать», «быть» frame an assumed or revealed role in the instrumental rather than the nominative.
> «молоденький» — endearingly young: «молоденький» adds the affectionate diminutive suffix -еньк- to «молодой» (young), giving 'young and slight / endearingly youthful'. The suffix colours the magistrate with a touch of the narrator's amused tenderness rather than mere age.
> Animate accusative in «которого»: «которого» is the relative pronoun in the accusative (= genitive form, because its referent is animate) — 'whom … came to love'. «полюбил» is perfective: the inceptive 'came to love', a single shift into the state.

Доро́гой сюда они успели кое в чем сговориться и условиться насчет предстоящего дела, и теперь, за столом, востренький ум Николая Парфеновича схватывал на лету и понимал всякое указание, всякое движение в лице своего старшего сотоварища, с полуслова, со взгляда, с подмига глазком.  
On the way here the two had managed to confer about a few things and to come to an understanding regarding the business ahead, and now, at the table, the keen mind of Nikolai Parfenovich caught on the wing and grasped every hint, every shift in the face of his senior colleague — from half a word, from a glance, from a wink of the eye.
> «дорогой» as 'on the way': Here «Доро́гой» is not the adjective 'dear' but the instrumental of «дорога» (road) used adverbially — 'on the road, along the way'. The stress mark on о distinguishes it for the reader; the bare instrumental of a path-noun regularly means 'by way of / during the journey'.
> Idiom «схватывать на лету»: «схватывать на лету» — literally 'to catch on the fly/wing' — means to grasp instantly, to be quick on the uptake. Paired with «востренький ум» (a sharp little mind), it paints the magistrate's nimble, almost telepathic reading of his senior.
> «востренький» — keen, sharp (colloquial): «востренький» is a colloquial, diminutive form of «вострый/острый» (sharp), with the affectionate -еньк-. Applied to «ум» (mind) it means 'keen, quick-witted', with a faintly familiar, fond tone.
> «глазком» — a flick of the eye: «глазком» is the diminutive «глазок» of «глаз» (eye) in the instrumental — here 'with a wink of the eye'. The diminutive, with «подмиг» (a wink), conveys the intimate, conspiratorial shorthand between the two officials.

— Господа, предоставьте мне только самому рассказать и не перебивайте пустяками, и я вам мигом всё изложу,— кипятился Митя.  
"Gentlemen, only let me tell it myself and don't keep interrupting with trifles, and I'll lay the whole thing out for you in a flash," Mitya seethed.
> Imperatives, perfective vs imperfective: Two commands frame Mitya's plea: perfective «предоставьте» ('let me, grant me' — a single act) and imperfective «не перебивайте» ('don't keep interrupting'). Negated imperatives default to the imperfective, stressing the ongoing 'don't be doing this' — exactly Mitya's grievance.
> «кипятиться» — to boil over: «кипятился» (imperfective «кипятиться», from «кипеть», to boil) means to seethe, to fly into a heat — literally 'was boiling'. It is the perfect verb for Mitya, whose impatience keeps bubbling up; the imperfective shows the state in progress.
> «мигом» — in a flash: «мигом» is the instrumental of «миг» (an instant) frozen as an adverb — 'in a trice, in a flash'. Such bare-instrumental time adverbs (мигом, разом, шагом) are a common, lively colloquial pattern.

— Прекрасно-с. Благодарю вас.  
"Splendid, sir. Thank you.
> The deferential particle -с: The little -с tacked onto «прекрасно-с» is a clipped relic of «сударь» (sir). In 19th-century Russian, adding -с to words signaled deference or polite formality — here from the examining magistrate. English has no exact equivalent, so we render the deference with an added "sir"; the particle colors the speaker as respectful, even slightly obsequious.

Но прежде чем перейдем к выслушанию вашего сообщения, вы бы позволили мне только констатировать еще один фактик, для нас очень любопытный, именно о тех десяти рублях, которые вы вчера, около пяти часов; взяли взаймы под заклад пистолетов ваших у приятеля вашего Петра Ильича Перхотина.  
But before we pass on to hearing your account, would you permit me only to establish one more little fact, very curious to us — namely, about those ten roubles which yesterday, around five o'clock, you borrowed against the pledge of your pistols from your friend Pyotr Ilyich Perkhotin."
> Temporal «прежде чем» + perfective: «прежде чем перейдем» — 'before we pass on to' — is the bookish temporal conjunction «прежде чем» with a perfective verb «перейдём» (here in the perfective future). The completed aspect frames the transition as a single forthcoming step.
> Polite conditional «вы бы позволили»: «вы бы позволили» uses the particle «бы» with a past-tense form to soften a request into a deferential 'would you permit me'. This conditional-as-politeness is the magistrate's habitual register, smoothing the interrogation.
> «фактик» — a little fact: «фактик» is the diminutive of «факт», 'a little fact'. The magistrate minimizes the matter — 'one more little fact' — to seem unthreatening, a calculated softening just before a pointed question about the pawned pistols.
> Numeral + noun in an oblique case: In «о тех десяти рублях» the whole numeral phrase is governed by the preposition «о» and stands in the prepositional: «рублях» is the prepositional plural (the genitive plural would be «рублей»), agreeing with the oblique numeral «десяти». The 'five-and-above takes the genitive plural' rule holds only in the nominative/accusative; under a preposition the entire numeral phrase re-declines. «взять взаймы под заклад» = 'to borrow against a pledge'.

— Заложил, господа, заложил, за десять рублей, и что ж дальше? Вот и всё, как только воротился в город с дороги, так и заложил.  
"I pawned them, gentlemen, I pawned them, for ten roubles — and what of it? That's all there is to it: the moment I got back to town from the road, I pawned them."
> «заложить» — to pawn: «заложить» (perfective) means to pawn or pledge as security. Mitya's blunt repetition — «Заложил, господа, заложил» — meets the magistrate's delicate phrasing with a defiant plainness: 'I pawned them, gentlemen, I pawned them'.
> Correlative «как только … так и»: «как только … так и» — 'the moment … (then) straightaway' — is a correlative pair binding two perfective events: «воротился» (returned) and «заложил» (pawned). Perfective past here moves the action forward in two crisp, completed steps. «воротился» is an archaic/folksy variant of «возвратился».

— А вы воротились с дороги? Вы ездили за город?  
"So you got back from the road? You had been out of town?"
> Multidirectional «ездить» of motion: «ездили» is the multidirectional motion verb «ездить» (to go by vehicle, round trips/habit), as against unidirectional «ехать». Here it asks about the fact of a there-and-back trip — 'you had been out of town' — which the round-trip member naturally conveys.
> The hinge-particle «а»: The magistrate's «А вы воротились…» opens with «а», the mild contrastive 'and/so' that pivots the topic — here pouncing gently on the new fact Mitya let slip. It signals a turn of attention, not real opposition.

— Ездил, господа, за сорок верст ездил, а вы и не знали?  
"I had been out, gentlemen, forty versts I'd driven — and you didn't even know it?"
> Genitive plural «верст» after a numeral: After «сорок» (forty) the noun takes the genitive plural, here with a zero ending: «верст» (of «верста»). «за сорок верст» = 'forty versts off'. The fronted «Ездил … ездил» repeats the motion verb for emphatic, boastful confirmation.
> Emphatic «и не знали»: The «и» before «не знали» is the emphatic 'even' — 'and you didn't even know it'. Combined with the contrastive «а», Mitya scores a small point of triumph over his interrogators.

Прокурор и Николай Парфенович переглянулись.  
The prosecutor and Nikolai Parfenovich exchanged glances.
> Reciprocal -ся in «переглянулись»: «переглянулись» ('exchanged glances') carries the reciprocal -ся: the prefix «пере-» plus -ся means the two did the action to each other. The perfective marks a single completed exchange — a charged, wordless beat between the officials.

— И вообще, если бы вы начали вашу повесть со систематического описания всего вашего вчерашнего дня с самого утра? Позвольте, например, узнать: зачем вы отлучались из города и когда именно поехали и приехали… и все эти факты…  
"And in general, might you begin your tale with a systematic account of your whole day yesterday, from the very morning? Permit me, for instance, to learn: why did you absent yourself from town, and when exactly did you set out and return... and all these facts..."
> Hypothetical «если бы» as a soft suggestion: «если бы вы начали…» is a conditional with «бы» + past-tense «начали», but used not as a real condition; left hanging, it floats a polite proposal — 'might you begin…'. The magistrate again wraps a directive in irrealis courtesy.
> Prefixed motion verbs «поехали / приехали»: «поехали» (set off) and «приехали» (arrived) are prefixed perfectives of the motion verb «ехать»: the prefixes «по-» and «при-» add direction and make completed events. Russian thus splits English 'when you went and came' into a departure and an arrival.
> «повесть» — a tale, a narrative: Calling Mitya's account a «повесть» — a 'tale' or literary narrative — is gently ironic: the magistrate frames the testimony as if it were a story to be told. The word is the very genre-name of works like Pushkin's tales.

— Так вы бы так и спросили с самого начала,— громко рассмеялся Митя,— и если хотите, то дело надо начать не со вчерашнего, а с третьеводнишнего дня, с самого утра, тогда и поймете, куда, как и почему я пошел и поехал.  
"Well then, you should have asked it that way from the start," Mitya laughed out loud, "and if you like, the affair has to be begun not from yesterday but from the day before, from the very morning — then you'll understand where, how, and why I went and drove.
> Reproachful conditional «вы бы … спросили»: «вы бы так и спросили» — 'you should have just asked it that way' — uses «бы» + past to voice a reproach about an unfulfilled past possibility. The irrealis past with «бы» does the work English does with 'should have'.
> «третьеводнишний» — of the day before yesterday: «третьеводнишний» is a colloquial adjective from «третьего дня» ('the day before yesterday', literally 'the third day'). Mitya's folksy, compressed coinage — 'the day-before-yesterday's day' — marks his rushed, vernacular speech.
> Paired prefixed motion «пошёл и поехал»: «пошёл» (set off on foot) and «поехал» (set off by vehicle) are both perfectives with «по-», distinguishing manner of going. The doublet 'I went and drove' captures a journey on foot then by carriage — a distinction Russian motion verbs make obligatory.

Пошел я, господа, третьего дня утром к здешнему купчине Самсонову занимать у него три тысячи денег под вернейшее обеспечение,— это вдруг приспичило, господа, вдруг приспичило…  
The day before yesterday, gentlemen, in the morning, I went to the local merchant Samsonov to borrow three thousand from him against the surest security — it came over me all at once, gentlemen, all at once it came over me..."
> «купчина» — the big merchant: «купчина» is an expressive augmentative of «купец» (merchant), with the suffix -ин-: a hulking, weighty merchant — half-respectful, half-mocking. Samsonov is precisely such a coarse, rich provincial trader, so the form fits him exactly.
> «занимать у» + genitive of the lender: «занимать у него» — 'to borrow from him' — uses «у» + genitive to mark the person one borrows from. «три тысячи» takes its own quantified construction; «под вернейшее обеспечение» = 'against the surest security'.
> «приспичить» — to come over one suddenly: «приспичило» is a vivid, colloquial impersonal verb: 'it suddenly came over me / I urgently had to'. It is used impersonally, with no nominative subject, conveying an irresistible, almost bodily urge — pure Mitya.

— Позвольте прервать вас,— вежливо перебил прокурор,— почему вам так вдруг понадобилась, и именно такая сумма, то есть в три тысячи рублей?  
"Permit me to interrupt you," the prosecutor broke in politely, "why did you so suddenly need it, and precisely such a sum — that is, three thousand roubles?"
> Imperative «позвольте» of courtesy: «Позвольте» (perfective imperative, 'permit/allow') plus an infinitive is the standard formula for a polite interjection — 'allow me to interrupt you'. The prosecutor's whole manner is built from such deferential imperatives.
> Dative experiencer with «понадобиться»: «вам … понадобилась … сумма» frames need impersonally for the experiencer: the person stands in the dative «вам» while the thing needed («сумма») is the grammatical subject the verb agrees with. Russian voices necessity as something that happens to you.

