# The Brothers Karamazov, The Third Ordeal

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c5. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c5.json.


Митя хоть и заговорил сурово, но видимо еще более стал стараться не забыть и не упустить ни одной черточки из передаваемого.  
Though Mitya had begun to speak gruffly, he was visibly trying all the harder not to forget or let slip a single small detail of what he was recounting.
> Concessive «хоть и… но»: «хоть (и) … но» is a concessive frame, 'though … (yet)'. The prefix «за-» on «заговорил» is inceptive — 'began to speak / spoke up' — a perfective marking the onset of an action rather than its completion.
> Genitive of negation after «не упустить»: After the negated infinitive «не забыть и не упустить», the object «ни одной черточки» stands in the genitive, not the accusative — the genitive of negation, reinforced by «ни» ('not a single').
> «черточка» — a tiny detail: A diminutive of «черта» ('feature, line, trait'), so literally 'a little stroke' but idiomatically 'a fine detail.' The «-очк-» suffix here carries the sense of smallness that makes 'not the smallest detail' so emphatic.
> Substantivized present passive participle: «передаваемого» is the present passive participle of «передавать» ('to relate, convey'), used as a neuter noun in the genitive after «из»: 'of what was being recounted.' This nominalized participle is a hallmark of bookish narration.

Он рассказал, как он перескочил через забор в сад отца, как шел до окна и обо всем, наконец, что было под окном.  
He told how he had scrambled over the fence into his father's garden, how he had walked up to the window, and at last about everything that had happened beneath it.
> Aspect contrast: «перескочил» vs «шел»: The perfective «перескочил» ('vaulted over') names a single completed act, while the imperfective «шел» ('was walking, made his way') paints the process of approaching the window. The pairing lets the narration move between event and ongoing motion.
> Prepositional «под окном» of location: «под окном» uses «под» + the instrumental «окном» to express location ('beneath the window'); with the accusative «под окно» it would mean motion toward, 'to under the window.' This two-case split is the heart of «под»'s meaning.

Ясно, точно, как бы отчеканивая, передал он о чувствах, волновавших его в те мгновения в саду, когда ему так ужасно хотелось узнать: у отца ли Грушенька или нет?  
Clearly, precisely, as if stamping each word out, he conveyed the feelings that had stirred him in those moments in the garden, when he so terribly longed to learn whether Grushenka was at his father's or not.
> Gerund «отчеканивая» — 'as if stamping out': «отчеканивая» is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») from «отчеканивать» ('to mint, stamp out coin'), describing the simultaneous manner of his speech. «как бы» ('as if') softens it into a vivid simile — words struck out like coins.
> Past active participle «волновавших»: «волновавших» is the past active participle of imperfective «волновать» ('to stir, agitate'), agreeing with «чувствах»/«чувства» and standing for a «который»-clause: 'the feelings that had been stirring him.'
> Dative-subject «ему хотелось»: An impersonal construction: the experiencer «ему» is in the dative, the verb «хотелось» is reflexive and neuter-impersonal — literally 'to him it so terribly wanted itself to learn.' This dative-first framing of inner compulsion is everywhere in Dostoevsky.
> Embedded question with «ли»: «ли» turns the embedded clause into an indirect yes/no question, 'whether Grushenka was at his father's': the focused phrase «у отца» is fronted, then «ли» follows. «у отца» is «у» + genitive, 'at father's place.'

Но странно это: и прокурор, и следователь слушали на этот раз как-то ужасно сдержанно, смотрели сухо, вопросов делали гораздо меньше.  
But this was strange: both the prosecutor and the investigator listened this time with a peculiar, terrible reserve, watched him drily, and asked far fewer questions.
> Correlative «и… и…» — 'both… and…': Repeated «и … и …» means 'both … and …', not simple 'and.' It coordinates the two officials as a paired subject for the plural verbs «слушали… смотрели… делали».
> Genitive «вопросов» after «меньше»: Quantity words like «меньше» ('fewer/less') govern the genitive, so «вопросов» is genitive plural: 'asked far fewer questions.' «гораздо» intensifies the comparative «меньше».
> «следователь» — examining magistrate: In the Russian judicial system after the 1864 reforms, the «следователь» was the investigating magistrate who conducted the pre-trial inquiry («следствие»), distinct from the «прокурор» (prosecutor). Nikolai Parfenovich holds this office.

Митя ничего не мог заключить по их лицам.  
Mitya could conclude nothing from their faces.
> Negative concord «ничего… не»: «ничего» ('nothing') still requires the verbal negator «не»: «ничего не мог заключить» = 'could conclude nothing.' Russian's obligatory double negation. «ничего» is the genitive form of «ничто», standard as the object of a negated verb.

«Рассердились и обиделись, — подумал он, — ну и черт!»  
"They've taken offense and turned sour," he thought, "well, the devil with them!"
> «ну и черт!» — 'the devil with it!': A dismissive exclamation, roughly 'well, to hell with it!' «черт» ('devil') recurs as Mitya's go-to oath throughout the interrogation, and the devil is a charged motif across the whole novel.
> Subjectless perfective verbs: Both verbs are perfective past plural with the pronoun «они» dropped — the ending «-и» carries person and number. «обиделись» is the reflexive «обидеться» ('to take offense'), where «-ся» makes the verb a change of inner state.

Когда же рассказал, как он решился наконец дать отцу ''знак'', что пришла Грушенька и чтобы тот отворил окно, то прокурор и следователь совсем не обратили внимание на слово «знак», как бы не поняв вовсе, какое значение имеет тут это слово, так что Митя это даже заметил.  
When he came to telling how he had at last resolved to give his father a "sign" that Grushenka had come, so that the old man would open the window, the prosecutor and the investigator paid no attention at all to the word "sign," as though they had failed entirely to grasp what significance the word carried here — so much so that Mitya even noticed it.
> Insistent particle «же»: Here «же» after «когда» does not contrast but adds narrative insistence and continuity — 'and when he then told…'. This emphatic «же» is one of the small particles that give Dostoevsky's prose its spoken texture.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + past: «чтобы» introduces a willed/intended outcome and obligatorily takes the past-tense form «отворил» (the irrealis built into «чтобы»): 'so that the old man would open the window.' «тот» ('that one') points to the father as a tracked topic.
> Perfective past gerund «не поняв»: «поняв» is the perfective past gerund of «понять», naming a prior/anterior state: 'as though having failed to grasp.' Negated and softened with «как бы», it describes the officials' feigned incomprehension as attendant circumstance.

Дойдя наконец до того мгновения, когда, увидев высунувшегося из окна отца, он вскипел ненавистью и выхватил из кармана пестик, он вдруг как бы нарочно остановился.  
Coming at last to the moment when, seeing his father lean out of the window, he had boiled over with hatred and snatched the pestle from his pocket, he suddenly stopped, as if on purpose.
> Perfective gerund «дойдя»: «дойдя» is the perfective past gerund of the prefixed motion verb «дойти» ('to reach, arrive at'), here figuratively 'reaching [in his account] that moment.' The prefix «до-» supplies the sense of completion up to a point.
> Stacked participle + gerund: «увидев» is a perfective gerund ('having seen'), and its object «высунувшегося … отца» carries the past active participle «высунувшегося» (reflexive «высунуться», 'to lean/poke out'), genitive-accusative because «отец» is animate. Two non-finite verb forms packed into one phrase — dense literary syntax.
> «пестик» — the brass pestle: The «пестик», a heavy brass pestle Mitya snatched up earlier, is the central physical object of the murder mystery. The diminutive «-ик» of «пест» is lexicalized (the ordinary word for a pestle), not affectionate here.

Он сидел и глядел в стену и знал, что те так и впились в него глазами.  
He sat staring at the wall, knowing that the two of them had fastened their eyes on him.
> Demonstrative «те» as 'those two': «те» (nominative plural of «тот») stands alone as a pronoun, 'those two / the others' — the magistrate and prosecutor, tracked at a distance. «впились… глазами» uses the instrumental «глазами» as the means: 'fastened onto him with their eyes.'
> Intensive «так и»: «так и» before a perfective verb is an emphatic idiom conveying that the action happened readily, fully, or vigorously: 'positively fastened their eyes on him.' Untranslatable except by stress.

— Ну-с, — сказал следователь, — вы выхватили оружие и… и что же произошло затем?  
"Well, sir," said the investigator, "you snatched out the weapon, and... and what happened next?"
> «-с» — the deferential particle: The clipped «-с» appended to «ну» ('well') is the «словоер», a shortened «сударь» ('sir') tacked onto words to signal deference or, often ironically, mock-politeness. The investigator's «Ну-с» is smooth officialese; it pervades 19th-c. speech.
> Particle «же» in a question: «что же» — 'what then / what on earth' — uses «же» to press the question forward with mild insistence. «произошло» is the perfective past of «произойти» ('to happen, occur'), naming a single completed event.

— Затем? А затем убил… хватил его в темя и раскроил ему череп… Ведь так, по-вашему, так! — засверкал он вдруг глазами.  
"Next? Why, next I killed him... struck him on the crown and split his skull open... Isn't that so, the way you'd have it, isn't it!" — his eyes suddenly flashed.
> Violent perfectives «хватил… раскроил»: «хватить» here is colloquial 'to strike a blow' (distinct from «хватать» 'to seize'); «раскроить» literally 'to cut out/cleave' (as a tailor cuts cloth), so 'split his skull.' «в темя» = 'on the crown of the head'; the dative «ему» marks the affected possessor: 'split the skull on him.'
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'That's it, isn't it, the way you'd have it?' — daring the officials to confirm what he sarcastically attributes to them. «по-вашему» ('in your way / as you see it') is the «по-» + possessive adverbial.
> Inceptive «за-» + instrumental «глазами»: «засверкал» is «сверкать» ('to flash, glitter') with inceptive «за-», 'his eyes began to flash.' The instrumental «глазами» names the body part through which the flashing happens, with «он» as grammatical subject.

Весь потухший было гнев его вдруг поднялся в его душе с необычайною силой.  
All his anger, which had nearly died down, suddenly rose up again in his soul with extraordinary force.
> Particle «было» — the cancelled action: «было» after the participle «потухший» ('extinguished') marks an action begun or nearly complete but then reversed: the anger 'had nearly died down' but flared again. This special «было» signals a started-then-undone event.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «необычайною силой» shows the older feminine instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»), a bookish 19th-century variant frequent in Dostoevsky for rhythm and elevation. «с» + instrumental conveys manner: 'with extraordinary force.'

— По-нашему, — переговорил Николай Парфенович, — ну, а по-вашему?  
"The way we'd have it," Nikolai Parfenovich rejoined, "well, and the way you'd have it?"
> «по-нашему / по-вашему» — 'our way / your way': The adverbial pattern «по-» + possessive ('in our/your way, as we/you see it') drives this whole exchange, with Mitya's «по-моему» to follow. It frames the deadlock as competing versions of the same scene.

Митя опустил глаза и долго молчал.  
Mitya lowered his eyes and was silent for a long time.
> Perfective + imperfective sequence: «опустил» (perfective, 'lowered') marks the single act; «молчал» (imperfective, 'was silent') describes the drawn-out state that follows, reinforced by «долго» ('for a long time'). Aspect carries the shift from event to duration.

— По-моему, господа, по-моему, вот как было, — тихо заговорил он, — слезы ли чьи, мать ли моя умолила бога, дух ли светлый облобызал меня в то мгновение — не знаю, но черт был побежден.  
"The way I'd have it, gentlemen, the way I'd have it, here is how it was," he began softly. "Whether it was someone's tears, or my mother praying to God for me, or a spirit of light that kissed me in that instant — I don't know, but the devil was overcome.
> Disjunctive «ли… ли… ли»: Repeated «ли» strings together alternatives — 'whether someone's tears, or my mother…, or a bright spirit…'. Each fronted noun phrase is followed by «ли», building a solemn list of possible causes of his deliverance.
> Perfective «умолить» + accusative: «умолила» (perfective of «умолить», 'to win over by entreaty, prevail upon by prayer') governs the animate accusative «бога», 'prevailed upon God.' The «у-» prefix gives the sense of achieving the end of the pleading.
> «облобызал» — Church-Slavonic 'kissed': «облобызать» is a solemn, Church-Slavonic-flavored verb for 'to kiss' (root «лобзать»), far loftier than ordinary «поцеловать». Its sacred register suits 'a spirit of light kissed me,' lifting the line into religious vision.

Я бросился от окна и побежал к забору…  
I flung myself away from the window and ran toward the fence...
> Reflexive «бросился» + directional «по-»: «бросился» is reflexive «броситься» ('to throw oneself, rush'); «побежал» is «бежать» with inceptive/directional «по-», 'set off running.' «к забору» = «к» + dative, motion toward the fence.

Отец испугался и в первый раз тут меня рассмотрел, вскрикнул и отскочил от окна — я это очень помню.  
My father took fright and, catching sight of me there for the first time, cried out and sprang back from the window — I remember that very well.
> Perfective «рассмотрел» — 'made out, caught sight of': «рассмотреть» (perfective) means 'to discern, make out by looking closely,' stronger than plain 'see' — the father at last 'made me out.' The chain of perfectives «испугался… рассмотрел… вскрикнул… отскочил» drives the scene event by event.

А я через сад к забору… вот тут-то и настиг меня Григорий, когда уже я сидел на заборе…  
And I went through the garden toward the fence... and it was right there that Grigory caught up with me, just as I was already astride the fence..."
> Emphatic «тут-то и» + inversion: The clitic «-то» fastens onto «тут» to spotlight the place ('right there'), and «и» before the verb adds 'it was precisely there that…'. The verb «настиг» precedes its subject «Григорий» — inversion that throws the new information to the end.
> «настиг» — overtook, caught up with: «настигнуть/настичь» is a somewhat literary perfective, 'to overtake, catch up with (in pursuit),' with the bare athematic past «настиг» (no «-л» on the masculine). Grigory the old servant is the witness whose blow Mitya must answer for.

Тут он поднял наконец глаза на слушателей.  
Here at last he raised his eyes to his listeners.
> Agent noun «слушателей»: «слушатели» ('listeners') is an agent noun in -тель (имя деятеля), formed from the verb stem of «слушать» like писатель, учитель, читатель — morphologically distinct from a participle (a present active participle would be «слушающий»). Here it is animate accusative plural after «на». «поднял глаза на…» is the set phrase 'raised his eyes to.'

Те, казалось, с совершенно безмятежным вниманием глядели на него.  
They, it seemed, were watching him with perfectly untroubled attention.
> Parenthetical «казалось»: «казалось» ('it seemed') is dropped in as an impersonal parenthetical, set off by commas, hedging the narrator's report. «Те» again means 'those two,' the officials tracked as a unit.
> «безмятежный» — untroubled, serene: «безмятежный» ('serene, untroubled,' literally 'without storm/turmoil,' from «мятеж» 'turmoil, mutiny') is a bookish, elevated adjective. Its calm is deliberately at odds with the «судорога негодования» that immediately seizes Mitya.

Какая-то судорога негодования прошла в душе Мити.  
Some spasm of indignation passed through Mitya's soul.
> Indefinite «какая-то» + genitive of content: «какая-то» ('some sort of') is the «-то» indefinite, a specific-but-unnamed spasm. «негодования» is genitive, 'a spasm of indignation' — the genitive of content specifying what the spasm consists in.

— А ведь вы, господа, в эту минуту надо мной насмехаетесь! — прервал он вдруг.  
"You know, gentlemen, at this very minute you are laughing at me!" he suddenly broke off.
> «ведь» + reflexive «насмехаетесь»: «ведь» appeals to a shared truth he is forcing into the open: 'you know, you are laughing at me.' «насмехаться» (only in the «-ся» form) governs «над» + instrumental «надо мной», 'to mock at someone.'

— Почему вы так заключаете? — заметил Николай Парфенович.  
"What makes you conclude that?" remarked Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Imperfective «заключаете» — general fact: The imperfective present «заключаете» ('do you conclude / draw that inference') states it as a general activity, not one finished act. «так» here = 'thus, that' — 'what makes you conclude so?'

— Ни одному слову не верите, вот почему!  
"You don't believe a single word, that's what!
> «верить» + dative under negation: «верить» governs the dative ('to believe someone/something'), so «ни одному слову» is dative singular, intensified by «ни» ('not a single'), with obligatory «не» on the verb: 'you believe not one word.'

Ведь понимаю же я, что до главной точки дошел: старик теперь там лежит с проломленною головой, а я — трагически описав, как хотел убить и как уже пестик выхватил, я вдруг от окна убегаю…  
Why, I understand that I've reached the crucial point: the old man is lying there now with his skull broken in, and I — having described in tragic terms how I wanted to kill him and how I'd already snatched out the pestle — I suddenly run away from the window...
> Double particle «ведь… же»: Mitya piles up two particles: «ведь» appeals to the obvious and «же» insists — 'why, I do understand, you know.' Such clustering of modal particles is the very sound of his agitated speech.
> Perfective gerund «описав»: «описав» is the perfective past gerund of «описать» ('to describe'): 'having described [in tragic terms]…'. It frames the prior action against the main clause «я вдруг… убегаю» — a sudden flight given in the vivid historical present.
> Passive participle «проломленною»: «проломленною» is the past passive participle of «проломить» ('to break/stave in'), in the archaic instrumental «-ою»: 'with his skull broken in.' The «-нн-» passive participle states the result of the blow.
> Historical present «убегаю»: Mitya switches to the imperfective present «убегаю» ('I run away') to narrate a past event vividly, as if it unfolds before us — the 'historical present,' a stock device of agitated, dramatized storytelling.

Поэма! В стихах!  
A poem! In verse!
> «поэма» — a narrative poem: A «поэма» is specifically a long narrative or epic poem (Pushkin's, Gogol's «Мёртвые души» is subtitled one), not a short lyric «стихотворение». Mitya sneers that the prosecutors have turned his confession into a fanciful epic 'in verse.'

Можно поверить на слово молодцу! Ха-ха!  
One can take the fine fellow at his word! Ha-ha!
> «молодец» — fine fellow (here ironic): «молодец» normally praises a 'fine, capable fellow,' but Mitya turns it bitterly on himself — 'one can take the brave lad at his word!' In the dative «молодцу» as the one trusted. The word also carries a folk-tale ring («добрый молодец»).

Насмешники вы, господа!  
You're mockers, gentlemen!"
> Predicate-first inversion: The predicate noun «насмешники» ('mockers') is thrown to the front, ahead of the subject «вы», for accusatory emphasis: 'Mockers, that's what you are, gentlemen!' In the zero-copula present both stand in the nominative.

И он всем корпусом повернулся на стуле, так что стул затрещал.  
And he turned his whole body on the chair, so that the chair creaked.
> Instrumental of manner «всем корпусом»: «всем корпусом» (instrumental, 'with his whole trunk/body') tells how he turned — bodily, all at once. «повернулся» is reflexive «повернуться» ('to turn oneself'), the intransitive middle.
> Result clause «так что» + inceptive «за-»: «так что» introduces a clause of result, 'so that…'. «затрещал» is «трещать» ('to crack, creak') with inceptive «за-», 'began to creak' — the chair gives out a sudden crack under his violent motion.

— А не заметили ли вы, — начал вдруг прокурор, как будто и внимания не обратив на волнение Мити, — не заметили ли вы, когда отбегали от окна: была ли дверь в сад, находящаяся в другом конце флигеля, отперта или нет?  
"And did you not notice," the prosecutor suddenly began, as though paying no attention at all to Mitya's agitation, "did you not notice, when you were running from the window, whether the door into the garden — the one at the far end of the lodge — was open or not?"
> Polite «не… ли» question: Fronting the negated verb with «ли» — «не заметили ли вы» — makes a softened, tentative yes/no question ('did you not perhaps notice?'), more courteous and bookish than plain intonation. The prosecutor doubles it for insinuating effect.
> Present active participle «находящаяся»: «находящаяся» is the present active participle of «находиться» ('to be located'), agreeing with «дверь» and compressing 'the door which is located at the far end' into one modifier — measured legal phrasing.
> Embedded «whether… or not» with short participle: The indirect question «была ли… отперта или нет» again uses «ли» for 'whether.' «отперта» is the short-form past passive participle of «отпереть» ('to unlock'), a predicate stating the door's state — 'whether the door was open or not.'

— Нет, не была отперта.  
"No, it wasn't open."
> Negated short participle predicate: «не была отперта» negates the short passive participle: 'was not open(ed).' The feminine «была … отперта» agrees with «дверь»; «не» before the auxiliary «была» denies the resultant state.

— Не была?  
"It wasn't?"

— Была заперта, напротив, и кто ж мог ее отворить?  
"On the contrary, it was locked, and who could have opened it?
> Short participle «заперта»: «заперта» is the short past passive participle of «запереть» ('to lock'), distinct from «отперта» ('unlocked'): 'it was locked, on the contrary.' Russian's «за-/от-» antonym pair on the same root nicely opposes locked vs unlocked.
> «кто ж» — indignant interrogative: «ж» (reduced «же») after «кто» voices indignant rhetorical force: 'and who then could have opened it?' «мог отворить» pairs the past of «мочь» with the perfective infinitive 'to open' — a single potential act.

Ба, дверь, постойте! — как бы опомнился он вдруг и чуть не вздрогнул, — а разве вы нашли дверь отпертою?  
Wait — the door, hold on!" he seemed suddenly to come to himself, and nearly gave a start. "Why, did you find the door open?"
> «Ба!» — exclamation of surprise: «Ба!» is a colloquial interjection of sudden recognition or surprise, roughly 'Hah! / Well I never!' Here it marks the jolt as Mitya grasps the import of the open door.
> Question particle «разве»: «разве» introduces an incredulous question — 'you don't mean you found the door open?' — expressing surprise that contradicts his assumption. «отпертою» is the long-form instrumental participle as a depictive: 'found the door [being] open.'
> Reflexive «опомниться» — to come to oneself: «опомниться» (perfective, only in «-ся») means 'to come to one's senses, recollect oneself.' «как бы» ('as if') turns the narrator's observation into a hedge: 'he seemed suddenly to come to himself.'