— Э, господа, не надо бы мелочи: как, когда и почему, и почему именно денег столько, а не столько, и вся эта гамазня… ведь эдак в трех томах не упишешь, да еще эпилог потребуется!  
"Ah, gentlemen, we shouldn't bother with the petty details: how, when, and why, and why exactly so much money and not some other amount, and all this rigmarole... why, at this rate you couldn't get it into three volumes, and an epilogue would be wanted on top!"
> Softened «не надо бы» with «бы»: «не надо бы» adds «бы» to the impersonal «не надо» (one shouldn't) for a softened, grumbling 'we really oughtn't to'. The dative-experiencer modal «надо» needs no nominative subject; «бы» tilts it from flat prohibition to weary opinion.
> «гамазня» — rigmarole, hubbub: «гамазня» is a rare, expressive colloquialism for a noisy muddle or fuss — a 'rigmarole', a tangle of trivial bother. Mitya sweeps the magistrates' fine questions aside as so much «гамазня».
> Generalizing 2nd-person «не упишешь»: «не упишешь» is a 2nd-person singular used impersonally/generically — 'one couldn't fit it (in)', not addressed to anyone in particular. This 'you = one' generalizing form is highly idiomatic; «эдак» is a colloquial «так» ('at this rate').

Всё это проговорил Митя с добродушною, но нетерпеливою фамильярностью человека, желающего сказать всю истину и исполненного самыми добрыми намерениями.  
All this Mitya rattled off with the good-natured but impatient familiarity of a man who wishes to tell the whole truth and is filled with the best of intentions.
> Archaic instrumental «-ою» of manner: «с добродушною, но нетерпеливою фамильярностью» pairs «с» + instrumental for manner with the elevated long endings -ою (modern -ой). The instrumental of accompanying manner — 'with good-natured but impatient familiarity' — is the narrator's stately characterizing tool.
> Present active participle «желающего»: «желающего» is a present active participle (suffix -ющ-) in the genitive, agreeing with «человека» — 'of a man wishing'. It stacks with «исполненного» (a past passive participle, 'filled') to compress two relative clauses into the noun phrase, the layered syntax of literary description.

— Господа,— как бы спохватился он вдруг,— вы на меня не ропщите за мою брыкливость, опять прошу: поверьте еще раз, что я чувствую полную почтительность и понимаю настоящее положение дела.  
"Gentlemen," he said, as if suddenly recollecting himself, "don't be vexed with me for my balkiness; once again I ask you: believe me one more time that I feel the fullest respect and understand the real position of this affair.
> Reflexive «спохватиться» + «как бы»: «спохватился» carries -ся (to catch oneself, suddenly recollect); «как бы» ('as if, as it were') softens it into a narrator's hedge — 'as if suddenly recollecting himself'. «как бы» with «бы» is a frequent literary marker of seeming or approximation.
> «брыкливость» — balkiness, kicking out: «брыкливость» (from «брыкаться», to kick, of a horse) means a restive, balky, kicking-out temper. Mitya self-deprecatingly likens himself to an unruly horse — 'don't be vexed at my balkiness' — a homely, animal image of his own waywardness.
> Negated imperative «не ропщите»: «не ропщите» is a negative imperative of «роптать» (to murmur, grumble against) — 'don't be vexed with me'. The verb is bookish and biblical in tone (the Israelites 'murmuring' in the wilderness), lending Mitya's apology a faint scriptural color.

Не думайте, что и пьян. Я уж теперь отрезвился.  
Don't think I'm drunk. I've sobered up by now.
> Reflexive «отрезвиться» + particle «уж»: «отрезвился» ('sobered up') has -ся as a change-of-state middle: the perfective marks the completed shift from drunk to sober. «уж» (a reduced «уже», 'already/by now') nudges the timing — 'I've sobered up by now'.

Да и что пьян не мешало бы вовсе. У меня ведь как:  
And anyway, being drunk wouldn't be a hindrance at all. With me, you see, it goes like this:
> Short adjective «пьян» + impersonal «бы»: «пьян» is the predicative short adjective of «пьяный» (drunk), used here as a noun-clause subject — 'that (I'm) drunk wouldn't be a hindrance at all'. «не мешало бы» is impersonal with «бы», softening to 'wouldn't hurt / wouldn't be a hindrance'.
> Appeal-particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared understanding — 'you see / after all'. In «У меня ведь как:» Mitya leans on the listener's complicity before delivering his little rhyme: 'With me, you see, it goes like this:'.

Отрезвел, поумнел— стал глуп, Напился, оглупел— стал умен.  
Sobered up, grew wise — turned stupid; Got drunk, turned foolish — grew wise.
> Inceptive perfectives in a paradox: The little verse strings inceptive perfectives — «отрезвел» (grew sober), «поумнел» (grew wiser), «оглупел» (grew foolish) — each marking a single completed turn into a new state. «стал глуп / стал умен» use «стать» + short adjective for 'became stupid / wise', the paradox hinging on the abrupt aspectual switches.

Ха-ха! А впрочем, я вижу, господа, что мне пока еще неприлично острить пред вами, пока то есть не объяснимся.  
Ha-ha! But never mind, I see, gentlemen, that it's still unseemly for me to crack jokes in front of you — that is, until we've come to an understanding.
> Dative-subject «мне неприлично»: «мне … неприлично острить» is the classic impersonal pattern: the experiencer in the dative «мне», an invariable predicate «неприлично» (it's unseemly), and an infinitive — 'it's unseemly for me to crack jokes'. No nominative subject anywhere.
> «пока … не» + reflexive perfective future: «пока … не объяснимся» means 'until we have come to an understanding': the conjunction «пока» with «не» expresses 'until', and the reciprocal -ся perfective future «объяснимся» marks the completed mutual clearing-up to come.

Позвольте наблюсти и собственное достоинство.  
Allow me to keep up my own dignity, too.
> «наблюсти» — to observe/keep up (bookish): «наблюсти» is a bookish perfective of «наблюдать», here in the older sense 'to observe, maintain, keep up' (one's dignity) rather than 'to watch'. The slightly archaic, elevated choice fits Mitya's mock-formal plea to be allowed his «собственное достоинство».

Понимаю же я теперешнюю разницу: ведь я все-таки пред вами преступник сижу, вам, стало быть, в высшей степени неровня, а вам поручено меня наблюдать: не погладите же вы меня по головке за Григория, нельзя же в самом деле безнаказанно головы ломать старикам, ведь упрячете же вы меня за него по суду, ну на полгода, ну на год в смирительный, не знаю, как там у вас присудят, хотя и без лишения прав, ведь без лишения прав, прокурор?  
I do understand the present difference between us: after all, I'm sitting here before you as a criminal, and so I'm in the highest degree not your equal, while you've been charged to keep watch over me — you're hardly going to pat me on the head over Grigory; one really cannot go about smashing old men's heads with impunity. You'll be packing me off over him by sentence of the court, well, for half a year, well, for a year in the house of correction — I don't know how it's decided in your line, though without loss of civil rights, surely without loss of rights, prosecutor?
> A chain of «ведь» appeals: Mitya threads the long sentence with «ведь» ('after all, you see') and «стало быть» ('therefore, so then'), constantly appealing to the officials' shared grasp of his situation. These particles give his speech its breathless, button-holing intimacy.
> Idiom «погладить по головке»: «погладить по головке» — literally 'to pat (someone) on the little head' — means to treat indulgently, to let off lightly. Mitya knows they won't 'pat him on the head' over the beaten Grigory. The diminutive «головка» heightens the patronizing image.
> «смирительный (дом)» — the house of correction: «упрятать» is colloquial for 'to shut away, lock up'; «в смирительный» elides «дом», the «смирительный дом» — a house of correction or workhouse for milder offenders. Mitya gauges his likely sentence in its homely period vocabulary.

Ну так вот, господа, понимаю же я это различие… Но согласитесь и в том, что ведь вы можете самого бога сбить с толку такими вопросами: где ступил, как ступил, когда ступил и во что ступил?  
Well then, gentlemen, I do understand this distinction... But you must agree, too, that you could throw God Himself off the scent with questions like these: where did you step, how did you step, when did you step, and into what did you step?
> Animate accusative «самого бога»: «самого бога» is the animate accusative (= genitive form) — 'God Himself' as the object of «сбить с толку» (to throw off, confuse). «сбить с толку» is an idiom, literally 'to knock off the sense'.
> Anaphoric perfective «ступил» in a litany: Mitya parodies the interrogation as a drumbeat of identical perfectives «ступил» (took a step / stepped) under shifting question-words — where, how, when, into what. The repeated single-completed-act verb mocks the pedantic dissection of every footfall.

Ведь я собьюсь, если так, а вы сейчас лыко в строку и запишете, и что ж выйдет? Ничего не выйдет!  
I'll get muddled if it's like that, and you'll be ready at once to fault my every word and write it all down — and what will come of it? Nothing will come of it!
> Idiom: ставить лыко в строку: «Лыко в строку» (literally "a strip of bast into the row") comes from weaving bast shoes: every flaw shows in the finished row. The idiom «ставить лыко в строку» means to hold every slip against someone, to nitpick. Mitya accuses the magistrates of pouncing on his every word — which is why we render it "fault my every word and write it all down."
> Reflexive perfective future «собьюсь»: «собьюсь» is the perfective future of «сбиться» (with -ся, to get muddled / lose one's thread) — 'I'll get muddled'. The completed future warns of a single inevitable result if the questioning stays so finicky; «ведь» again appeals to the listeners.

Да наконец, если уж я начал теперь врать, то и докончу, а вы, господа, как высшего образования и благороднейшие люди, меня простите.  
And besides, since I've now begun to spin it out, I'll finish it too — and you, gentlemen, being men of the highest education and the noblest sort, will forgive me.
> «если … то» with aspectual sequence: «если уж я начал … то и докончу» binds a perfective past «начал» (have begun) to a perfective future «докончу» (I'll finish off) under «если … то». The matched perfectives stage a single resolve: having started, he'll see it through. «уж» adds 'now that, since'.
> «врать» — to spin a yarn / lie: «врать» means both 'to lie' and, colloquially, 'to ramble on, talk nonsense, spin a tale'. Mitya half-confesses to 'spinning it out', the looser sense, with a self-aware, performative shrug.

Именно закончу просьбой: разучитесь вы, господа, этой казенщине допроса, то есть сперва-де, видите ли, начинай с чего-нибудь мизерного, с ничтожного: как, дескать, встал, что съел, как плюнул, и, «усыпив внимание преступника», вдруг накрывай его ошеломляющим вопросом: «Кого убил, кого обокрал?»  
Let me end precisely with a request: unlearn, gentlemen, that bureaucratic routine of interrogation — that is, the way you first, you see, begin with something paltry, something trifling: how, say, the man got up, what he ate, how he spat, and then, having "lulled the criminal's vigilance," you suddenly pounce on him with the staggering question: "Whom did you murder, whom did you rob?"
> Imperative «разучитесь» + dative object: «разучитесь» is the imperative of «разучиться» (-ся: to unlearn, forget how) and governs the dative «казенщине» — 'unlearn that bureaucratic routine'. The «раз-» prefix gives the sense of un-doing an acquired habit.
> «казёнщина» — soulless officialdom: «казёнщина» (from «казённый», state-owned, official) is a contemptuous noun for dreary bureaucratic routine — wooden, formulaic 'officialese'. Mitya flings it at the whole method of interrogation; it recurs in the next segment as his keyword.
> Reportative particles «-де» and «дескать»: «-де» and «дескать» are reportative particles meaning roughly 'so they say / supposedly', marking words as a quoted or imagined script — here the imagined interrogator's patter. Mitya ventriloquizes the magistrates' method, tagging it as hearsay he's mimicking.
> Past gerund «усыпив» + imperative «накрывай»: «усыпив» is a perfective past gerund (-ив, 'having lulled') giving the prior circumstance, then the imperfective imperative «накрывай» ('keep pouncing'). The gerund sharing the subject with the command lets Mitya stage the trap in one breath: 'having lulled his vigilance, you spring on him'.