— Отпертою.  
"Open."
> One-word instrumental answer: The prosecutor answers with the single instrumental long-form participle «отпертою», echoing «нашли дверь отпертою» — 'open,' i.e. 'we found it open.' The instrumental marks the resultant state the door was found in.

— Так кто ж ее мог отворить, если не сами вы ее отворили? — страшно удивился вдруг Митя.  
"Then who could have opened it, if you yourselves did not?" Mitya was suddenly seized with astonishment.
> Intensive «сами вы»: «сами» ('yourselves,' the intensifier «сам» agreeing with «вы') sharpens the accusation: 'if you yourselves did not open it.' Word order puts «сами вы» before the verb for stress.
> Reflexive «удивился» + adverb «страшно»: «удивиться» (reflexive, 'to be astonished') takes the intensifying adverb «страшно» ('terribly') — colloquially 'awfully surprised.' The verb-before-subject order («удивился… Митя») foregrounds the reaction.

— Дверь стояла отпертою, и убийца вашего родителя несомненно вошел в эту дверь и, совершив убийство, этою же дверью и вышел, — как бы отчеканивая, медленно и раздельно произнес прокурор. — Это нам совершенно ясно.  
"The door stood open, and the murderer of your parent undoubtedly went in by that door and, having committed the murder, went out again by that same door," the prosecutor pronounced slowly and distinctly, as if stamping out each word. "This is perfectly clear to us.
> Perfective gerund «совершив»: «совершив» is the perfective past gerund of «совершить» ('to commit, accomplish'): 'having committed the murder.' It marks the prior act before «вышел» ('went out') — the prosecutor reconstructs the sequence in measured order.
> Instrumental of route «этою же дверью»: «дверью» (instrumental) marks the route of motion — 'went out by that same door.' «этою же» combines the archaic instrumental «-ою» with the identity particle «же» ('the very same'); «и» before the verb means 'precisely.'
> «родитель» — formal 'parent': «родитель» ('parent, begetter') is a stiff, formal word for one's father, far more official than «отец». The prosecutor's choice — 'the murderer of your parent' — gives the sentence its cold, legalistic weight.

Убийство произошло, очевидно, в комнате, ''а не через окно'', что положительно ясно из произведенного акта осмотра, из положения тела и по всему.  
The murder took place, evidently, in the room, and not through the window — which is plainly clear from the report of the inspection, from the position of the body, and from everything.
> Passive participle «произведенного»: «произведенного» is the past passive participle of «произвести» ('to carry out, conduct'), genitive after «из», modifying «акта осмотра»: 'from the inspection report that was drawn up.' Chained genitives («акта осмотра») are dense officialese.

Сомнений в этом обстоятельстве не может быть никаких.  
There can be no doubt whatever on this point."
> Genitive of negation + «никаких»: Under the negated existential «не может быть», the subject «сомнений» ('doubts') goes obligatorily into the genitive, with «никаких» ('none whatever') agreeing and adding negative concord: 'there can be no doubt whatever.'

Митя был страшно поражен.  
Mitya was utterly thunderstruck.
> Short passive participle «поражен»: «поражен» is the short past passive participle of «поразить» ('to strike, stun'), joined to «был» to state Mitya's condition: 'was utterly thunderstruck.' «страшно» ('terribly') intensifies it colloquially.

— Да это же невозможно, господа! — вскричал он совершенно потерявшись, — я… я не входил… я положительно, я с точностью вам говорю, что дверь была заперта всё время, пока я был в саду и когда я убегал из сада.  
"But that's impossible, gentlemen!" he cried, completely at a loss. "I... I didn't go in... I tell you positively, I tell you with certainty, that the door was locked the whole time I was in the garden and when I ran out of it.
> Affirmative «да» + emphatic «же»: Here «да» is not 'yes' but an intensifying opener ('but, why'), and «же» adds protest: 'but that's just impossible!' The two particles together convey Mitya's flabbergasted indignation.
> Perfective gerund «потерявшись»: «потерявшись» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «потеряться» ('to lose oneself, be at a loss'): 'completely at a loss as he cried out.' The «-ся» gerund describes his inner state accompanying the outburst.
> Short participle for a lasting state: «была заперта» (short past passive participle + «была») states the door's condition throughout — 'was locked the whole time.' The imperfective auxiliary «была» plus «всё время» stretches the resultant state across the period he describes.

Я только под окном стоял и в окно его видел, и только, только… До последней минуты помню.  
I only stood beneath the window and saw him through the window, that's all, that's all... I remember it to the very last minute.
> «под» + instrumental vs «в» + accusative: Two contrasting prepositional uses: «под окном стоял» (instrumental, static location, 'stood beneath the window') and «в окно… видел» (accusative, directed action, 'saw through the window'). Case choice tracks rest versus directed perception.

Да хоть бы и не помнил, то всё равно знаю, потому что ''знаки'' только и известны были что мне да Смердякову, да ему, покойнику, а он, без знаков, никому бы в мире не отворил!  
And even if I didn't remember, I'd know it all the same, because the signs were known only to me and to Smerdyakov, and to him, the dead man — and without the signs he'd not have opened the door to a soul in all the world!"
> Concessive conditional «хоть бы… то»: «хоть бы и не помнил» is a concessive conditional with the irrealis «бы» on the past form: 'even if I didn't remember.' The correlative «то» ('then') opens the main clause, «всё равно знаю» — 'I'd know all the same.'
> Restrictive «только и… что»: The frame «только и … что» means 'only, none but': 'were known to none but me and Smerdyakov.' «известны» is a short adjective taking the dative of the knower («мне», «Смердякову»), and «да» is the folksy coordinator 'and.'
> Conditional «бы» + negative concord: «не отворил бы» is the conditional ('would not have opened'), and «никому» ('to no one,' dative) adds negative concord with «не»: 'he'd not have opened to a soul.' «в мире» ('in the world') heightens the absolute.

— Знаки? Какие же это знаки? — с жадным, почти истерическим любопытством проговорил прокурор и вмиг потерял всю сдержанную свою осанку.  
"Signs? What sort of signs are these?" said the prosecutor with greedy, almost hysterical curiosity, instantly losing all his reserved bearing.
> «какие же» — pressing interrogative: «какой» ('what sort of') agrees with «знаки» (nom. pl.), and «же» presses eagerly — 'what sort of signs, then?' The particle betrays the prosecutor's sudden hunger for the new fact.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою» ('his own') refers back to the clause subject (the prosecutor), correctly «свой» rather than «его»: 'lost all his own reserved bearing.' «вмиг» ('in an instant') and the perfective «потерял» snap the change into a single moment.

Он спросил, как бы робко подползая.  
He asked it as though creeping up timidly.
> Imperfective gerund «подползая»: «подползая» is the imperfective present gerund of the prefixed motion verb «подползать» ('to creep up to'), describing the manner of his asking: 'as though timidly creeping up.' «как бы» frames it as the narrator's simile.

Он почуял важный факт, ему еще не известный, и тотчас же почувствовал величайший страх, что Митя, может быть, не захочет открыть его в полноте.  
He had scented an important fact, one still unknown to him, and at once felt a tremendous dread that Mitya might be unwilling to disclose it fully.
> Long adjective «известный» + dative: «не известный» (here long-form, predicative-attributive) with dative «ему» means 'not yet known to him.' The phrase, set off by commas, postmodifies «факт» like a reduced relative clause: 'a fact still unknown to him.'
> Superlative «величайший»: «величайший» is the bookish suffixal superlative of «великий» (suffix «-айший»), 'the very greatest.' Followed by «что Митя… не захочет», it heads a «что»-clause naming the content of his dread.

— А вы и не знали! — подмигнул ему Митя, насмешливо и злобно улыбнувшись. — А что, коль не скажу?  
"So you didn't even know!" Mitya winked at him, smiling mockingly and spitefully. "And what if I don't tell you?
> Perfective gerund «улыбнувшись»: «улыбнувшись» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «улыбнуться» ('to smile'): 'having smiled mockingly and spitefully,' an action just preceding his wink. The two adverbs «насмешливо» and «злобно» colour the smile.
> Colloquial conditional «коль»: «коль» (short for «коли») is a folksy, archaic 'if': 'and what if I don't tell?' «скажу» is the perfective future ('I will/shall not tell'), conjugated like a present but pointing to a completed future act.

От кого тогда узнать?  
From whom would you learn it then?
> Infinitive of deliberation «узнать»: A bare infinitive «узнать» with no subject poses a deliberative/modal question — 'from whom is one to learn it then?' Such subjectless infinitive questions ('what to do?', 'where to go?') are idiomatic Russian. «от кого» = «от» + genitive.

Знали ведь о знаках-то покойник, я да Смердяков, вот и все, да еще небо знало, да оно ведь вам не скажет.  
Why, the only ones who knew about the signs were the dead man, myself, and Smerdyakov — that's all, and heaven besides, but heaven won't tell you.
> Topic clitic «-то» + «ведь»: The clitic «-то» on «знаках» flags the signs as the known topic under discussion ('the signs, you know'), while «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge. «о знаках» is «о» + prepositional, the case of the thing spoken about.
> «да… ведь» + perfective future: «да» here adds 'but,' «ведь» appeals to the obvious, and «не скажет» is the negated perfective future ('won't tell'). Mitya personifies «небо» ('heaven') with the neuter pronoun «оно»: 'but it won't tell you, you know.'

А фактик-то любопытный, черт знает что на нем можно соорудить, ха-ха!  
But it's a curious little fact — the devil knows what one could build on it, ha-ha!
> «фактик» — a 'curious little fact': «фактик» is the diminutive of «факт», here ironic-affectionate — a teasing 'little fact' Mitya dangles before them, sharpened by the topic clitic «-то». The diminutive belittles even as it tempts.
> Impersonal «можно» + «соорудить»: «можно» ('one can / it is possible') is an impersonal predicative governing the perfective infinitive «соорудить» ('to construct, rig up'), with no nominative subject — 'the devil knows what one could build on it.' «черт знает что» is a set idiom, 'goodness knows what.'

Утешьтесь, господа, открою, глупости у вас на уме.  
Set your minds at rest, gentlemen, I'll tell you — you've got nonsense in your heads.
> Reflexive imperative «утешьтесь»: «утешьтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of reflexive «утешиться» ('to console oneself'): 'set your minds at rest.' «открою» is the perfective future ('I'll disclose [it]'), conjugated like a present but completive.
> «у вас на уме» — 'on your minds': Idiomatic «у вас на уме» ('in your heads / on your minds') uses «у» + genitive for the possessor and «на уме» (prepositional) for the locus of thought. «глупости» is the nominative plural subject: 'nonsense is on your minds.'