Ха-ха! Ведь вот ваша казенщина, это ведь у вас правило, вот на чем вся ваша хитрость-то зиждется!  
Ha-ha! There it is, your routine, that's the rule with you, that's the very thing your whole cunning rests upon!
> Topic-clitic «-то» on «хитрость»: The clitic «-то» on «хитрость-то» underlines a known topic with an insinuating nudge — 'that whole cunning of yours'. Combined with the bookish verb «зиждется» (rests upon, is founded), it gives Mitya's gibe a mock-solemn ring.
> «зиждиться» — to be founded upon: «зиждется» (from the archaic «зиждиться», to be founded/based) is a lofty, Slavonic-flavoured verb for 'rests upon, is grounded in'. Mitya drops it ironically into his taunt, dressing up the magistrates' 'cunning' in elevated language.

Да ведь это вы мужиков усыпляйте подобными хитростями, а не меня.  
It's peasants you ought to be lulling with tricks like that — not me.
> Fronted object + imperative «усыпляйте»: Word order throws «мужиков» (peasants, animate accusative) to the front for contrast — 'it's peasants you should be lulling, not me'. «усыпляйте» is an imperfective imperative (keep doing it generally); the «а не меня» caps the topic-comment contrast.

Я ведь понимаю дело, сам служил, ха-ха-ха! Не сердитесь, господа, прощаете дерзость?— крикнул он, смотря на них с удивительным почти добродушием.  
I understand the business, you see, I've served myself, ha-ha-ha! Don't be angry, gentlemen, will you forgive the impertinence?" he cried, looking at them with an almost astonishing good nature.
> Present gerund «смотря»: «смотря на них» is an imperfective present gerund (-я) of «смотреть» — 'looking at them', an attendant simultaneous action sharing Mitya's subject. The gerund neatly attaches his manner of looking to the act of crying out.
> «дерзость» — impudence, boldness: «дерзость» spans 'insolence, cheek' and 'daring, audacity' — Mitya begs pardon for his «дерзость», the brazen lecturing he's just delivered. The word's double edge fits a man whose impudence is also a kind of reckless courage.

— Ведь Митька Карамазов сказал, стало быть, можно и извинить, потому умному человеку не извинительно, а Митьке извинительно! Ха-ха!  
"It was Mitka Karamazov who said it, after all, so it can be excused — for what's unforgivable in a clever man is forgivable in Mitka! Ha-ha!"
> «Митька» — the rough diminutive: «Митька», with the suffix -к-, is the blunt, lowly diminutive of Dmitri — coarser and more self-deprecating than the warm «Митя». By calling himself «Митька Карамазов», Mitya casts himself as a wild, unbuttoned fellow from whom folly is only to be expected.
> Dative + impersonal «извинительно»: «умному человеку … извинительно / Митьке извинительно» is the dative-experiencer pattern with an invariable predicate: 'for a clever man it's unforgivable, for Mitka it's excusable'. The contrastive «а» pivots between the two datives — the whole joke turns on who is excused.

Николай Парфенович слушал и тоже смеялся.  
Nikolai Parfenovich listened and laughed too.
> Imperfective past for background: Both «слушал» (listened) and «смеялся» (laughed, with middle -ся) are imperfective pasts, painting an ongoing, simultaneous scene rather than discrete events — the magistrate is steadily listening and laughing along.

Прокурор хоть и не смеялся, но зорко, не спуская глаз, разглядывал Митю, как бы не желая упустить ни малейшего словечка, ни малейшего движения его, ни малейшего сотрясения малейшей черточки в лице его.  
The prosecutor, though he did not laugh, scrutinized Mitya keenly, never taking his eyes off him, as if not wishing to let slip the smallest word, the smallest movement of his, the smallest twitch of the smallest feature in his face.
> Negated gerund «не спуская глаз»: «не спуская глаз» is a negated present gerund — 'not taking his eyes off (him)', a simultaneous circumstance to «разглядывал». «спускать глаз» idiomatically means to look away; under negation it takes the genitive «глаз». The gerund keeps the prosecutor's fixed stare running through the sentence.
> «ни малейшего» + genitive of negation: Under the negated «не желая упустить», the objects fall into the genitive and chain with intensifying «ни» — «ни малейшего словечка, ни малейшего движения, ни малейшего сотрясения». This triple «ни … ни … ни» is negative concord at full literary stretch: 'not the smallest word, not the smallest movement…'.
> Diminutives «словечко», «черточка»: «словечко» (tiny word) and «черточка» (tiny line/feature) are diminutives of «слово» and «черта». Heaped under «ни малейшего» ('not the smallest'), they sharpen the prosecutor's microscopic vigilance — he misses not even the least flicker.

— Мы, однако, так и начали с вами первоначально,— отозвался, всё продолжая смеяться, Николай Парфенович,— что не стали сбивать вас вопросами: как вы встали поутру и что скушали, а начали даже со слишком существенного.  
"And yet that is just how we began with you from the first," Nikolai Parfenovich responded, still laughing, "in that we did not set about confusing you with questions like how you got up in the morning and what you ate, but began straight off with something rather too essential."
> «стать» as inceptive auxiliary: «не стали сбивать» uses «стать» (perfective) as an inceptive auxiliary with an imperfective infinitive — 'did not set about / take to confusing you'. «вопросами» is the instrumental of means (with questions). The magistrate insists they skipped the trivial run-up.
> «скушать» — the polite 'eat': «скушать» is a softened, genteel perfective for 'to eat' (vs. plain «съесть»), often used in solicitous or childlike speech. Quoting the imagined trivial question 'what you ate', the magistrate adopts exactly the dainty register Mitya mocked.

— Понимаю, понял и оценил, и еще более ценю настоящую вашу доброту со мной, беспримерную, достойную благороднейших душ.  
"I understand — I understood and appreciated it, and I value still more this genuine kindness of yours toward me, unexampled, worthy of the noblest souls.
> Imperfective/perfective in one breath: Mitya juxtaposes imperfective present «понимаю» ('I understand', the standing state) with perfective pasts «понял» and «оценил» ('I grasped and appreciated', completed acts). The slide from present comprehension to past completed insight is pure aspect at work.
> «беспримерный» — unexampled: «беспримерный» (without precedent, 'unexampled') is an elevated adjective Mitya lavishes on the officials' kindness. The hyperbole — 'unexampled, worthy of the noblest souls' — is typical of his swinging emotional generosity.

Мы тут трое сошлись люди благородные, и пусть всё у нас так и будет на взаимном доверии образованных и светских людей, связанных дворянством и честью.  
Here the three of us have come together as men of honor, and let everything between us go on like this, on the mutual trust of educated men of the world, bound by gentle birth and honor.
> Hortative «пусть … будет»: «пусть … будет» is the 3rd-person imperative formed with the particle «пусть» plus a future — 'let everything be / go on'. It voices a wish or exhortation for someone/something other than 'you'.

Во всяком случае, позвольте мне считать вас за лучших друзей моих в эту минуту жизни моей, в эту минуту унижения чести моей! Ведь не обидно это вам, господа, не обидно?  
In any case, allow me to count you among my best friends at this moment of my life, at this moment of the humbling of my honor! It's not offensive to you, gentlemen, is it — not offensive?"
> «считать за» + accusative: «считать вас за … друзей» — 'to count you as my best friends' — uses «считать за» + accusative for 'reckon someone as'. «вас» and «лучших друзей» are animate accusatives; «позвольте мне» again frames the wish as a humble request.
> Dative «вам» with impersonal «обидно»: «не обидно это вам?» — 'it's not offensive to you?' — is the dative-experiencer pattern: «вам» feels the offense, «обидно» is the invariable predicate. The fronted «ведь» and the anxious repetition beg reassurance.

— Напротив, вы всё это так прекрасно выразили, Дмитрий Федорович,— важно и одобрительно согласился Николай Парфенович.  
"On the contrary, you have put all this so beautifully, Dmitri Fyodorovich," Nikolai Parfenovich agreed gravely and approvingly.
> «важно» — gravely, with weight: As a manner adverb «важно» means 'gravely, with dignity / self-importance' — not 'importantly'. Paired with «одобрительно» ('approvingly') over «согласился» (agreed), it fixes the magistrate's solemn, gratified assent.

— А мелочи, господа, все эти крючкотворные мелочи прочь,— восторженно воскликнул Митя,— а то это просто выйдет черт знает что, ведь не правда ли?  
"And away with the trifles, gentlemen, all these hairsplitting trifles," Mitya exclaimed rapturously, "otherwise it'll simply turn into the devil knows what, isn't that so?"
> «крючкотворство» — pettifoggery: «крючкотворный» (from «крючкотворство», literally 'hook-making') is a scornful word for legalistic hairsplitting, pettifoggery, bureaucratic quibbling. Mitya wants all these 'hairsplitting trifles' swept away — «прочь!».
> Verbless imperative «прочь»: «прочь» ('away! off!') stands as a verbless command — 'away with all these trifles'. Such bare directional adverbs functioning as imperatives (вон!, долой!, прочь!) give Mitya's outburst its explosive brevity.
> Idiom «чёрт знает что»: «чёрт знает что» — literally 'the devil knows what' — is a set exclamation for an absurd, chaotic mess. Mitya warns the inquiry will degenerate into 'the devil knows what', invoking the devil as casually as his father and brothers do throughout the novel.

— Вполне последую вашим благоразумным советам,— ввязался вдруг прокурор, обращаясь к Мите,— но от вопроса моего, однако, не откажусь.  
"I shall follow your sensible advice entirely," the prosecutor suddenly cut in, turning to Mitya, "but I will not withdraw my question all the same.
> «отказаться от» + genitive: «не откажусь от вопроса» — 'I will not give up / withdraw my question' — uses «отказаться от» + genitive (the thing renounced). «откажусь» is a reflexive perfective future, a firm single resolve cutting against Mitya's plea.
> «ввязаться» — to cut in, butt in: «ввязался» (perfective, with -ся) means to break into a conversation, to weigh in — here 'cut in'. The verb suggests entangling oneself («вязать», to tie), so the prosecutor doesn't merely speak but inserts himself pointedly into the exchange.

Нам слишком существенно необходимо узнать, для чего именно вам понадобилась такая сумма, то есть именно в три тысячи?  
It is far too essential for us to learn just why you needed such a sum — that is, precisely three thousand."
> Dative «нам» + impersonal «необходимо»: «Нам … необходимо узнать» is the dative-experiencer modal: «нам» (to us) plus invariable «необходимо» (it is essential) plus infinitive — 'we must / it is essential for us to learn'. The intensifiers «слишком существенно» pile on the prosecutor's insistence.
> Dative of need «вам понадобилась»: Again «вам понадобилась … сумма»: the needed thing «сумма» is the subject the verb agrees with, the needer «вам» stands in the dative. «для чего именно» ('for what exactly') presses on motive — the very point Mitya keeps dodging.

— Для чего понадобилась? Ну, для того, для сего… ну, долг отдать.  
"What did I need it for? Well, for this and for that... well, to pay back a debt."
> Archaic «сего» — 'this': «сего» is the genitive of the archaic demonstrative «сей» (this), surviving in fixed bookish phrases. «для того, для сего» is a dismissive 'for this and for that', the old «сей» giving a faintly formal, evasive shrug.
> Infinitive of purpose «долг отдать»: «долг отдать» — 'to pay back a debt' — is a bare infinitive answering 'what for?'; «отдать (долг)» is the perfective 'to give back / repay'. Mitya tosses out the purpose as an afterthought, the object «долг» fronted before its verb.

— Кому именно?  
"To whom, precisely?"
> Interrogative «кому» in the dative: «Кому?» is the dative of the interrogative «кто» — 'to whom?' — the case demanded by repaying a debt to someone. The prosecutor's clipped two-word question presses straight for the recipient.

— Это положительно отказываюсь сказать, господа! Видите, не потому, чтоб не мог сказать, али не смел, али опасался, потому что всё это плевое дело и совершенные пустяки, а потому не скажу, что тут принцип: это моя частная жизнь, и я не позволю вторгаться в мою частную жизнь.  
"That I positively refuse to say, gentlemen! You see, it's not that I couldn't say, or didn't dare, or was afraid, because the whole thing is a mere nothing, the sheerest trifle — but I won't say it because there's a principle at stake: this is my private life, and I will not allow anyone to intrude into my private life.
> Correlative «не потому … а потому, что»: Mitya builds a careful 'not because … but because' frame: «не потому, чтоб…» (with «чтоб» + past «не мог/смел/опасался») against «а потому не скажу, что…». «чтоб» here introduces a denied reason in the irrealis, while «потому что» gives the real one.
> Idiom «плёвое дело»: «плёвое дело» (from «плевать», to spit) means a trifling, contemptibly easy matter — 'not worth spitting on'. Mitya insists his secret is «плёвое дело и совершенные пустяки», a mere nothing, to wave off the suspicion it conceals anything grave.
> «али» — folksy 'or': «али» is a colloquial, folk-tinged variant of «или» (or): «не смел, али опасался». Slipping into peasant diction, Mitya gives his protest a homespun, theatrical color even as he stands on aristocratic 'principle'.

Вот мой принцип. Ваш вопрос до дела не относится, а всё, что до дела не относится, есть моя частная жизнь!  
That is my principle. Your question has no bearing on the case, and everything that has no bearing on the case is my private life!
> Correlative «всё, что …» + copula «есть»: «всё, что … не относится, есть моя частная жизнь» pairs the correlative «всё, что» (everything that) with the rarely-written present copula «есть» — 'is'. Russian normally drops the present 'to be', so the explicit «есть» gives the maxim a formal, axiomatic ring: a stated principle.

Долг хотел отдать, долг чести хотел отдать, а кому— не скажу.  
I wanted to pay a debt, a debt of honor I wanted to pay, but to whom — I won't say."
> Emphatic fronting and repetition: Mitya fronts the object «долг» before «хотел отдать» and then repeats with the fuller «долг чести» — 'a debt I wanted to pay, a debt of honor I wanted to pay'. The free word order plus incremental repetition is a rhetorical crescendo, the new weight on «чести».

— Позвольте нам записать это,— сказал прокурор.  
"Permit us to write that down," said the prosecutor.
> Imperative «позвольте» + dative «нам»: «Позвольте нам записать» — 'permit us to write down' — combines the polite imperative «позвольте» with a dative «нам» (the ones permitted to act) and an infinitive. The prosecutor's clipped courtesy turns even note-taking into a request.

— Сделайте одолжение. Так и записывайте: что не скажу и не скажу.  
"By all means. Write it down just so: that I won't say, and won't say.
> Idiom «сделайте одолжение»: «Сделайте одолжение» — literally 'do (me) a favor' — is a set polite formula meaning 'by all means / please do, go right ahead'. Mitya uses it with a flourish of mock-graciousness as he dares them to write down his refusal.
> Imperfective imperative + emphatic repetition: «записывайте» is an imperfective imperative ('go on writing, keep writing'), and «не скажу и не скажу» repeats the perfective future for stubborn emphasis — 'that I won't say, and won't say'. The doubling makes refusal itself the dictated content.

Пишите, господа, что считаю даже бесчестным это сказать. Эк у вас времени-то много записывать!  
Write it, gentlemen, that I even consider it dishonorable to say. My, but you have a great deal of time for writing!"
> Exclamatory «Эк» + topic-clitic «-то»: «Эк» is an expressive exclamatory particle ('my, how…!'), and «времени-то» tags the topic with «-то». «времени … много» uses the genitive «времени» with the quantity word «много» (much). Together: 'My, but you've got a lot of time!' — a teasing jab.

— Позвольте вас, милостивый государь, предупредить и еще раз вам напомнить, если вы только не знали того,— с особенным и весьма строгим внушением проговорил прокурор,— что вы имеете полное право не отвечать на предлагаемые вам теперь вопросы, а мы, обратно, никакого не имеем права вымогать у вас ответы, если вы сами уклоняетесь отвечать по той или другой причине.  
"Permit me, my dear sir, to warn you and remind you once more, in case you simply did not know it," the prosecutor pronounced with peculiar and most stern emphasis, "that you have every right not to answer the questions now put to you, while we, conversely, have no right whatever to wring answers from you if you yourself decline to answer for one reason or another.
> Animate accusative «вас» across two infinitives: «Позвольте вас … предупредить и … напомнить вам» — the single «вас» (animate accusative) serves «предупредить» (warn), while «напомнить» switches to the dative «вам» (remind to someone). The shifting object cases mirror the two verbs' different government.
> Negative concord «никакого … не имеем»: «никакого не имеем права» shows negative concord: the negative pronoun «никакого» (genitive, 'no … whatever') co-occurs with the verbal «не» — two negatives, one denial. The genitive «права» follows from the negation: 'we have no right whatever'.

Это дело личного соображения вашего. Но наше дело состоит опять-таки в том, чтобы вам в подобном теперешнему случае представить на вид и разъяснить всю ту степень вреда, который вы сами же себе производите, отказываясь дать то или другое показание.  
That is a matter for your own consideration. But it is, again, our business in a case like the present one to set before you and explain the whole degree of harm you are doing to yourself by refusing to give one piece of testimony or another.
> «себе» reflexive + intensifier «сами же»: «вы сами же себе производите» packs the reflexive pronoun «себе» (to yourself, dative) with the intensifier «сами» and the particle «же» — 'the harm you yourself are doing to yourself'. «который» relativizes «вреда» (harm). The layering drives home that the damage is self-inflicted.
> Present gerund «отказываясь»: «отказываясь» is an imperfective present gerund (-ясь, reflexive) — 'by refusing', the means/circumstance of doing oneself harm. It shares the subject 'you' and condenses a whole causal clause into one verb-adverb, in the prosecutor's measured legal style.

Затем прошу продолжать.  
And now I beg you to continue."
> «прошу» + infinitive request: «прошу продолжать» — 'I beg/ask (you) to continue' — uses the 1st-person present «прошу» plus an imperfective infinitive, a courteous formula equivalent to a softened command. «Затем» here means 'and now / thereupon'.

— Господа, я ведь не сержусь… я…— забормотал было Митя, несколько сконфуженный внушением,— вот-с видите, господа, этот самый Самсонов, к которому я тогда пошел…  
"Gentlemen, I'm not angry, you know... I..." Mitya began to mumble, somewhat disconcerted by the admonition, "you see, gentlemen, this same Samsonov, to whom I went that day..."
> The particle «было» — an interrupted start: «забормотал было» uses the particle «было» after a perfective past to mark an action begun but checked or undone — 'began to mumble (but…)'. It signals that Mitya's flustered start went nowhere, cut short by his own confusion.
> «сконфуженный» — abashed: «сконфуженный» (past passive participle of «сконфузить», from the borrowing «конфуз») means abashed, disconcerted, put out of countenance. The prosecutor's «внушение» (admonition) has briefly knocked the bravado out of Mitya.
> Deferential «-с» on «вот-с»: Even rattled, Mitya tacks the deferential «-с» (the clipped «сударь», sir) onto «вот-с» — 'you see, sir'. Catching himself after the rebuke, he slips into the obsequious register, the same particle the magistrate used in segment s10.

Мы, конечно, не станем приводить рассказ его в подробности о том, что уже известно читателю.  
We shall not, of course, set down his account in the detail of what is already known to the reader.
> «не станем» — negated inceptive future: «не станем приводить» uses «стать» as an inceptive auxiliary in the perfective future with an imperfective infinitive — 'we shall not (set about) recounting'. This is the chronicler-narrator's voice, the editorial 'we' declining to repeat known matter.
> Dative «читателю» + short «известно»: «известно читателю» is the dative-experiencer pattern with the short predicate «известно» (is known) — 'what is already known to the reader'. The reader, like any experiencer, stands in the dative «читателю».

Рассказчик нетерпеливо хотел рассказать всё до малейшей черточки и в то же время чтобы вышло поскорей.  
The narrator was impatient to tell everything down to the smallest detail and at the same time to have it done with quickly.
> Purpose clause «чтобы вышло»: After «хотел», the second wish shifts to a «чтобы»-clause with the past-form «вышло» — 'and at the same time [wanted] it to come out quickly'. «чтобы» + past is Russian's willed/purposive irrealis, the second half of the «бы»-machinery fused into the conjunction.
> «до малейшей черточки» — down to the last detail: «до малейшей черточки» — 'down to the smallest little line/feature' — uses the superlative «малейшей» with the diminutive «черточка» for 'every last detail'. The same image of the tiny «черточка» echoes the prosecutor's scrutiny in segment s38, now turned to Mitya's eager fullness of telling.

Но по мере показаний их записывали, а стало быть, необходимо его останавливали.  
But as his depositions were being written down, they necessarily kept stopping him.
> «по мере» + genitive: 'in proportion as': The preposition «по мере» ('to the extent / as') governs the genitive «показаний» (gen. pl. of «показание»), here meaning 'as his depositions [proceeded].' It frames a gradual, parallel unfolding — the writing-down keeps pace with the testimony.
> Imperfective past for repeated action: Both «записывали» (kept writing down) and «останавливали» (kept stopping) are imperfective past, marking habitual, repeated action through the interrogation rather than single events — hence English 'were being written down' and 'kept stopping him.'
> «показание»: legal deposition: «Показание» is the legal term for sworn testimony or a deposition, the formal statement a witness or suspect gives. The plural «показания» here is the running record of what Mitya keeps telling the investigators.
> «стало быть»: 'consequently': «Стало быть» is a slightly old-fashioned, colloquial logical connector meaning 'and so / consequently / therefore.' It threads cause to effect in narration and speech and is a favorite of Dostoevsky's reasoning voice.

Дмитрий Федорович осуждал это, но подчинялся, сердился, но пока еще добродушно.  
Dmitri Fyodorovich disapproved of this, yet submitted; he grew angry, but so far still good-naturedly.
> A row of imperfectives for inner process: The string of imperfective past verbs «осуждал… подчинялся… сердился» paints overlapping, ongoing states — he was disapproving, submitting, growing angry — none of them a finished event. The aspect keeps Mitya's mood as a continuing background rather than a sequence of completed acts.
> Double «но» and the particle «пока еще»: Two contrastive «но» ('but') stack the concessions, while «пока еще» ('so far / for the time being still') flags a temporary state that the narrator hints will not last. It quietly foreshadows the souring of Mitya's good humor.
> «добродушно»: good-naturedly: «Добродушно» (from «добрый» good + «душа» soul) means 'good-naturedly, kindly.' It captures the open, unguarded warmth that is so characteristic of Mitya — and that the cold procedure of the interrogation will steadily wear away.

Правда, вскрикивал иногда: «Господа, это самого го́спода бога взбесит», или: «Господа, знаете ли вы, что вы только напрасно меня раздражаете?», но всё еще, восклицая это, своего дружески экспансивного настроения пока не изменял.  
True, he would cry out now and then: "Gentlemen, this would enrage God Almighty Himself," or: "Gentlemen, do you know that you are irritating me to no purpose?" — but even while exclaiming this, he had not yet, for the moment, abandoned his friendly, expansive mood.
> Imperfective «вскрикивал» + «иногда» for repetition: «Вскрикивал» is imperfective past paired with «иногда» ('now and then'), marking a repeated outburst — he would cry out from time to time. The perfective «вскрикнул» would name a single shout; the imperfective makes it a recurring tic of his agitation.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Знаете ли вы» fronts the verb and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to form a pointed yes/no question ('do you know…?'). The «ли» lends a rhetorical, slightly formal edge — Mitya is half-accusing, not really inquiring.
> Gerund «восклицая» of attendant action: «Восклицая» is an imperfective present деепричастие ('exclaiming / while exclaiming'), an indeclinable verb-adverb sharing Mitya's subject and naming the action going on at the same time as the main verb «не изменял» ('did not [yet] alter'). It packs 'even as he exclaimed this' into one word.
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated verb «не изменял» the object stands in the genitive — «своего… настроения» (gen.) rather than accusative — the genitive of negation, very common with abstract objects. It reads as 'did not abandon any of his mood.'
> «взбесить»: to enrage, drive mad: «Взбесить» (perfective; root «бес» = demon, the same as 'rabies/беситься') means 'to infuriate, drive into a frenzy.' Mitya's hyperbole — 'this would enrage God Almighty Himself' — is comically blasphemous, fusing the diabolical root with the holy «господа бога».