Не знаете вы, с кем имеете дело!  
You don't know whom you're dealing with!
> «иметь дело с» + instrumental: The idiom «иметь дело с» ('to deal with') governs «с» + instrumental, here the interrogative «кем»: 'whom you're dealing with.' «кто» declines for case but has no number — «кем» is its instrumental.

Вы имеете дело с таким подсудимым, который сам на себя показывает, во вред себе показывает!  
You're dealing with a defendant who testifies against himself, who gives evidence to his own harm!
> Relative «который» + reflexive «себя»: «который» opens a relative clause agreeing with «подсудимым» (masc.) but taking nominative in its own clause as subject. «на себя показывает» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» ('against himself'): 'a defendant who testifies against himself.'
> «показывать» — to give testimony: Beyond 'to show,' «показывать/показать» is a legal term for giving evidence or deposing — «показания» are 'depositions.' Mitya plays on it: he 'shows / testifies against himself,' «во вред себе» ('to his own harm').

Да-с, ибо я рыцарь чести, а вы — нет!  
Yes, sir, for I am a knight of honor, and you — are not!"
> «ибо» — bookish 'for': «ибо» ('for, because') is a markedly archaic, literary causal conjunction, lifting the line to mock-solemn height. With «Да-с» (the deferential «-с») and «рыцарь чести» ('knight of honor'), Mitya strikes a self-dramatizing, chivalric pose.

Прокурор скушал все пилюли, он лишь дрожал от нетерпения узнать про новый факт.  
The prosecutor swallowed all these pills; he was simply quivering with impatience to learn the new fact.
> «проглотить/скушать пилюлю» — to swallow the pill: «скушать пилюли» plays on the idiom 'to swallow a (bitter) pill' — to take an insult without retort. The childish, polite verb «скушать» ('to eat up,' from «кушать») adds a wry note: the prosecutor meekly downs Mitya's jibes.
> «от нетерпения» — genitive of cause: «от» + genitive «нетерпения» gives the cause of the trembling — 'quivered from impatience.' The dependent infinitive «узнать» ('to learn') names what he is impatient for.

Митя точно и пространно изложил им всё, что касалось знаков, изобретенных Федором Павловичем для Смердякова, рассказал, что именно означал каждый стук в окно, простучал даже эти знаки по столу и на вопрос Николая Парфеновича: что, стало быть, и он, Митя, когда стучал старику в окно, то простучал именно тот знак, который означал: «Грушенька пришла», — ответил с точностью, что именно точно так и простучал, что, дескать, «Грушенька пришла».  
Mitya laid out for them precisely and at length everything that concerned the signs Fyodor Pavlovich had devised for Smerdyakov, told them just what each knock at the window meant, even tapped out the signs on the table, and to Nikolai Parfenovich's question — whether, then, when he, Mitya, had knocked at the old man's window, he had tapped out exactly the sign meaning "Grushenka has come" — he answered with precision that he had tapped out exactly that, namely "Grushenka has come."
> Passive participle + instrumental agent: «изобретенных» is the past passive participle of «изобрести» ('to invent, devise'), agreeing with «знаков» (gen. pl.), and the agent «Федором Павловичем» stands in the instrumental — the standard way Russian marks the doer of a passive: 'the signs devised by Fyodor Pavlovich.'
> Embedded «что»-clause with «стало быть»: A long indirect statement: «что… простучал» reports the content of the question, with the parenthetical «стало быть» ('so then, that is to say') and the imperfective «стучал» (the act of knocking) set against the perfective «простучал» (the completed tapping-out of the sign).
> «дескать» — reportative particle: «дескать» (and «мол», «де») flags reported speech with a shade of distance or quotation — 'so to say, [he means].' Here it tags the relayed sign «Грушенька пришла» as Mitya's own reported words.

— Вот вам, теперь сооружайте башню! — оборвал Митя и с презрением опять от них отвернулся.  
"There you are, now build your tower!" Mitya cut himself off and turned away from them again in contempt.
> Imperfective imperative «сооружайте»: «сооружайте» is the imperfective imperative ('go ahead and build / get on with building'), inviting the process with sarcasm, where the perfective «соорудите» would urge a single completed result. «башню» (accusative) — 'build your tower [of theory].'
> Reflexive «отвернулся» + «от» genitive: «отвернуться» (reflexive, 'to turn away') governs «от» + genitive «них»: 'turned away from them.' The prefixed «от-» and the «-ся» together give the intransitive sense of turning oneself aside.

— И знали про эти знаки только покойный родитель ваш, вы и слуга Смердяков? И никто более? — еще раз осведомился Николай Парфенович.  
"And these signs were known only to your late parent, to you, and to the servant Smerdyakov? And to no one else?" Nikolai Parfenovich inquired once more.
> «про» + accusative; compound subject: «про» + accusative «эти знаки» ('about these signs') is a colloquial alternative to «о» + prepositional. The plural «знали» agrees with the three-part subject «родитель… вы… Смердяков». «покойный» ('late, deceased') marks the dead father.
> Reflexive «осведомиться» — to inquire: «осведомиться» (perfective, only in «-ся») is a formal 'to inquire, make inquiry,' fitting the magistrate's careful re-questioning. The «-ся» here is lexical: the verb simply does not exist without it.

— Да, слуга Смердяков и еще небо.  
"Yes, the servant Smerdyakov, and heaven too.

Запишите и про небо; это будет не лишним записать.  
Write down 'heaven' as well; it won't be amiss to record it.
> Imperative «запишите» + additive «и»: «запишите» is the polite/plural perfective imperative of «записать» ('to write down, record'), urging a single completed act. The «и» before «про небо» is additive: 'write down heaven too.'
> Predicate instrumental «не лишним»: After «будет» the predicate adjective «лишним» ('superfluous') takes the instrumental, not the nominative — the regular pattern for «быть» in the future: 'it won't be amiss to record.' The infinitive «записать» is the logical subject.

Да и вам самим бог понадобится.  
And you yourselves will have need of God too."
> Dative experiencer: 'you yourselves will need': Russian frames need impersonally: «бог понадобится вам» literally 'God will become-needed to you', with the person who needs in the dative «вам». «самим» is the intensive «сам» ('yourselves') agreeing in the dative plural.
> Perfective future of a -ся verb: «понадобится» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present but meaning a single completed future event — 'will come to be needed'. The reflexive «-ся» here marks the middle voice ('become needed'), not a true reflexive.

И уж конечно стали записывать, но когда записывали, то прокурор вдруг, как бы совсем внезапно наткнувшись на новую мысль, проговорил:  
And of course they began to write it down, but as they were writing, the prosecutor suddenly, as though he had quite unexpectedly stumbled on a new idea, said:
> Perfective past gerund: 'as though having stumbled on': «наткнувшись» is a деепричастие (adverbial participle) in «-вшись» from perfective «наткнуться», naming an action prior to and motivating the main verb: the prosecutor spoke 'as though having stumbled' on a new thought. The hedging «как бы» ('as though, sort of') is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's tentative narration.
> Phasal verb + imperfective infinitive: «стать» ('to begin') governs an imperfective infinitive «записывать» — Russian forms 'began to do' with «стать/начать» plus the imperfective, viewing the writing as an unfolding process rather than a single act.

— А ведь если знал про эти знаки и Смердяков, а вы радикально отвергаете всякое на себя обвинение в смерти вашего родителя, то вот не он ли, простучав условленные знаки, заставил вашего отца отпереть себе, а затем и… совершил преступление?  
"But if Smerdyakov also knew about these signs, and you radically reject any accusation against yourself in the death of your parent, then might it not have been he who, tapping out the agreed-upon signs, made your father open up for him, and then... committed the crime?"
> Particles «а» + «ведь»: 'but after all': The contrastive «а» pivots the topic while «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'but you know / after all'. Together they open the prosecutor's insinuating gambit with a tone English can only render through stress.
> Particle «ли» in a rhetorical yes/no question: The enclitic «ли» follows the fronted, focused «не он» to form a tentative yes/no question — 'might it not have been he who…'. This «не … ли» frame is the bookish, insinuating way of floating a hypothesis.
> Perfective gerund: 'having tapped out': «простучав» is a perfective past gerund (in «-в») from «простучать», expressing the completed prior action — Smerdyakov tapped the signals, and then made the father open up. «условленные» is a past passive participle, 'agreed-upon'.
> «себе» — reflexive pointing to the unstated agent: «отпереть себе» means 'unlock for himself', where the reflexive «себе» refers to Smerdyakov, the implied subject of the infinitive — not to the father. «себя/себе» always points to the clause's own subject, here the one doing the opening.

Митя глубоко насмешливым, но в то же время и страшно ненавистным взглядом посмотрел на него.  
Mitya looked at him with a deeply mocking, yet at the same time terribly hateful, gaze.
> Instrumental of means: 'with a gaze': «взглядом» is instrumental — the means by which Mitya looked — and the two adjectives «насмешливым … ненавистным» agree with it in the instrumental. Russian routinely says 'looked with a mocking gaze' where English may prefer an adverb.

Он смотрел долго и молча, так что у прокурора глаза замигали.  
He looked long and in silence, until the prosecutor's eyes began to blink.
> Result clause «так что» + inalienable possession with «у»: «так что» ('so that, with the result that') opens a consequence clause. Note «у прокурора глаза замигали» — Russian expresses 'the prosecutor's eyes' as 'by the prosecutor, the eyes [began to blink]', the «у»+genitive possessor construction. The prefix «за-» on «замигали» marks the sudden onset of blinking.

— Опять поймали лисицу! — проговорил наконец Митя, — прищемили мерзавку за хвост, хе-хе!  
"You've caught the fox again!" Mitya said at last. "Pinched the wretch by the tail, heh-heh!
> Idiom: catching the fox by the tail: Поймать лисицу / прищемить за хвост literally 'to catch the vixen / pinch the wretch by the tail' is an image for trapping someone with a sly trick. Mitya means the prosecutor is trying to lure him into blurting out an accusation against Smerdyakov.
> Feminine «мерзавка» — the fox as 'wretch': «мерзавка» is the feminine of «мерзавец» ('scoundrel, villain'); the feminine is chosen because «лисица» (vixen) is feminine, so the fox-image and the insult agree. The «-ка» here is the feminine-agent suffix, not a diminutive.
> «хе-хе» — a dry, mirthless laugh: «хе-хе» renders a sardonic, sneering chuckle, distinct from the open «ха-ха». In Dostoevsky it usually colours a character's bitter or contemptuous triumph, exactly Mitya's tone here.

Я вижу вас насквозь, прокурор!  
I see right through you, prosecutor!
> Idiom: «видеть насквозь» — to see right through: «видеть кого-то насквозь» means to read someone completely, to see through their pretences. The adverb «насквозь» ('all the way through') gives the phrase its vivid X-ray force.