Таким образом он рассказал, как «надул» его третьего дня Самсонов.  
In this manner he related how Samsonov had "swindled" him the day before yesterday.
> «таким образом»: instrumental adverbial 'thus': «Таким образом» ('in this manner / thus') is a frozen instrumental phrase (instr. of «образ» 'manner, image') used as a discourse connective. The instrumental here marks manner — the way in which something is done.
> Object-before-subject word order: The clause runs object «его» before subject «Самсонов» («надул его… Самсонов»). Because case endings keep the roles clear, Russian freely places the new, weighty information — the swindler's name — last for emphasis.
> «надуть»: to cheat, dupe: Literally 'to inflate / blow up,' «надуть» is slangy for 'to swindle, take in, dupe.' The narrator keeps it in quotation marks because it is Mitya's own raw word for what Samsonov did to him.
> «третьего дня»: the day before yesterday: A fixed genitive time-expression «третьего дня» ('on the third day [back]') means 'the day before yesterday.' It is bookish and dated; modern Russian prefers «позавчера».

(Он уже догадывался теперь вполне, что его тогда надули).  
(By now he fully suspected that he had been swindled on that occasion.)
> Imperfective «догадывался» of a dawning realization: «Догадывался» (imperfective past) presents the guessing as a gradual process now reaching fullness ('вполне', completely) — he was coming to suspect. The perfective «догадался» would freeze it into the single moment of realization.
> Impersonal 'they' passive «надули»: «Надули» is a 3rd-person-plural verb with no stated subject — the impersonal 'they swindled him,' which Russian uses where English reaches for a passive ('he had been swindled'). The unnamed agent suits Mitya's vague, retrospective sense of having been had.

Продажа часов за шесть рублей, чтобы добыть на дорогу денег, совсем еще не известная следователю и прокурору, возбудила тотчас же всё чрезвычайное их внимание, и уже к безмерному негодованию Мити: нашли нужным факт этот в подробности записать, ввиду вторичного подтверждения того обстоятельства, что у него и накануне не было уже ни гроша почти денег.  
The sale of the watch for six roubles, to get money for the journey, of which the magistrate and prosecutor knew nothing as yet, at once roused the whole of their extraordinary attention, and — to Mitya's boundless indignation — they found it necessary to write the fact down in detail, as a second confirmation of the circumstance that even the day before he had had scarcely a penny of money left.
> Genitive chains and numeral government: «Продажа часов» is a noun-of-action with its object in the genitive ('the sale of the watch'), and «шесть рублей» shows numerals five-and-up taking the genitive plural «рублей». The case endings let this whole heavy subject stand before its verb «возбудила».
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы добыть… денег» is a purpose clause ('in order to get money'). Because the two clauses share a subject, «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive «добыть» rather than a past-form verb; «денег» is a partitive genitive ('some money').
> Dative of the experiencer with «известная»: «Известная следователю и прокурору» means 'unknown to the magistrate and prosecutor' — the people to whom it is unknown stand in the dative, the case of the one a state pertains to. The participle-like adjective «известная» agrees with the feminine subject «продажа».
> Negated existential: «не было» + genitive: «У него не было… ни гроша… денег» is the standard 'he had no…' frame: «у» + genitive for the possessor, «не было» (neuter, impersonal) for non-existence, and the absent thing in the genitive («гроша», «денег»). The «ни» intensifies to 'not a single penny.'
> «ни гроша»: not a farthing: A «грош» was a tiny copper coin (half a kopeck), so «ни гроша» ('not a grosh') is the idiom for utter pennilessness — 'not a red cent.' It survives in modern Russian only in such set negative phrases.
> «к негодованию»: 'to the indignation of': «К… негодованию» ('to the [boundless] indignation of') is a fixed «к» + dative reaction-phrase, like English 'to his dismay.' «Негодование» is high-register 'indignation, outrage'; «безмерному» ('measureless') heightens it.

Мало-помалу Митя начал становиться угрюмым.  
Little by little Mitya began to turn sullen.
> Instrumental predicate after «становиться»: «Становиться угрюмым» ('to become sullen') puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental «угрюмым», as «становиться/стать» and «быть» regularly do. The phasal verb «начал» ('began') adds the onset of the change.
> «мало-помалу»: little by little: «Мало-помалу» ('bit by bit, gradually') is a reduplicative adverbial idiom — literally 'little [by] little' — slightly literary and well suited to charting the slow darkening of Mitya's mood.

Затем, описав путешествие к Лягавому и проведенную в угарной избе ночь и проч., довел свой рассказ и до возвращения в город и тут начал сам, без особенной уже просьбы, подробно описывать ревнивые муки свои с Грушенькой.  
Then, having described his journey to Lyagavy and the night spent in the fume-filled hut, and so on, he brought his account up to his return to town, and there, of his own accord, without any special prompting now, he began to describe in detail his torments of jealousy over Grushenka.
> Perfective gerund «описав» for prior action: «Описав» is a perfective past деепричастие ('having described'), naming the action completed before the main perfective verb «довел» ('brought up to'). The pairing — gerund of prior act, then finite verb — is the standard way Russian sequences events within one sentence.
> Past passive participle «проведенную»: «Проведенную» is a past passive participle of «провести» ('to spend [time]'), declined to agree with «ночь» — 'the night [that had been] spent.' Such participles fold a whole relative clause ('which he spent…') into one modifier, a hallmark of literary compression.
> «угарная изба»: the fume-filled hut: An «изба» is a traditional peasant log hut; «угарный» derives from «угар», the dangerous carbon-monoxide fumes given off by a stove whose flue is shut too early. The detail recalls Mitya's grim, half-poisoned night at Lyagavy's.
> «ревнивые муки»: torments of jealousy: «Муки» ('torments, agonies', from the same root as 'martyr/мученик') with «ревнивые» ('jealous') names the jealous suffering Mitya is about to lay bare. The plural «муки» heightens it into protracted, repeated anguish.
> «и проч.»: 'et cetera': «И проч.» abbreviates «и прочее» ('and the rest / and so forth'), the period equivalent of 'etc.' The narrator uses it to wave past the parts of Mitya's account already known to the reader.

Его слушали молча и внимательно, особенно вникли в то обстоятельство, что у него давно уже завелся наблюдательный пункт за Грушенькой у Федора Павловича «на задах» в доме Марьи Кондратьевны, и о том, что ему сведения переносил Смердяков: это очень отметили и записали.  
They listened to him in silence and attentively; they took particular note of the circumstance that he had long since set up an observation post on Grushenka at Fyodor Pavlovich's, "at the back," in Marya Kondratyevna's house, and of the fact that it was Smerdyakov who brought him the reports: this they marked down with great care and wrote down.
> Subjectless 'they' + adverbs of manner: «Его слушали» is again a subjectless 3rd-person-plural ('they listened to him'), the officials understood from context. «Молча» (itself a frozen gerund of «молчать», 'in silence') and «внимательно» add manner.
> Reflexive «-ся» for a change of state: «Завелся» (from «завестись») uses the middle/reflexive «-ся» to mean 'got started, came to be set up' — an intransitive change of state with no external agent grammatically present. The «у него» frame makes it 'he had set up,' literally 'an observation post had come into being for him.'
> Dative «ему» + subject-last order: Here «ему» (dative, 'to him') is the recipient, «сведения» the object, and the subject «Смердяков» falls at the end for focus — it is the news that Smerdyakov was the informant. The free order spotlights the agent the officials care about.
> «на задах»: round at the back: «Зады» (always plural) are the back yards or rear premises of a house, the kitchen-garden side away from the street. «На задах» — 'round the back' — is colloquial and rural; the narrator's quotation marks keep Mitya's own homely phrasing for his lookout spot.

О ревности своей говорил он горячо и обширно и хоть и внутренно стыдясь того, что выставляет свои интимнейшие чувства, так сказать, на «всеобщий позор», но видимо пересиливал стыд, чтобы быть правдивым.  
Of his jealousy he spoke hotly and at length, and though inwardly ashamed of exposing his most intimate feelings, so to speak, "to general derision," he visibly forced down his shame in order to be truthful.
> Reflexive gerund «стыдясь» + «-ся» verb: «Стыдясь» is the present gerund of «стыдиться» ('to be ashamed'), one of those verbs that exist only with «-ся». It governs the genitive «того, что…» ('of [the fact] that…'), so the whole means 'being ashamed of the fact that he exposes…'.
> Concessive «хоть и… но»: The frame «хоть и [verb]… но [verb]» ('although he… yet he…') is the standard Russian concessive pairing, where «хоть и» concedes and «но» delivers the countering main clause. Here: though inwardly ashamed, he nonetheless overcame the shame.
> Superlative «интимнейшие»: «Интимнейшие» is the bookish superlative of «интимный» formed with the suffix «-ейш-» ('most intimate'). This synthetic superlative is markedly literary; everyday Russian would more often say «самые интимные».
> «всеобщий позор»: general derision: «Позор» means 'disgrace, shame, public dishonor'; with «всеобщий» ('universal, общий to all') it is exposure 'to general derision.' Mitya's quotation marks signal he is borrowing a grand, self-dramatizing phrase for the humiliation of confessing his jealousy.

Безучастная строгость устремленных пристально на него, во время рассказа, взглядов следователя и особенно прокурора смутила его наконец довольно сильно: «Этот мальчик Николай Парфенович, с которым я еще всего только несколько дней тому говорил глупости про женщин, и этот больной прокурор не стоят того, чтоб я им это рассказывал,— грустно мелькнуло у него в уме,— позор!— „Терпи, смиряйся и молчи“»,— заключил он свою думу стихом, но опять-таки скрепился вновь, чтобы продолжать далее.  
The impassive sternness of the gazes that the magistrate, and the prosecutor especially, fixed intently upon him during his account at last disconcerted him rather sharply: "This boy Nikolai Parfenovich, with whom only a few days ago I was talking nonsense about women, and this sickly prosecutor — they aren't worth my telling them this," flashed mournfully through his mind, "the shame of it! 'Bear, humble yourself, and be still,'" he concluded his thought with a line of verse, but then once more braced himself anew to go on further.
> Participial phrase wrapped around its noun: «Устремленных пристально на него… взглядов» is a past passive participle «устремленных» ('fixed, directed') with its own modifiers, all in the genitive agreeing with «взглядов» ('of the gazes'). The participle frames an entire embedded clause — 'the gazes that were fixed intently upon him' — a dense, very 19th-century construction.
> Abstract subject + perfective «смутила»: The grammatical subject is the abstract «строгость» ('sternness'), and the perfective «смутила» ('disconcerted, threw into confusion') marks the single completed effect it had on Mitya. Russian readily lets an abstract quality act as agent on a person.
> «чтоб» + past-form irrealis after «стоить»: «Не стоят того, чтоб я… рассказывал» uses the reduced «чтоб» (= «чтобы») with the past-form verb «рассказывал» to express a non-factual, willed clause: 'are not worth my telling them.' «Чтобы/чтоб» always takes this irrealis (past) form, never a present.
> Impersonal «мелькнуло» of a passing thought: «Мелькнуло у него в уме» ('flashed through his mind') is a perfective neuter verb with no personal subject — the thought itself, framed impersonally, darts across his mind. «У него» locates the experiencer; «в уме» the place.