Вы ведь так и думали, что я сейчас вскочу, уцеплюсь за то, что вы мне подсказываете, и закричу во всё горло: «Ай, это Смердяков, вот убийца!»  
You thought, didn't you, that I'd jump up at once, grab hold of what you're prompting me with, and bawl at the top of my lungs: 'Aha, it's Smerdyakov, there's the murderer!'
> Particle «ведь» + «так и»: 'you did think, didn't you': «ведь» appeals to what both already know ('you did think, after all'), and «так и» reinforces that the expectation was exactly fulfilled — 'that's just how you thought'. These tiny particles carry Mitya's accusing, knowing tone.
> A chain of perfective futures: Three perfective verbs in a row — «вскочу» (I'd jump up), «уцеплюсь» (I'd grab hold), «закричу» (I'd start shouting) — each conjugated like a present but meaning a single completed future act. The prefix «за-» on «закричу» marks the sudden onset of the cry.
> Idiom: «во всё горло» — at the top of one's lungs: «кричать во всё горло» literally 'to shout into the whole throat' means to bawl as loudly as possible. The phrase intensifies Mitya's mockery of the scene the prosecutor supposedly imagined.

Признайтесь, что вы это думали, признайтесь, тогда буду продолжать.  
Admit that you thought it — admit it, and then I'll go on."
> Imperative of a -ся verb: «признайтесь» is the plural/polite imperative of reflexive «признаться» ('to confess, admit'): present stem + «-й» + «-те», with the clitic shifting to «-сь» after the vowel. Mitya's repetition «признайтесь, … признайтесь» drives the command home.
> Compound (imperfective) future with «буду»: «буду продолжать» is the analytic imperfective future: «буду» plus the imperfective infinitive — 'I will go on'. It views the continuing as an open, ongoing process, where a perfective would name a single bounded act.

Но прокурор не признался.  
But the prosecutor did not admit it.
> Negation «не» + perfective past: «не признался» negates the perfective past — 'did not (end up) confessing'. With «не» before a perfective, the natural reading is that the completed act simply did not occur, sealing the standoff that the following one-line sentences dramatize.

Он молчал и ждал.  
He kept silent and waited.
> Imperfective past for a held state: Both «молчал» and «ждал» are imperfective pasts, viewing silence and waiting as durative, ongoing states rather than events — the background against which Mitya's outbursts move the action.

— Ошиблись, не закричу на Смердякова! — сказал Митя.  
"You were mistaken, I won't cry out against Smerdyakov!" said Mitya.
> Aspect contrast: «ошиблись» vs «не закричу»: «Ошиблись» is perfective past ('you (have) erred'), a closed result; «не закричу» is negated perfective future ('I will not cry out'). The preposition «на» + accusative «на Смердякова» here means 'against / at' the target of the shouting.

— И даже не подозреваете его вовсе?  
"And you don't even suspect him at all?"
> Genitive vs accusative under negation: The object «его» (animate) is the accusative/genitive form of «он» — for animate masculine the accusative coincides with the genitive (the nominative is «он») — so any genitive-of-negation is invisible on the pronoun; «вовсе» ('not at all') reinforces the «не». Negated «подозревать» typically keeps an accusative/genitive object referring to a specific person.

— А вы подозреваете?  
"And do you suspect him?"

— Подозревали и его.  
"We have suspected him too."
> Additive «и» + topic-comment word order: Here «и» is not 'and' but the additive particle 'too / also' — 'we have suspected him as well'. With the subject pronoun dropped (the verb's plural already implies 'we') and «его» placed last, the new, weighted information is 'him too'.

Митя уткнулся глазами в пол.  
Mitya fixed his eyes on the floor.
> «уткнуться» — to bury / fix one's eyes: «уткнуться» (perfective, reflexive) means to bury or thrust one's face/gaze into something. «уткнулся глазами в пол» — 'fixed his eyes on the floor' — uses the instrumental «глазами» as the means, vividly conveying Mitya's downcast withdrawal.

— Шутки в сторону, — проговорил он мрачно, — слушайте: с самого начала, вот почти еще тогда, когда я выбежал к вам давеча из-за этой занавески, у меня мелькнула уж эта мысль: «Смердяков!»  
"Joking aside," he said gloomily. "Listen: from the very beginning, almost from the moment I burst out to you a while ago from behind that curtain, this thought already flickered through my mind: 'Smerdyakov!'
> Idiom: «шутки в сторону» — joking aside: A set phrase, literally 'jokes to the side', meaning 'all joking aside, let's be serious'. It marks Mitya's abrupt shift from his sneering 'heh-heh' to earnest confession.
> «давеча» — colloquial 'a while ago': «давеча» is a folksy, now-archaic adverb meaning 'earlier today, a little while ago'. It flavours Mitya's speech with everyday 19th-century colour and is exactly the kind of word a modern speaker would replace with «недавно».
> «у меня» possession + «мелькнула»: 'A thought flickered through my mind' is built as «у меня мелькнула … мысль» — 'by me there flickered the thought'. The «у»+genitive «у меня» locates the experience in the person; «уж» (= «уже») adds 'already'. «мелькнуть» is a momentary perfective: a single flash.

Здесь я сидел за столом и кричал, что не повинен в крови, а сам всё думаю: «Смердяков!»  
Here I sat at the table and shouted that I was innocent of the blood, yet all the while I kept thinking: 'Smerdyakov!'
> Contrastive «а» + historic present: «а сам» ('yet I myself') sets the inner thought against the outward shout. Mitya slips from past «кричал» into vivid present «думаю» ('I keep thinking') — a dramatic historic present that makes the obsessive thought feel live and ongoing.
> «повинен» — short adjective, 'guilty of': «повинен» is a short-form predicate adjective meaning 'guilty, to blame' (governing «в» + prepositional: «в крови» = 'in / of the blood[shed]'). The bookish, almost biblical phrasing 'innocent of the blood' suits Mitya's heightened, confessional register.

И не отставал Смердяков от души.  
And Smerdyakov would not leave my mind.
> Verb-first inversion + «от» + genitive: Fronting the negated verb «не отставал» before the subject «Смердяков» gives the line a rhythmic, narrative push. «отставать от» ('to fall away from, leave') governs «от» + genitive «от души» — literally 'would not fall away from my soul', i.e. would not leave Mitya's mind.

Наконец теперь подумал вдруг то же: «Смердяков», но лишь на секунду: тотчас же рядом подумал: «Нет, не Смердяков!»  
Even now, at last, I suddenly thought the same thing: 'Smerdyakov' — but only for a second: at once, alongside it, I thought: 'No, not Smerdyakov!'
> Particle «же» as emphasis on immediacy: Here «же» glues onto «тотчас» ('at once') to intensify it — 'that very instant'. It is the emphatic, not contrastive, «же», sharpening how fast the counter-thought 'No, not Smerdyakov!' arrived.

Не его это дело, господа!  
This is not his doing, gentlemen!"
> Zero-copula negation + emphatic fronting: 'This is not his doing' is built with no verb 'to be' — «не его … дело» — the negated possessive «его» ('his') fronted for stress before «это дело» ('this affair'). The word order throws the weight onto 'not his'.

— Не подозреваете ли вы в таком случае и еще какое другое лицо? — осторожно спросил было Николай Парфенович.  
"In that case, do you not suspect some other person?" Nikolai Parfenovich asked cautiously.
> «не … ли» softened question: The «не … ли» frame turns the question into a tentative, deferential probe — 'do you not perhaps suspect…'. «ли» follows the fronted negated verb, and the whole construction matches Nikolai Parfenovich's cautious manner.
> «лицо» — 'person' (not 'face'): Besides 'face', «лицо» means 'person, individual' in formal and legal register (cf. «должностное лицо», an official). «какое другое лицо» = 'some other person', a fittingly bureaucratic touch in the magistrate's mouth.
> The «было» particle of the abandoned action: «спросил было» uses the unusual particle «было», which marks an action begun or about to happen but then interrupted or undone — 'started to ask'. It is a vivid, untranslatable 19th-century device signalling that the question barely got out.

— Не знаю, кто или какое лицо, рука небес или сатана, но… не Смердяков! — решительно отрезал Митя.  
"I don't know who, or what person — the hand of heaven or Satan — but... not Smerdyakov!" Mitya cut in decisively.
> «рука небес» — the hand of heaven: An elevated, almost scriptural phrase, 'the hand of the heavens', set against «сатана» (Satan). The genitive plural «небес» (from «небеса») belongs to the high register; everyday Russian would say «небо». Mitya reaches for cosmic, not human, agency.
> «отрезать» — to 'cut off' a remark: Figuratively «отрезать» ('to cut off') means to say something curtly and with finality, ending discussion — 'cut in decisively'. The image of a clean knife-stroke matches Mitya's blunt certainty.

— Но почему же вы так твердо и с такою настойчивостью утверждаете, что не он?  
"But why do you assert so firmly and so insistently that it was not he?"
> Archaic instrumental «такою» + instrumental of manner: «с такою настойчивостью» ('with such insistence') is the instrumental of manner after «с». «такою» is the older, bookish feminine instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»), common in 19th-century prose and lending a formal cadence to the magistrate's question.
> Particle «же» pressing the question: «почему же» — 'but why on earth / why exactly' — uses «же» to add insistence and a touch of challenge to the interrogative, pushing Mitya to justify his certainty.

— По убеждению. По впечатлению.  
"From conviction. From the impression I have.
> «по» + dative: 'on the grounds of': Both terse answers use «по» + dative to express the basis or cause — 'from conviction', 'from impression'. The clipped, verbless replies («убеждению», «впечатлению» in the dative) give Mitya's certainty a stark, aphoristic force.

Потому что Смердяков человек нижайшей натуры и трус.  
Because Smerdyakov is a man of the basest nature, and a coward.
> Superlative «нижайший» + genitive of quality: «нижайшей» is the bookish suffixal superlative of «низкий» ('base, low'), in «-айший». «нижайшей натуры» is a genitive of description — 'a man of the basest nature' — the genitive attributing a quality to «человек».

Это не трус, это совокупление всех трусостей в мире вместе взятых, ходящее на двух ногах.  
He's not a coward — he's the sum of all the cowardice in the world rolled into one, walking about on two legs.
> Genitive plural after «совокупление»: «совокупление всех трусостей» ('the sum of all the cowardices') governs the genitive plural «трусостей» — the abstract «трусость» pluralized for rhetorical excess. «вместе взятых» ('taken together'), a past passive participle in the genitive, agrees with «трусостей».
> Present active participle: 'walking on two legs': «ходящее» is a present active participle from «ходить», neuter to agree with «совокупление» — 'a sum of cowardice walking about on two legs'. The participle compresses a whole relative clause into one vivid grotesque image.

Он родился от курицы.  
He was born of a hen.
> «от» + genitive of origin: «родиться от» + genitive names the parent one is born of — «от курицы» 'of a hen'. Mitya's contemptuous metaphor (Smerdyakov hatched from a chicken) extends his running 'курица'/coward imagery; cf. his mother's nickname elsewhere in the novel.

Говоря со мной, он трепетал каждый раз, чтоб я не убил его, тогда как я и руки не подымал.  
Whenever he talked with me, he trembled every time lest I should kill him, though I never so much as raised a hand.
> «чтоб(ы)» of feared outcome + irrealis past: After verbs of fear, «чтоб(ы)» + a negated past-form verb expresses the dreaded event — «трепетал, чтоб я не убил его», 'trembled lest I should kill him'. The past form «убил» here is irrealis, governed by «чтобы», not a real past.
> Concessive «тогда как» + «и … не»: «тогда как» means 'whereas, while in fact'. «и руки не подымал» uses «и» as 'even' inside a negation — 'I didn't even raise a hand'. «подымал» is a colloquial/older variant of «поднимал».

Он падал мне в ноги и плакал, он целовал мне вот эти самые сапоги, буквально, умоляя, чтоб я его «не пугал».  
He'd fall at my feet and weep, he'd kiss these very boots, literally, imploring me not to 'frighten' him.
> Dative «мне» of the affected person: «падать кому-то в ноги» ('to fall at someone's feet') puts the person before whom one grovels in the dative «мне». The gesture of «падать в ноги» is a charged image of abject supplication, traditional in Russian pleading.
> Imperfective present gerund «умоляя»: «умоляя» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие from «умолять», expressing the simultaneous attendant action — 'imploring (all the while)'. It shares Smerdyakov's subject and runs parallel to the weeping and kissing.

Слышите: «Не пугал» — что это за слово такое?  
Do you hear: 'not frighten' — what kind of a word is that?
> Exclamatory «что за»: 'what kind of': «что это за слово такое?» is the idiomatic «что за» construction — 'what kind of a word is that!'. Crucially «за» here does not govern a case; the noun «слово» stays nominative. «такое» adds wondering emphasis.

А я его даже дарил.  
And I even used to give him presents.
> Imperfective «дарил» for repeated giving: «дарил» is imperfective past — 'used to give presents, would give', the iterative reading that English marks with 'used to'. The contrastive «а» and «даже» ('even') heighten the irony: Mitya not only spared but indulged the man he despises.

Это болезненная курица в падучей болезни, со слабым умом и которую прибьет восьмилетний мальчишка.  
He's a sickly hen with the falling sickness, a feeble mind, the sort an eight-year-old boy could thrash.
> Relative «которую» + perfective potential future: The relative «которую» (feminine accusative, agreeing with «курица») heads a clause whose verb «прибьёт» is a perfective 'future' used for a general potential — 'that an eight-year-old boy could thrash'. «мальчишка» carries the slightly belittling «-ишк-» colouring.

Разве это натура?  
Is that a man of any character?
> Particle «разве» in an incredulous question: «разве» introduces a rhetorical question expressing disbelief — 'is that really a character / a man at all?'. It presumes a negative answer, and our rendering 'Is that a man of any character?' captures Mitya's scorn.

Не Смердяков, господа, да и денег не любит, подарков от меня вовсе не брал…  
Not Smerdyakov, gentlemen — besides, he doesn't even love money, he never took my presents at all...
> Genitive of negation: «денег»: Under negation the object of «любить» shifts from accusative «деньги» to genitive «денег» — 'doesn't love money'. The genitive of negation is especially natural with a general, non-specific object like 'money'.
> Genitive of negation reinforced by «вовсе»: Likewise «подарков … не брал» — 'never took (my) presents at all' — puts the object «подарки» into the genitive «подарков» under «не». «вовсе» ('at all, utterly') stiffens the denial.

Да и за что ему убивать старика?  
And why on earth would he kill the old man?
> Dative «ему» + infinitive of motive; «за что»: 'Why would he kill?' is framed impersonally: dative «ему» ('for him') plus the infinitive «убивать» — 'what is there for him to kill for?'. «за что» ('for what reason, what for') asks the motive, and «да и» opens the line with 'and besides'.

Ведь он, может быть, сын его, побочный сын, знаете вы это?  
Why, he may be his son, his natural son — did you know that?"
> Particle «ведь» introducing a revelation: «ведь» ('why, after all') flags the following as something the listener may not have weighed — 'why, he may be his son'. It softens the bombshell that Smerdyakov is old Karamazov's child into a shared, reasoning aside.

— Мы слышали эту легенду. Но ведь вот и вы же сын отца вашего, а ведь говорили же всем сами же вы, что хотели убить его.  
"We have heard that legend. But then you too are your father's son, and yet you yourself told everyone that you wanted to kill him."
> Stacked particles «и … же … ведь … же … сами же»: The magistrate piles on emphatic particles to press the parallel home: «вот и» ('here too'), repeated «же» ('precisely'), «ведь» ('after all'), and the intensive «сами же вы» ('you yourself, of all people'). This dense particle-texture is pure spoken Dostoevsky, untranslatable except by stress.
> Possessive «вашего» after its noun: «отца вашего» places the possessive «вашего» after «отца» (genitive 'of your father'), a bookish, weighty inversion versus the neutral «вашего отца». The genitive «отца» depends on «сын» — 'son of your father'.

— Камень в огород! И камень низкий, скверный! Не боюсь!  
"A stone into my garden! And a low, vile stone at that! I'm not afraid!
> Idiom: a stone into someone's garden: Бросить камень в чей-то огород ('to throw a stone into someone's vegetable garden') means to aim a veiled jibe or pointed reproach at a person — we render it 'a stone into my garden.' Mitya feels the lawyers have turned his own past words against him.
> Verbless exclamation, adjectives postposed: No copula is needed: «камень низкий, скверный» — '[it's] a low, vile stone'. The long-form adjectives follow the noun for emphatic, almost spat-out effect, and «низкий» ('low, base') carries the same moral sense as «нижайший» earlier.

О господа, может быть, вам слишком подло мне же в глаза говорить это!  
Oh, gentlemen, perhaps it is too base of you to say this to my very face!
> Dative «вам» + short adjective «подло»: An impersonal evaluation: dative «вам» ('for you') plus the neuter short adjective «подло» ('it is base') plus the infinitive — 'it is too base of you to say this'. This dative-subject + predicative-adverb frame is everywhere in the novel's moral arguments.
> Idiom: «в глаза» — to one's face: «говорить в глаза» means to say something straight to a person's face. The added «мне же» ('to me, of all people') with emphatic «же» sharpens Mitya's sense of insult.

Потому подло, что я это сам говорил вам.  
Base, because it was I myself who told you of it.
> Intensive «сам»: 'I myself': «сам» ('myself, of my own') agrees with the subject «я» and stresses that Mitya was the very source of the damning words. Combined with the imperfective «говорил» (the repeated 'told'), it underscores the self-incrimination he now regrets.

Не только хотел, но и мог убить, да еще на себя добровольно натащил, что чуть не убил!  
Not only did I want to, I could have killed him, and on top of that I took it upon myself, of my own accord, to confess that I almost did!
> Correlative «не только … но и»: «не только … но и» ('not only … but also') links the two confessions — wanting and being able. Here «не только» negates only the first member, not the verb's truth; both 'wanted' and 'could' are affirmed.
> «натащить на себя» — to bring upon oneself: «натащить на себя» (lit. 'to drag onto oneself') means to take a burden or charge upon oneself voluntarily. With «себя» pointing back to Mitya and «добровольно» ('of my own accord'), he stresses that he confessed unprompted that he 'almost did it'.

Но ведь не убил же его, ведь спас же меня ангел-хранитель мой — вот этого-то вы и не взяли в соображение…  
But I didn't kill him, did I — my guardian angel saved me — and that's the very thing you've not taken into account...
> Particles «ведь … же» across both clauses: Each clause is bracketed by «ведь» ('but surely') and «же» (emphatic): 'but I did NOT kill him, my guardian angel DID save me'. The piled particles convey Mitya's pleading insistence on the one fact that matters.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» + «вот … и»: The clitic «-то» on «этого» topicalizes and stresses the known point — 'that very thing'. The «вот … и» frame ('that's just what…') singles it out as precisely the thing the investigators overlooked.

А потому вам и подло, подло!  
And that is why it's base of you, base!
> «потому» causal + dative «вам» evaluation: «а потому» ('and therefore') draws the conclusion; «вам … подло» repeats the impersonal dative-subject judgment — 'it is base of you'. The doubled «подло, подло» is Dostoevsky's signature emotive repetition.

Потому что я не убил, не убил, не убил!  
Because I did not kill him, did not kill him, did not kill him!
> Negation «не» + perfective past, tripled: The triple «не убил» ('I did not kill', perfective) hammers the single completed non-event. The threefold repetition is a deliberate rhetorical and almost incantatory device, central to Mitya's anguished self-defence.

Слышите, прокурор: не убил!  
Do you hear, prosecutor: I did not kill him!"

Он чуть не задохся.  
He nearly choked.
> «чуть не» + «задохнуться» — nearly choked: «чуть не» ('almost, very nearly') plus a perfective past names an event that almost happened but did not — 'he nearly choked'. «задохся» is a colloquial/older past of «задохнуться» (modern «задохнулся»), 'to suffocate, gasp', conveying Mitya's breathless agitation.

Во всё время допроса он еще ни разу не был в таком волнении.  
In all the time of the interrogation he had not once been in such agitation.
> Negative concord: «ни разу … не»: «ни разу … не был» — 'had not once been' — shows negative concord: the «ни»-phrase «ни разу» ('not a single time') co-occurs with the verbal «не», two negatives expressing one. «в таком волнении» (prepositional) names the state he was in.

— А что он вам сказал, господа, Смердяков-то? — заключил он вдруг, помолчав. — Могу я про это спросить у вас?  
"And what did he tell you, gentlemen, Smerdyakov?" he concluded suddenly, after a pause. "May I ask you about that?"
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The clitic «-то» tacks onto «Смердяков» to flag him as the known topic just resumed — 'Smerdyakov, you know, that one'. It is the emphatic, topic-tracking «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».
> Perfective gerund «помолчав»: «помолчав» is a perfective past gerund from «помолчать» ('to be silent a while'), naming the completed pause that preceded the speech — 'after a pause, having fallen silent'. The «по-» prefix gives the verb its bounded 'for a while' sense.

— Вы обо всем нас можете спрашивать, — с холодным и строгим видом ответил прокурор, — обо всем, что касается фактической стороны дела, а мы, повторяю это, даже обязаны удовлетворять вас на каждый вопрос.  
"You may ask us about anything," the prosecutor answered with a cold and severe air, "about anything that concerns the factual side of the case, and we, I repeat, are even obliged to satisfy you on every question.
> Instrumental of manner: «с … видом»: «с холодным и строгим видом» ('with a cold and severe air') is the instrumental after «с», describing the manner of answering; the adjectives «холодным», «строгим» agree in the instrumental. It is the standard way Russian attaches a demeanour to a speech verb.
> Short adjective «обязаны» + infinitive: «обязаны» is the short-form predicate adjective 'obliged, bound', agreeing in the plural with the implied 'we', and taking an infinitive «удовлетворять» ('to satisfy'). Short forms like «обязан/обязана/обязаны» are the normal way to say 'must, am obliged'.