Перейдя к рассказу о Хохлаковой, даже вновь развеселился и даже хотел было рассказать об этой барыньке особый недавний анекдотик, не подходящий к делу, но следователь остановил его и вежливо предложил перейти «к более существенному».  
When he came to the story of Madame Khokhlakova, he even grew cheerful again and even wanted to tell a particular recent anecdote about that lady that had nothing to do with the case, but the magistrate stopped him and politely suggested they move on "to something more essential."
> Perfective gerund «перейдя»: «Перейдя» is the perfective past gerund of the prefixed motion verb «перейти» ('to pass over to'), here figurative — 'having moved on to the story.' It marks the completed transition before the main verbs «развеселился» and «хотел».
> The particle «было»: an action checked: «Хотел было рассказать» uses the special particle «было» after a past-tense verb to mark an action that was just begun or intended but then interrupted or abandoned — 'was about to / made to tell.' Sure enough, «но следователь остановил его»: the magistrate cuts him off.
> Diminutives «барынька», «анекдотик»: Both nouns carry diminutive suffixes that color the tone: «барынька» (from «барыня», a lady of the gentry) is a faintly patronizing 'little lady,' and «анекдотик» a 'little anecdote.' The suffixes turn Madame Khokhlakova and her story into something Mitya can treat lightly and amusedly.
> «существенное»: 'the essential': «Существенное» (substantivized adjective, 'that which is essential/substantial') with «более» ('more') gives the polite bureaucratic 'to something more essential.' The magistrate's measured phrase, in quotation marks, contrasts with Mitya's loose storytelling.

Наконец, описав свое отчаяние и рассказав о той минуте, когда, выйдя от Хохлаковой, он даже подумал «скорей зарезать кого-нибудь, а достать три тысячи», его вновь остановили и о том, что «зарезать хотел», записали.  
At last, having described his despair and told of that moment when, on leaving Madame Khokhlakova's, he had even thought, "better to cut somebody's throat than not get the three thousand," they stopped him again and wrote down that he had "wanted to cut a throat."
> Twin perfective gerunds, then subjectless main verb: Two coordinated perfective gerunds «описав… и рассказав» ('having described… and told') set the prior actions, after which the subjectless «остановили… записали» ('they stopped… wrote down') delivers the officials' response. Note the gerunds share Mitya's subject even though the finite verb's subject is 'they' — a slight construction-slip Dostoevsky's running prose tolerates.
> Perfective gerund of motion «выйдя»: «Выйдя» is the perfective past gerund of «выйти» ('to go out / leave'), 'having left.' The prefix «вы-» gives the direction (out from), and «от Хохлаковой» ('from Khokhlakova's') uses «от» + genitive for leaving a person's place.
> «зарезать»: to knife, cut a throat: «Зарезать» (perfective) literally means to kill by cutting — to knife someone or cut a throat, as one slaughters an animal. The brutal concreteness is what so alarms the investigators; the indefinite «кого-нибудь» ('somebody, anybody') makes the impulse all the more damning to record.

Митя безмолвно дал записать.  
Mitya let it be written down without a word.
> «дать» + infinitive: 'let it be written': «Дал записать» uses «дать» ('to give') plus a bare infinitive in its permissive sense — 'allowed [them] to write [it] down, let it be written.' The unexpressed agent ('them') and object ('it') are clear from context, leaving a terse, resigned construction.
> «безмолвно»: wordlessly: «Безмолвно» (без 'without' + молв- 'speech, word') means 'silently, without a word.' It is a shade more literary and absolute than «молча», fitting Mitya's mute, defeated acquiescence as the damning phrase goes into the record.

Наконец дело дошло до той точки в рассказе, когда он вдруг узнал, что Грушенька его обманула и ушла от Самсонова тотчас же, как он привел ее, тогда как сама сказала, что просидит у старика до полуночи: «Если я тогда не убил, господа, эту Феню, то потому только, что мне было некогда»,— вырвалось вдруг у него в этом месте рассказа.  
At last the account reached the point where he suddenly learned that Grushenka had deceived him and had left Samsonov's the moment he had brought her there, whereas she herself had said she would sit with the old man till midnight: "If I didn't kill that Fenya then, gentlemen, it was only because I hadn't the time," burst suddenly from him at this place in the story.
> Adversative «тогда как»: 'whereas': «Тогда как» is a subordinating conjunction of contrast meaning 'whereas, while' — it sets Grushenka's promise against what she actually did. «Сама» ('she herself') stresses that the very person who promised broke the promise.
> Real conditional «если… то»: «Если я… не убил… то потому только, что…» is an indicative (real, not hypothetical) conditional: 'If I didn't kill… then it was only because…'. No «бы» appears because Mitya speaks of a real past fact, not a counterfactual; «то» is the correlative 'then' answering «если».
> Dative-experiencer «мне было некогда»: «Мне было некогда» ('I had no time') is a classic impersonal construction: the dative «мне» names the one affected, «было» is impersonal neuter past, and «некогда» is the negative adverb 'there is no time.' There is no nominative subject at all.
> Reflexive «вырвалось»: it burst from him: «Вырвалось» (perfective, with middle «-ся») means '[it] burst/escaped' — an involuntary outburst that grammatically has no human agent, only «у него» ('from him'). The construction stages the words as escaping Mitya against his will.
> «Феня»: Fenya, the maid: «Феня» is the familiar diminutive of «Феона/Федосья», the name of Grushenka's young maid. The contemptuous «эту Феню» ('that Fenya') in Mitya's threat shows how, in his jealous fury, even a servant girl became a target.

И это тщательно записали.  
And this too was carefully written down.
> Fronted object «это» + subjectless verb: «Это» (the just-uttered threat) is fronted as topic before the subjectless «записали» ('[they] wrote [it] down'). The terse one-line paragraph, recurring through the chapter, drums home the relentless transcribing of Mitya's every incriminating word.

Митя мрачно подождал и стал было повествовать о том, как он побежал к отцу в сад, как вдруг его остановил следователь и, раскрыв свой большой портфель, лежавший подле него на диване, вынул из него медный пестик.  
Mitya waited gloomily and was about to recount how he had run to his father's garden, when suddenly the magistrate stopped him and, opening his large portfolio, which lay beside him on the sofa, drew from it the brass pestle.
> «стал было… как вдруг»: a checked action interrupted: «Стал было повествовать» (began to recount) again uses the particle «было» for an action barely started, and «как вдруг» ('when suddenly') marks the abrupt interruption. The pattern stages Mitya's narration repeatedly cut short by the magistrate.
> Gerund «раскрыв» + «из» + genitive: «Раскрыв свой большой портфель… вынул из него…» chains a perfective gerund ('having opened') to the main verb «вынул» ('drew out'). «Из него» ('out of it') shows «из» governing the genitive, the case of motion out of something.
> Past active participle «лежавший»: «Лежавший подле него на диване» is a past active participle of «лежать» ('to lie'), agreeing with «портфель» — 'which was lying beside him on the sofa.' It compresses a который-clause into a modifier. «Подле» ('beside') is an archaic-flavored preposition + genitive.

— Знаком вам этот предмет?— показал он его Мите.  
"Is this object familiar to you?" he asked, showing it to Mitya.
> Short adjective «знаком» + dative: «Знаком» is the short (predicative) form of «знакомый» ('familiar, acquainted'), and it governs the dative «вам» — 'is this object familiar to you?' Short adjectives, used only predicatively, give the formal, clipped register of the magistrate's question.

— Ах да!— мрачно усмехнулся он,— как не знаком! Дайте-ка посмотреть… А черт, не надо!  
"Ah yes!" he smiled gloomily, "how could it not be familiar! Let me have a look... No, the devil, never mind!"
> Rhetorical «как не…!» ('how could it not!'): «Как не знаком!» is an exclamatory rhetorical denial — literally 'how [is it] not familiar!', i.e. 'of course it's familiar!'. The «как… не» pattern asserts emphatically by pretending to question, a lively colloquial turn.
> Imperative + softening particle «-ка»: «Дайте-ка» is the polite/plural imperative «дайте» ('give / let') with the enclitic «-ка», which softens a command into a casual, friendly request — 'let me just have a look.' «-ка» is a small but constant feature of colloquial Russian.
> «а черт!»: 'oh, the devil!': «Черт» ('devil') is Mitya's habitual oath of frustration, and «не надо» ('no need / never mind') reverses his own request mid-thought. The mercurial 'let me look — no, the devil, never mind' captures his jangled nerves before the pestle.

— Вы о нем упомянуть забыли,— заметил следователь.  
"You forgot to mention it," the magistrate observed.
> Inverted infinitive + «забыли»: «О нем упомянуть забыли» places the infinitive «упомянуть» ('to mention') before the finite «забыли» ('you forgot') — an inversion that fronts the omitted content for emphasis. «О нем» ('about it') uses «о» + prepositional, the case for the topic mentioned.

— А черт! Не скрыл бы от вас, небось без него бы не обошлось, как вы думаете? Из памяти только вылетело.  
"The devil! I wouldn't have hidden it from you — surely things couldn't have gone off without it, don't you think? It just slipped my memory."
> Conditional «не скрыл бы»: «Не скрыл бы» is the conditional/subjunctive — past-form verb «скрыл» + particle «бы» — 'I would not have hidden [it].' It states a counterfactual: had he remembered, he would not have concealed the pestle from them.
> Impersonal «обошлось» + «бы»: «Без него бы не обошлось» ('things wouldn't have managed without it') is an impersonal reflexive conditional: «обойтись» ('to do/manage without') with «-ся», neuter «обошлось», and «бы» for the hypothetical. «Без него» ('without it') takes «без» + genitive.
> «небось»: 'I dare say, surely': «Небось» is a colloquial modal word (a contraction of «не бойся», 'don't fear') meaning 'I suppose, surely, I'll bet.' It lends Mitya's speech a folksy, self-assured shrug — 'surely things couldn't have gone off without it.'
> «из памяти вылетело»: it slipped my memory: «Вылететь из памяти» ('to fly out of [one's] memory') is the idiom for 'to slip one's mind, escape one's memory.' The impersonal «вылетело» makes the forgetting something that happened to Mitya, not something he did.

— Благоволите же рассказать обстоятельно, как вы им вооружились.  
"Be so good as to tell us in detail how you came to arm yourself with it."
> Instrumental object of «вооружиться»: «Вооружиться» ('to arm oneself', reflexive «-ся») takes its object in the instrumental — «им» ('with it', instr. of «он»). The instrumental is the natural case for the means or instrument: one arms oneself by means of the pestle.
> «благоволите»: 'be so good as to': «Благоволить» (lit. 'to be well-disposed, deign'; from благо 'good' + воля 'will') is an archaic, ceremonious imperative of officialese — 'be so good as to, kindly.' The magistrate's stiff courtesy («благоволите же… обстоятельно») is exactly the chilly formality that grates on Mitya.
> «обстоятельно»: in full detail: «Обстоятельно» (from «обстоятельство», 'circumstance') means 'thoroughly, circumstantially, in full detail.' It is the investigators' watchword — they want every fact «в подробности» and «обстоятельно» — and a quiet irony given how few of Mitya's details will help him.

— Извольте, благоволю, господа.  
"Very well, I'll be so good, gentlemen."
> «извольте» / «благоволю»: mock courtesy: «Извольте» ('if you please, as you wish') is another formula of polite assent, and Mitya tosses the magistrate's own «благоволите» back as «благоволю» ('I will be so good'). He mimics the officials' ceremonious register, half-mockingly playing the obliging gentleman.

И Митя рассказал, как он взял пестик и побежал.  
And Mitya told how he had seized the pestle and run off.
> Two perfectives sequencing events: «Взял… и побежал» ('seized… and ran off') are two perfective past verbs, each a single completed act, moving the narration forward step by step. «Побежал» (perfective of «бежать» with «по-») marks the onset of running.

— Но какую же цель имели вы в предмете, вооружаясь таким орудием?  
"But what purpose did you have in mind in arming yourself with such a weapon?"
> Interrogative «какую» + particle «же»: «Какую же цель» pairs the interrogative adjective «какую» ('what kind of / which', acc. agreeing with «цель») with the insistent particle «же», pressing the question — 'but what purpose exactly…?'. «Же» adds the prosecutor's prodding emphasis.
> Imperfective gerund «вооружаясь» + instrumental: «Вооружаясь» is the present (imperfective) gerund of «вооружаться», marking the simultaneous action — 'in arming yourself.' Its object «таким орудием» ('with such a weapon') is again instrumental, the case of the instrument.