Мы нашли слугу Смердякова, о котором вы спрашиваете, лежащим без памяти на своей постеле в чрезвычайно сильном, может быть, в десятый раз сряду повторявшемся припадке падучей болезни.  
We found the servant Smerdyakov, about whom you ask, lying unconscious on his bed in an exceedingly violent fit of the falling sickness — perhaps the tenth in a row.
> Relative «о котором» in the prepositional: The relative «который» here takes the prepositional case after «о» ('about whom you ask'), agreeing with «слугу Смердякова» in gender/number but taking the case its own clause demands — a textbook «который» relative.
> Present active participle in the instrumental: «нашли … лежащим» — 'found him lying' — uses the present active participle «лежащий» in the instrumental to predicate a state of the object after «найти». «повторявшемся» (a past active participle, 'recurring') likewise agrees with «припадке». Such participial layering is the bookish texture of the prosecutor's report.
> «без памяти», «припадок», «падучая»: «без памяти» = 'unconscious' (lit. 'without memory'); «припадок» = 'a fit, seizure'; «падучая болезнь» = the falling sickness (epilepsy). On «постеле» note the older locative «-е» of «постель» (modern «постели»). Together they sketch Smerdyakov's clinical collapse in period medical terms.

Медик, бывший с нами, освидетельствовав больного, сказал даже нам, что он не доживет, может быть, и до утра.  
The physician who was with us, having examined the patient, even told us that he might not live till morning."
> Perfective gerund + substantivized adjective: «освидетельствовав» is a perfective past gerund ('having examined') sharing the doctor's subject. Its object «больного» is a substantivized adjective — 'the sick one, the patient' — declined like an animate accusative.
> «медик» — the medical man: «медик» is a slightly informal/period word for a doctor or medical practitioner (alongside «врач», «доктор»). It suits the on-the-spot, makeshift examination at the crime scene.
> Perfective future + «до» + genitive: «не доживёт до утра» — 'will not live until morning' — uses the perfective future «доживёт» (prefix «до-» 'up to a limit') with «до» + genitive «утра». The «и» is 'even' — 'might not even live till morning'.

— Ну, в таком случае отца черт убил! — сорвалось вдруг у Мити, как будто он даже до сей минуты спрашивал всё себя: «Смердяков или не Смердяков?»  
"Well, in that case the devil killed my father!" the words suddenly burst from Mitya, as though even up to this minute he had still been asking himself: 'Smerdyakov or not Smerdyakov?'
> Impersonal «сорвалось у Мити»: the words burst out: 'The words burst from Mitya' is framed as «сорвалось … у Мити» — the neuter «-ся» verb «сорваться» ('to break loose, slip out') with «у» + genitive «у Мити» locating the involuntary utterance in him. The construction makes the outburst happen *to* Mitya rather than by his will.
> Archaic «сей» — 'this very': «сей» is the bookish, archaic demonstrative 'this' (here feminine genitive «сей минуты», 'this minute'). It survives in fixed phrases like «до сих пор» and «сию минуту» and lends the narration a period-elevated, almost legal cadence.

— Мы еще к этому факту воротимся, — порешил Николай Парфенович, — теперь же не пожелаете ли вы продолжать ваше показание далее.  
"We shall return to this fact later," Nikolai Parfenovich decided. "For now, would you not care to continue your testimony further."
> Polite «не … ли» offer: «не пожелаете ли вы…» is the courteous, deferential question frame — 'would you not care to…'. The «не … ли» softens a request into an invitation, fitting Nikolai Parfenovich's punctilious manner, and governs the imperfective infinitive «продолжать».
> «воротиться» + «к» + dative: «воротимся» is the older/folksier perfective future of «воротиться» ('to return', modern «вернёмся»), governing «к» + dative «к … факту» ('to this fact'). Both the verb form and the construction are period-flavoured legal speech.

Митя попросил отдохнуть.  
Mitya asked to rest.
> Verb + bare infinitive of request: «попросил отдохнуть» — 'asked to rest' — links perfective «попросить» directly to the perfective infinitive «отдохнуть» with no «чтобы», the normal pattern when the asker is also the would-be doer.

Ему вежливо позволили.  
He was courteously permitted to.
> Dative «ему» + impersonal 3rd-plural 'they permitted': 'He was permitted' is rendered with the dative «ему» (the one allowed) and an agentless 3rd-person-plural verb «позволили» ('they permitted') — Russian's common way of saying 'one permitted him / he was permitted' without naming a subject.

Отдохнув, он стал продолжать.  
Having rested, he began to go on.
> Perfective gerund «отдохнув» + «стать» + imperfective: «Отдохнув» is a perfective gerund ('having rested'), naming the prior completed action before «стал продолжать» ('began to go on'). «стать» + imperfective infinitive marks the onset of an ongoing activity.

Но было ему видимо тяжело.  
But it was visibly hard for him.
> Dative subject + predicative «тяжело»: An impersonal construction: dative «ему» ('to him') plus the neuter predicative «тяжело» ('hard, heavy'), with past «было» supplying the tense — 'it was hard for him'. «видимо» ('evidently, visibly') modifies the whole. This experiencer-in-the-dative frame is the very grammar of Dostoevskian inner suffering.

Он был измучен, оскорблен и потрясен нравственно.  
He was exhausted, affronted, and morally shaken.
> Short passive participles forming a passive: «измучен», «оскорблён», «потрясён» are short-form past passive participles joined to «был» to state Mitya's resulting condition — 'was exhausted, affronted, shaken'. «нравственно» ('morally') qualifies «потрясён», locating the shock in the moral sphere.

К тому же прокурор, теперь уже точно нарочно, стал поминутно раздражать его прицепкой к «мелочам».  
On top of that the prosecutor, now plainly on purpose, began to irritate him at every minute by carping at "trifles."
> Instrumental of means «прицепкой»: «раздражать … прицепкой» uses the instrumental «прицепкой» ('by carping/nit-picking') as the means of the irritation — 'began to irritate him by carping'. «прицепка к мелочам» is 'fault-finding over trifles', «к» + dative «мелочам» naming what he latched onto.
> «поминутно» — every minute, incessantly: «поминутно» (from «по» + «минута») means 'every minute, at every moment, incessantly'. It conveys how relentlessly the prosecutor needled Mitya, building the chapter's sense of grinding pressure.

Едва только Митя описал, как он, сидя верхом на заборе, ударил по голове пестиком вцепившегося в его левую ногу Григория и затем тотчас же соскочил к поверженному, как прокурор остановил его и попросил описать подробнее, как он сидел на заборе.  
Mitya had scarcely begun describing how, sitting astride the fence, he had struck Grigory — who had seized his left leg — over the head with the pestle, and then at once leapt down to the fallen man, when the prosecutor stopped him and asked him to describe in more detail how he had been sitting on the fence.
> «едва… как» — no sooner than: The correlative «едва только… как» means 'scarcely had X happened when Y'. Both verbs are perfective («описал», «остановил»), staging two completed events in tight succession — the signature way Russian narrates a sudden interruption.
> Imperfective gerund «сидя»: «сидя» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие, 'sitting / while sitting', describing a state simultaneous with the main verb «ударил». It must share the main subject (Mitya), and it opens the long subordinate chain that the prosecutor will pick apart.
> Past active participle modifying Grigory: «вцепившегося» is a past active participle (from «вцепиться», to dig/clutch into) in the animate accusative, agreeing with «Григория»: 'Grigory, who had seized into his left leg'. The participle precedes its noun in dense bookish word order, compressing a whole который-clause into one modifier.
> «пестик» — the pestle: The brass «пестик» (pestle) is the murder weapon Mitya snatched up; the instrumental ending «-ом» here marks it as the instrument of the blow. It recurs as a near-talismanic object in the trial.

Митя удивился.  
Mitya was surprised.
> Reflexive «-ся» as change of state: «удивиться» (perfective) carries the bound particle «-ся»: not 'surprised himself' but the middle/intransitive 'became surprised'. A vast class of Russian emotion verbs works this way (обрадоваться, рассердиться, испугаться).

— Ну, вот так сидел, верхом сидел, одна нога там, другая тут…  
"Well, I sat like this, astride, one leg there, the other here…"
> Zero copula in the present: 'One leg there, the other here' has no verb at all — Russian supplies no 'is' in the present, so the nominative subjects stand bare. The clipped, verbless phrasing mimics Mitya gesturing as he speaks.

— А пестик?  
"And the pestle?"

— Пестик в руках.  
"The pestle was in my hand."
> Verbless locative answer: 'The pestle [was] in [my] hands' again drops the copula; «в руках» is the prepositional case after «в» marking location. The whole curt exchange (s124–s125) runs on these zero-verb fragments.

— Не в кармане? Вы это так подробно помните? Что ж, вы сильно размахнулись рукой?  
"Not in your pocket? You remember it as precisely as that? Well then, did you swing your arm hard?"
> Particle «ж» (же) softening the turn: «Что ж» is «что же» reduced: the particle «же» here marks a conversational pivot, 'well then…', easing into the next pointed question. Such particles carry the tone English would render with intonation alone.
> Instrumental of the body part: «рукой» is instrumental — you swing 'with the arm' as the means of the motion. Russian routinely puts the limb doing the action in the instrumental (кивнуть головой, топнуть ногой).

— Должно быть, что сильно, а вам это зачем?  
"Hard, I suppose — but why do you need to know that?"
> «должно быть» — impersonal supposition: «Должно быть» ('it must be', 'probably') is a frozen impersonal modal phrase with neuter «должно» and no subject — a hallmark of Russia's subjectless, experiencer-leaning syntax.
> Contrastive «а» plus dative «вам»: «а» is the mild contrastive 'and/but' swinging the topic back at the questioner, and «вам» is a dative experiencer: literally 'but to-you what's this for?' — i.e. 'why do you need this?'. The dative-of-the-affected-person is the natural Russian frame here.

— Если б вы сели на стул точно так, как тогда на заборе, и представили бы нам наглядно, для уяснения, как и куда размахнулись, в какую сторону?  
"Would you mind sitting down on a chair exactly the way you sat then on the fence, and showing us plainly, so we understand, how and in which direction you swung — toward what side?"
> Conditional «бы» as polite request: Past-tense verbs «сели… представили» plus the particle «бы» (here clipped to «б») build the irrealis: not a real condition but a softened, deferential request, 'would you mind sitting…'. The hypothetical mood is the prosecutor's smooth courtroom courtesy.
> «наглядно» / «уяснение» — bureaucratic register: 'Visually/plainly' and '(for) clarification' are dry, almost official words — the cool procedural diction of the magistrate, set against Mitya's hot colloquial outbursts.