— Какую цель? Никакой цели! Захватил и побежал.  
"What purpose? No purpose at all! I grabbed it and ran."
> Negative «никакой» + genitive ellipsis: «Никакой цели!» ('no purpose at all!') uses the negative determiner «никакой» with the noun in the genitive — the genitive of negation surviving even though the verb is elided ([there was] no purpose). «Ни-» words like «никакой» intensify the denial.

— Зачем же, если без цели?  
"But why, if it was without a purpose?"
> «зачем же» + elliptical «если»: «Зачем же» ('but why, then?') again carries the pressing particle «же», and «если без цели?» is an elliptical conditional ('if [it was] without a purpose?') with the verb dropped. «Без цели» uses «без» + genitive.

В Мите кипела досада.  
Vexation was boiling up in Mitya.
> Subject-last word order with «кипела»: «В Мите кипела досада» literally 'in Mitya boiled vexation' — the locative «в Мите» opens, the verb «кипела» follows, and the subject «досада» ('vexation') lands last as the new, weighty information. The order makes the feeling itself the emerging news.
> «кипеть»: to seethe, boil over: «Кипеть» is literally 'to boil,' used figuratively for emotion 'seething, boiling up' inside a person. «Досада» is 'vexation, annoyance, chagrin' — the simmering irritation that will soon boil over into Mitya's outbursts.

Он пристально посмотрел на «мальчика» и мрачно и злобно усмехнулся.  
He stared fixedly at the "boy" and smiled gloomily and spitefully.
> Perfective «усмехнулся» of a single smile: «Усмехнулся» (perfective, reflexive «-ся») names a single completed action — he gave a [bitter] smile. Paired with the adverbs «мрачно и злобно» ('gloomily and spitefully'), it captures one sharp, sardonic curl of the lip.
> «усмехнуться»: to smirk, give a wry smile: Unlike «улыбнуться» (a warm smile), «усмехнуться» is a wry, ironic, or mocking smile — a smirk or sneer. It recurs through this scene as the index of Mitya's bitter, defensive humor toward 'the boy' magistrate.

Дело в том, что ему всё стыднее и стыднее становилось за то, что он сейчас так искренно и с такими излияниями рассказал «таким людям» историю своей ревности.  
The fact was that he felt more and more ashamed of having just now, so frankly and with such outpourings, told "such people" the history of his jealousy.
> Dative-experiencer + intensifying comparative: «Ему… стыднее становилось» is an impersonal dative-experiencer state ('he felt ashamed', lit. 'to him it became more shameful'), with «ему» in the dative and no nominative subject. The doubled comparative «стыднее и стыднее» ('more and more ashamed') marks a rising intensity.
> «дело в том, что»: 'the thing is that': «Дело в том, что…» ('the fact/matter is that…') is a fixed framing phrase that introduces an explanation, with «что» opening the dependent clause. It signals the narrator stepping in to expose the real motive behind Mitya's spite.
> «излияния»: effusions, outpourings: «Излияния» (from «излить», 'to pour out') means emotional 'outpourings, effusions' — the gushing self-revelation of feeling. The word, faintly ironic here, names just what Mitya now regrets having done before «таким людям» ('such people').

— Наплевать на пестик!— вырвалось вдруг у него.  
"To hell with the pestle!" burst suddenly from him.
> Recurring reflexive «вырвалось»: Again «вырвалось… у него» ('burst from him') stages the words as an involuntary eruption with no agent-subject, only the source «у него». The repeated frame marks Mitya's outbursts as things that escape him rather than choices.
> «наплевать на…»: 'to hell with it': «Наплевать на» (lit. 'to spit on') is a crude, dismissive idiom — 'to hell with, who cares about.' «Наплевать на пестик!» is Mitya contemptuously waving away the very evidence the officials prize.

— Однако же-с.  
"All the same, sir."
> The deferential «-с» (slovoers): The clitic «-с» appended to «однако же» ('all the same, however') is the «словоер» — a vestige of «сударь» ('sir') tacked onto words to signal deference or, here, a sly officious politeness. The prosecutor's «-с» keeps the surface courtesy while pressing his point.

— Ну, от собак схватил. Ну, темнота… Ну, на всякий случай.  
"Well, I grabbed it against the dogs. Well, it was dark... Well, just in case."
> Filler particle «ну» in halting speech: The thrice-repeated «ну» ('well…') is a discourse particle marking hesitation and grudging concession as Mitya gropes for a reason. The staccato 'Well… well… well…' renders his irritable, improvised backpedaling.
> «от» + genitive of cause/protection: «От собак» ('against / because of the dogs') uses «от» + genitive, here in its sense of warding off or protecting from something. The object «пестик» is understood: 'I grabbed [it] against the dogs.'
> «на всякий случай»: just in case: «На всякий случай» (lit. 'for every [eventual] case') is the set idiom 'just in case, to be on the safe side.' Mitya offers it as a lame, all-purpose excuse for arming himself.

— А прежде вы тоже брали, выходя ночью со двора, какое-нибудь оружие, если боялись так темноты?  
"And before this, did you likewise take some weapon when going out of the yard at night, if you were so afraid of the dark?"
> Imperfective gerund «выходя» of habit: «Выходя… со двора» is the imperfective present gerund of «выходить» ('going out'), here iterative — 'whenever you went out of the yard.' «Со двора» ('out of the yard') uses «с/со» + genitive for motion away from. The imperfective and «тоже… прежде» frame a repeated past habit.
> «бояться» + genitive of the feared thing: «Боялись… темноты» — «бояться» ('to fear', a «-ся»-only verb) governs the genitive of what is feared, «темноты» ('of the dark'). The conditional «если… так» ('if you were so [afraid]') quietly mocks Mitya's excuse.

— Э, черт, тьфу! Господа, с вами буквально нельзя говорить!— вскрикнул Митя в последней степени раздражения и, обернувшись к писарю, весь покраснев от злобы, с какою-то исступленною ноткой в голосе быстро проговорил ему:  
"Ugh, the devil, pah! Gentlemen, there is literally no talking with you!" Mitya cried in the last degree of exasperation, and, turning to the clerk, flushing all over with spite, in a kind of frenzied note in his voice, he rapidly said to him:
> Impersonal «нельзя» + instrumental «с вами»: «Нельзя говорить» ('one cannot talk') is an impersonal modal with no subject; the implied experiencer is everyone. «С вами» ('with you') uses «с» + instrumental, the case for accompaniment. The whole bursts out as 'there is literally no talking with you.'
> Perfective gerund «обернувшись» + «к» + dative: «Обернувшись к писарю» ('having turned to the clerk') is a perfective gerund of prior action before «проговорил». «К писарю» uses «к» + dative, the case after «к» ('toward'), marking the person turned to.
> Gerund «покраснев» + «от» of cause: «Покраснев от злобы» is a perfective gerund ('having flushed') with «от» + genitive marking the cause — 'red from / with spite.' «От» + genitive is the standard way to express the emotion that produces a physical reaction.
> «писарь»: the copying clerk: The «писарь» is the scribe or copying clerk who physically writes down the deposition — distinct from the «следователь» who directs the questioning. Mitya turns to dictate his furious 'confession' directly to the man holding the pen.
> «исступление»: frenzy, distraction: «Исступленный» (from «исступление», a frenzied loss of self-control) means 'frenzied, distraught, beside oneself.' The «-то» on «какою-то» ('some kind of') hedges the description, and the diminutive «нотка» ('a little note') softens the bookish word — a 'frenzied note' creeping into his voice. Note the older instrumental endings «-ою/-ою» in «какою-то исступленною».

— Запиши сейчас… сейчас… «что схватил с собой пестик, чтобы бежать убить отца моего… Федора Павловича… ударом по голове!» Ну, довольны ли вы теперь, господа? Отвели душу?— проговорил он, уставясь с вызовом на следователя и прокурора.  
"Write it down this instant... this instant... 'that he seized the pestle to run and kill my father... Fyodor Pavlovich... with a blow to the head!' Well, are you satisfied now, gentlemen? Have you eased your hearts?" he said, glaring defiantly at the magistrate and the prosecutor.
> Singular imperative «запиши»: «Запиши» is the perfective singular imperative ('write [it] down!'), addressed familiarly to the clerk. The perfective imperative demands a single completed act — get it down now — matching the urgent, dictating «сейчас… сейчас» ('this instant').
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive chain: «Чтобы бежать убить отца» ('in order to run [and] kill my father') is a purpose clause with «чтобы» + infinitives, the two verbs «бежать убить» juxtaposed without a conjunction ('run to kill'). «Отца» is animate accusative (= genitive form), the direct object.
> Instrumental of means «ударом»: «Ударом по голове» ('with a blow to the head') uses the instrumental «ударом» for the means/instrument of the killing, and «по голове» ('to/on the head', «по» + dative) for the target. The instrumental coldly specifies the method Mitya bitterly dictates.
> «отвести душу»: to ease one's heart: «Отвести душу» (lit. 'to lead the soul aside') is the idiom 'to unburden oneself, get something off one's chest, have one's fill.' Mitya throws it sarcastically at the officials — 'have you eased your hearts now?' — accusing them of relishing his self-incrimination.

— Мы слишком понимаем, что подобное показание вы дали сейчас в раздражении на нас и в досаде на вопросы, которые мы вам представляем, которые вы считаете мелочными и которые, в сущности, весьма существенны,— сухо проговорил ему в ответ прокурор.  
"We understand all too well that you have just given such testimony out of irritation with us and vexation at the questions we are putting to you, which you consider petty and which are, in essence, highly essential," the prosecutor said dryly in answer.
> Reported «что»-clause and «в» + prepositional of state: «Что… вы дали… в раздражении… и в досаде» is a reported-fact clause opened by «что» ('that you gave such testimony'). «В раздражении» / «в досаде» use «в» + prepositional to express the emotional state one is in — 'out of / in irritation and vexation.'
> Relative «которые» + instrumental predicate: Two «который»-clauses modify «вопросы» ('the questions'): «которые вы считаете мелочными» puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental «мелочными» after «считать» ('to consider [something] [to be]…'), which governs the instrumental for the assigned quality.
> «в сущности»: in essence: «В сущности» (from «сущность», 'essence') means 'essentially, in essence, at bottom.' The prosecutor's dry «в сущности, весьма существенны» ('are, in essence, highly essential') puns on the shared root «сущ-», turning Mitya's 'petty' questions into the truly substantial ones.

— Да помилуйте же, господа! Ну, взял пестик… Ну, для чего берут в таких случаях что-нибудь в руку? Я не знаю, для чего. Схватил и побежал. Вот и всё. Стыдно, господа, passons, a то, клянусь, я перестану рассказывать!  
"But have mercy, gentlemen! Well, I took the pestle... Well, why does one take something into one's hand on occasions like that? I don't know why. I grabbed it and ran. That's all there is to it. It's shameful, gentlemen, passons, or else, I swear, I'll stop telling it at all!"
> Imperative «помилуйте» + particles «да… же»: «Помилуйте» is the plural/polite imperative of «помиловать» ('to have mercy / spare'), here a worn-down exclamation 'but for goodness' sake, have mercy!' The framing particles «да» (insistent 'but, do') and «же» (emphatic) intensify the plea.
> Impersonal 'one' «берут» + «что-нибудь»: «Берут» (3rd-pl., no subject) is the impersonal 'one takes / people take,' and «что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite 'something, anything [at all]' (the «-нибудь» series). Together: 'why does one take something into one's hand on such occasions?'

Он облокотился на стол и подпер рукой голову.  
He leaned his elbows on the table and propped his head on his hand.
> Two perfectives of posture: «Облокотился» (reflexive «-ся», 'propped his elbows') and «подпер» ('propped up') are perfective past verbs naming two completed gestures in sequence. «Облокотиться» builds on «локоть» ('elbow') — to lean on one's elbows.

Он сидел к ним боком и смотрел в стену, пересиливая в себе дурное чувство.  
He sat sideways to them and looked at the wall, mastering the foul feeling within himself.
> Imperfective past for sustained state: «Сидел… и смотрел» ('sat… and looked') are imperfective past, holding Mitya in a prolonged posture rather than naming events — the static, brooding tableau against which the questioning resumes.
> Imperfective gerund «пересиливая»: «Пересиливая» is the present gerund of «пересиливать» ('to overpower, master'), simultaneous with the main verbs — 'mastering [the feeling] within himself.' «В себе» ('within himself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional, pointing back to Mitya.

В самом деле ему ужасно как хотелось встать и объявить, что более не скажет ни слова, «хоть ведите на смертную казнь».  
He had, in truth, a dreadful urge to stand up and declare that he would not say another word, "even if you lead me to the scaffold."
> Dative-experiencer «ему хотелось» + infinitive: «Ему… хотелось встать» is the impersonal dative-experiencer of desire: «ему» (dat.) + reflexive «хотелось» (it was wanted [by him]) + infinitive — 'he had a [dreadful] urge to stand up.' The «-ся» on «хотелось» frames the wish as welling up in him, not willed.
> Concessive imperative «хоть ведите»: «Хоть ведите…» uses «хоть» ('even if') with the imperative «ведите» ('lead [me]') in a concessive sense — 'even if you lead me to execution.' The imperative form expresses a defiant 'let them do their worst.'

— Видите, господа,— проговорил он вдруг, с трудом пересиливая себя,— видите. Слушаю я вас, и мне мерещится… я, видите, вижу иногда во сне один сон… один такой сон, и он мне часто снится, повторяется, что кто-то за мной гонится, кто-то такой, которого я ужасно боюсь, гонится в темноте, ночью, ищет меня, а я прячусь куда-нибудь от него за дверь или за шкап, прячусь унизительно, а главное, что ему отлично известно, куда я от него спрятался, но что он будто бы нарочно притворяется, что не знает, где я сижу, чтобы дольше промучить меня, чтобы страхом моим насладиться… Вот это и вы теперь делаете! На то похоже!  
"You see, gentlemen," he said suddenly, mastering himself with an effort, "you see. I listen to you, and something keeps coming to my mind... You see, I sometimes have a certain dream in my sleep... one such dream, and it often comes to me, recurs — that someone is chasing me, someone of whom I am terribly afraid, chasing me in the dark, at night, looking for me, while I hide somewhere from him, behind a door or behind a cupboard, hide myself humiliatingly — and the main thing is, he knows perfectly well where I've hidden from him, but he deliberately pretends, as it were, not to know where I'm sitting, so as to torment me longer, so as to gloat over my fear... That is exactly what you are doing now! It's just like that!"
> Two dative-experiencer verbs of dreaming: Both «мерещится» ('appears/looms [to me]') and «снится» ('is dreamt [by me]') are «-ся» verbs that take the dative experiencer «мне» — the dream comes to him, he does not actively dream it. This dative-and-reflexive framing makes the inner vision something that happens to Mitya.
> Indefinite «кто-то» + relative «которого»: «Кто-то» ('someone', specific but unknown, «-то» series) is picked up by the relative clause «которого я… боюсь» — «бояться» governs the genitive, and «которого» takes the genitive its role demands while agreeing in number/gender with «кто-то». The vagueness is the dread.
> «за» + accusative of motion-toward: «Прячусь… за дверь… за шкап» uses «за» + accusative because it expresses motion to a position behind something (hiding [going] behind the door/cupboard). With location it would be instrumental («за дверью»); the accusative marks the dynamic act of ducking behind.
> Purpose «чтобы» + instrumental of «насладиться»: Two «чтобы» + infinitive purpose clauses give the tormentor's aim. «Насладиться» ('to revel in, gloat over') governs the instrumental «страхом моим» ('over my fear') — the instrumental marks the source of enjoyment.
> «шкап»: older form of «шкаф»: «Шкап» is the 19th-century spelling/pronunciation of «шкаф» ('cupboard, wardrobe'), still common in Dostoevsky's day. A small period detail in Mitya's nightmare of hiding 'behind a cupboard.'

— Это вы такие видите сны?— осведомился прокурор.  
"Is that the kind of dream you have?" the prosecutor inquired.
> Fronted «это вы» + framing word order: «Это вы такие видите сны?» fronts «это» and the pronoun «вы» for incredulous emphasis — 'is it really you who has such dreams?' Russian «видеть сны» ('to see dreams') is the idiom for 'to have/dream dreams.'
> «осведомиться»: to inquire: «Осведомиться» (perfective, «-ся») is a formal, slightly bookish 'to inquire, ask after' — the prosecutor's measured, official register, dryly noting Mitya's dreams rather than reacting to them.

— Да, такие вижу сны… А вы уж не хотите ли записать?— криво усмехнулся Митя.  
"Yes, that's the kind of dream I have... And now you wouldn't be wanting to write it down, would you?" Mitya smiled crookedly.
> «не… ли» tentative question + particle «уж»: «Не хотите ли записать?» is the tentative-question frame «не [verb] ли» ('you wouldn't be wanting to…, would you?'), softened and barbed by «уж» ('surely, now'). Mitya mockingly anticipates that they will write even his dreams down.
> «криво усмехнулся»: smiled crookedly: «Криво» ('crookedly, askew') with «усмехнулся» paints a lopsided, sardonic half-smile — the bodily sign of Mitya's bitter irony as he taunts the investigators.

— Нет-с, не записать, но всё же любопытные у вас сны.  
"No, sir, not to write it down, but all the same you have curious dreams."
> Deferential «-с» on «нет»: «Нет-с» again appends the obsequious «-с» (from «сударь», 'sir') to «нет», maintaining the prosecutor's cool officialese politeness. The «-с» peppers the officials' speech as a marker of their careful, deferential surface.
> Predicate-first inversion: «Любопытные у вас сны» fronts the predicate adjective «любопытные» ('curious') before the possessor-phrase «у вас» and the subject «сны» — 'curious dreams you have.' The inversion lands the comment ('curious') first for dry effect.

— Теперь уж не сон! Реализм, господа, реализм действительной жизни! Я волк, а вы охотники, ну и травите волка.  
"This time it's no dream! Realism, gentlemen, the realism of actual life! I'm the wolf, and you're the hunters — so hunt the wolf down."
> Zero copula + contrastive «а»: «Я волк, а вы охотники» ('I'm the wolf, and you're the hunters') shows the present-tense zero copula — no verb 'to be,' just nominative predicates «волк», «охотники». The contrastive «а» sets the two sides against each other in a single balanced antithesis.
> Imperative «травите» of the hunt: «Травите волка» ('hunt the wolf down!') is the plural imperative of «травить», the hunting verb for setting hounds on quarry and running it to ground. The animate accusative «волка» (= genitive form) is the object. Mitya bitterly invites his own quarry-hunt.
> «травить»: to bait, hunt down: «Травить» means to bait or hound an animal — to set dogs on it and harry it to death. Figuratively it is 'to persecute, hound a person.' Mitya's wolf-and-hunters image casts the interrogation as a literary wolf-hunt, a charged motif in Russian writing.

— Вы напрасно взяли такое сравнение…— начал было чрезвычайно мягко Николай Парфенович.  
"You are wrong to take such a comparison..." Nikolai Parfenovich began exceedingly mildly.
> Checked action «начал было»: «Начал было» again uses the particle «было» to mark an action just begun and then cut off — the magistrate 'began [to say]' but is at once interrupted by Mitya in the next segment. The pattern keeps stranding the officials mid-sentence.
> «напрасно»: in vain, wrongly: «Напрасно» means 'in vain, to no purpose, wrongly' — here 'you are wrong to draw such a comparison.' The word becomes the hinge of the next exchange, which Mitya seizes on, throwing «не напрасно!» back at the magistrate.

— Не напрасно, господа, не напрасно!— вскипел опять Митя, хотя и, видимо облегчив душу выходкой внезапного гнева, начал уже опять добреть с каждым словом.— Вы можете не верить преступнику или подсудимому, истязуемому вашими вопросами, но благороднейшему человеку, господа, благороднейшим порывам души (смело это кричу!)— нет! этому вам нельзя не верить… права даже не имеете… но—  
"I am not wrong, gentlemen, not wrong!" Mitya flared up again, though, having visibly relieved his soul with this outburst of sudden anger, he was already beginning to soften once more with every word. "You may not believe a criminal or a defendant tortured by your questions, but a man of the noblest sort, gentlemen, the noblest impulses of the soul (I cry it boldly!) — no! that you cannot but believe... you haven't even the right to... but —"
> Perfective gerund «облегчив» + instrumental: «Облегчив душу выходкой» ('having relieved his soul by an outburst') is a perfective gerund of prior action, with «выходкой» in the instrumental of means — the antic by which he eased himself. The clause explains why he begins to soften even as he flares up.
> Bookish superlative «благороднейший»: «Благороднейший» ('noblest') is the synthetic superlative in «-ейш-», declined to agree with its nouns in the dative («благороднейшему человеку», «благороднейшим порывам»). The dative is governed by «верить» ('to believe [in] someone'). The lofty superlative suits Mitya's swelling self-defense of his 'noble' soul.
> Double negation «нельзя не верить»: «Нельзя не верить» ('one cannot not believe' = 'one cannot but believe') stacks the modal «нельзя» with the negated infinitive «не верить» to make an emphatic positive. «Этому» is dative ('this') governed by «верить»; «вам» is the impersonal experiencer.
> «истязуемый»: tortured (passive participle): «Истязуемый» is the rare bookish present passive participle in «-емый» of «истязать» ('to torture, torment'), agreeing in the dative with «подсудимому» — 'a defendant [being] tortured by your questions.' The agent «вашими вопросами» stands in the instrumental, as passive agents do. «Истязать» is a heavy, almost juridical word for cruel torment.
> «подсудимый»: the accused, defendant: «Подсудимый» (substantivized participle, lit. 'one [brought] under judgment') is the legal term for the accused / defendant standing trial. Mitya pairs it with «преступник» ('criminal'), bitterly naming the categories the law would file him under.

молчи, сердце, Терпи, смиряйся и молчи!  
be still, my heart, Bear, humble yourself, and be still!
> Chain of singular imperatives: The verse is built of four singular imperatives — «молчи» ('be still'), «терпи» ('bear, endure'), «смиряйся» ('humble yourself', reflexive «-ся»), «молчи» again — addressed to the heart («сердце»). The imperative-to-the-self is the lyric's mode of inner command.

Ну, что же, продолжать?— мрачно оборвал он.  
Well, what then, shall I go on?" he broke off gloomily.
> Particle «же» + bare infinitive question: «Ну, что же, продолжать?» combines the filler «ну», the insistent «же», and a bare infinitive «продолжать?» used as a deliberative question — 'well then, [am I] to go on?' The subjectless infinitive-question is a common Russian way to ask 'shall I…?'
> «оборвать»: to break off abruptly: «Оборвать» (perfective) literally 'to tear off,' figuratively 'to cut short, break off (speech)' — here Mitya curtly breaks off his own outburst. «Мрачно» ('gloomily') marks the sullen abruptness with which he snaps back to the matter.

— Как же, сделайте одолжение,— ответил Николай Парфенович.  
"By all means, be so good as to do so," answered Nikolai Parfenovich.
> «сделайте одолжение»: 'be so good': «Сделайте одолжение» (lit. 'do [me] a favor') is a courteous formula 'by all means, please do, be so good.' Nikolai Parfenovich's smooth politeness — answering Mitya's gloom with elaborate courtesy — keeps up the unnerving civility of the whole interrogation.
> Affirmative «как же»: 'of course, by all means': «Как же» here is not a question but an emphatic affirmation — 'why, of course! certainly!' — with «же» reinforcing the ready assent. It is a polite, slightly formal way of saying 'please do go on.'
---

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.