— Да уж вы не насмехаетесь ли надо мной? — спросил Митя, высокомерно глянув на допросчика, но тот не мигнул даже глазом.  
"Are you mocking me, by any chance?" Mitya asked, glancing haughtily at his interrogator; but the man did not so much as blink an eye.
> «не… ли» — incredulous yes/no question: The frame «не… ли» fronts the doubted verb and tags it with the interrogative particle «ли»: 'you're not mocking me, are you?'. Stacked with «да уж», it conveys Mitya's suspicious, half-affronted tone.
> Perfective gerund «глянув»: «глянув» is a perfective past gerund (from «глянуть», to glance), 'having glanced / with a glance', expressing a brief action attendant on «спросил». The perfective gerund typically marks a prior or punctual side-action.
> Idiom: «не мигнуть глазом»: 'Did not so much as blink an eye' — a set idiom for perfect, unruffled composure. «глазом» is instrumental ('with an eye'), and «даже» heightens it: the magistrate stays utterly impassive.

Митя судорожно повернулся, сел верхом на стул и размахнулся рукой:  
Mitya turned convulsively, sat astride the chair, and swung his arm:
> Chain of perfectives moving the action: Three perfective past verbs in a row — «повернулся… сел… размахнулся» — march the narrative forward as discrete completed acts, the foreground rhythm of event-by-event storytelling. Two carry «-ся» as middle/change-of-state markers.
> «судорожно» — convulsively: From «судорога» (a cramp, spasm), the adverb paints Mitya's jerky, almost spasmodic movement — a recurring physical key to his frayed, overwrought state in this scene.

— Вот как ударил! Вот как убил! Чего вам еще?  
"There — that's how I struck him! That's how I killed him! What more do you want?"
> «вот как» + perfective for vivid demonstration: «Вот как» ('here's how / this is how') with the perfective past stages the blow as a single demonstrated act. The parallel exclamations, subject dropped, let the gesture carry the meaning — speech fused to action.
> Genitive «чего» in an impatient question: 'What more [do you want] of you?' — «чего» is the genitive of «что» governed by an unspoken 'want/need', and «вам» is dative. The verbless ellipsis makes the retort snap.

— Благодарю вас. Не потрудитесь ли вы теперь объяснить: для чего, собственно, соскочили вниз, с какою целью и что, собственно, имея в виду?  
"Thank you. Now would you take the trouble to explain: for what reason, exactly, did you jump down, with what aim, and what, exactly, did you have in mind?"
> «не… ли» as elaborate politeness: The negated verb plus «ли» («не потрудитесь ли») is an ornate, deferential request: 'would you not take the trouble to…'. The same interrogative-particle frame that voiced Mitya's suspicion in s129 here voices the prosecutor's icy courtesy.
> Archaic «какою» and the gerund «имея»: «какою» is the older bookish instrumental of «какая» (modern «какой»), 'with what aim'; «имея в виду» is the imperfective gerund of the idiom «иметь в виду» ('to have in mind/in view'). Together they give the question a measured, written-out formality.

— Ну, черт… к поверженному соскочил… Не знаю для чего!  
"Well — the devil… I jumped down to the fallen man… I don't know what for!"
> «черт» — the devil as outburst: 'The devil' as an exasperated interjection. The motif of the «черт» is loaded in this novel — it will return literally in s172 and famously in Ivan's hallucination — so Mitya's casual curse quietly sounds a major theme.
> Substantivized participle «поверженный»: «поверженный» ('struck/cast down') is a past passive participle used as a noun, 'the fallen one', in the dative after «к». «соскочил» is a prefixed perfective of motion (со- 'down off') — he leapt down off the fence.

— Бывши в таком волнении? И убегая?  
"In such a state of agitation? And while fleeing?"
> Archaic gerund «бывши» beside «убегая»: «бывши» is an old past gerund of «быть» ('being / having been'), a markedly bookish form; «убегая» is the ordinary imperfective gerund 'while fleeing'. The verbless, gerund-only questions let the magistrate needle Mitya in clipped, suggestive fragments.
> «волнение» — agitation: From «волна» (wave), «волнение» is inner turmoil, a surge of feeling. The prosecutor keeps the word in scare-mode, building the picture of a man too 'agitated' to act with the cold calculation he will nonetheless impute to him.

— Да, в волнении и убегая.  
"Yes, agitated and fleeing."
> Echo answer with «да»: Mitya simply repeats the magistrate's prepositional phrase «в волнении» and gerund «убегая», a verbless echo of the question — the trap of agreeing with the leading framing without noticing it.

— Помочь ему хотели?  
"You wanted to help him?"
> Marked word order: infinitive fronted: Neutral order would be «Вы хотели помочь ему?». Fronting the infinitive «помочь» and dropping «вы» throws the focus onto the very act of helping — the point the magistrate is fishing for. «ему» is dative, the one helped.

— Какое помочь… Да, может, и помочь, не помню.  
"Help, indeed… Yes, perhaps to help, I don't remember."
> Dismissive «какое + infinitive»: «Какое помочь» is an idiomatic brush-off: 'Help? Hardly!' — the interrogative «какое» thrown at an infinitive to reject the premise. Then «может» (= 'maybe') and «не помню» retract the denial, catching Mitya's wavering.

— Не помнили себя? То есть были даже в некотором беспамятстве?  
"You weren't yourself? That is, you were even in something of a daze?"
> Reflexive «себя» — 'beside oneself': «не помнить себя» (lit. 'not to remember oneself') is the idiom for being beside oneself, out of one's senses. «себя» is the reflexive pronoun pointing back to the subject; it has no nominative and serves here as the verb's object.
> «беспамятство» — a daze, blackout: Built from без- ('without') + «память» ('memory'), 'unconsciousness / a daze'. The prosecutor offers Mitya the excuse of memory-loss — which Mitya, fatally for himself, will refuse in the next line.

— О нет, совсем не в беспамятстве, всё помню. Всё до нитки. Соскочил поглядеть и платком кровь ему обтирал.  
"Oh no, not in a daze at all, I remember everything. Every last thread of it. I jumped down to take a look and wiped the blood off him with my handkerchief."
> Idiom «всё до нитки»: Literally 'everything down to the thread', i.e. every last detail. «нитки» is genitive after «до». The vivid folk idiom, in Mitya's mouth, is exactly the candor that will be turned against him.
> Aspect contrast: «соскочил» vs «обтирал»: Perfective «соскочил» ('jumped down', one completed act) sets the scene; imperfective «обтирал» ('was wiping') then renders the lingering, durative tending of the wound. «платком» is instrumental ('with a handkerchief'), «ему» dative.

— Мы видели ваш платок. Надеялись возвратить поверженного вами к жизни?  
"We have seen your handkerchief. You hoped to bring the man you had struck down back to life?"
> Instrumental of agent «вами»: «поверженного вами» — 'the man struck down by you' — uses the past passive participle «поверженного» with the agent in the instrumental «вами», the standard passive-agent construction. The prosecutor's phrasing quietly fixes Mitya as the one who felled him.

— Не знаю, надеялся ли? Просто убедиться хотел, жив или нет.  
"I don't know whether I hoped that. I simply wanted to make sure whether he was alive or not."
> «ли» as embedded 'whether': Inside the clause after «не знаю», «надеялся ли» means 'whether I hoped'. Here «ли» is the subordinating 'whether', not a direct question — the same particle doing a quieter, embedded job.
> Short adjective «жив»: «жив» is the short (predicative) form of «живой», 'alive'. Short adjectives appear only as predicates and often denote a momentary state — exactly 'whether he was [right then] alive or not'.

— А, так хотели убедиться? Ну и что ж?  
"Ah, so you wanted to make sure? Well, and what then?"
> «ну и что ж» — 'well, and so?': A clustered set of particles: «ну» (well), «и» (and), «ж» (= «же», insistent). The phrase prods Mitya to go on, the particle texture conveying the prosecutor's prompting tone.

— Я не медик, решить не мог. Убежал, думая, что убил, а вот он очнулся.  
"I'm no doctor, I couldn't decide. I ran off thinking I'd killed him — and there he is, he came round."
> Gerund «думая» + contrastive «а»: Imperfective gerund «думая» ('thinking') frames Mitya's belief at the moment he ran; the contrastive «а вот» then pivots sharply to the reality, 'but here he is, he came round'. The «а» marks the gap between what he thought and what was true.
> «очнуться» — to come to: Perfective 'to regain consciousness, come round'. That Grigory «очнулся» is the providential turn that proves Mitya did not, in fact, kill the old servant — a fact the prosecutor will reframe as mere luck.

— Прекрасно-с, — закончил прокурор. — Благодарю вас. Мне только и нужно было. Потрудитесь продолжать далее.  
"Splendid, sir," the prosecutor concluded. "Thank you. That is all I needed. Kindly go on further."
> The deferential particle «-с»: The clitic «-с» (a shrunken «сударь», 'sir') tacked onto «прекрасно» adds an obsequious, old-fashioned politeness — 'splendid, sir'. By the 1870s it already sounded servile or ironic, and on the prosecutor's lips it has a faintly mocking gloss.
> Polite imperative «потрудитесь»: «Потрудитесь» is a 2nd-person plural imperative ('be so good as to', lit. 'take the trouble') with «-ся»; the «-те» marks the polite/plural form. It is courtly officialese for 'please go on'.

Увы, Мите и в голову не пришло рассказать, хотя он и помнил это, что соскочил он из жалости и, став над убитым, произнес даже несколько жалких слов: «Попался старик, нечего делать, ну и лежи».  
Alas, it never even entered Mitya's head to tell them — though he remembered it — that he had jumped down out of pity and, standing over the stricken man, had even spoken a few pitying words: "You're done for, old man, nothing to be done, lie there, then."
> Dative subject «Мите» in an impersonal idiom: «не пришло в голову» ('it didn't enter [his] head') is impersonal: the experiencer «Мите» stands in the dative with no nominative subject. The «и» intensifies — 'it never even occurred to Mitya'. A quintessential Dostoevskian inner-life construction.
> Perfective gerund «став» + genitive after a numeral phrase: «став» ('having stood, taking up a stance') is the perfective gerund of «стать», a prior action to «произнес». «несколько жалких слов» takes the genitive plural «слов» after the quantifier «несколько», the regular case-after-quantity rule.
> Mitya's pitying folk speech: «Попался» ('you're caught / done for'), «нечего делать» ('nothing to be done', genitive-of-negation idiom), and the imperative «лежи» ('lie there') are plain, rough-tender peasant idiom. The very humanity of these words — which Mitya fails to report — is what would have softened his case.

Прокурор же вывел лишь одно заключение, что соскакивал человек, «в такой момент и в таком волнении», лишь для того только, чтобы наверное убедиться: жив или нет ''единственный'' свидетель его преступления.  
The prosecutor, however, drew only one conclusion: that the man had jumped down, "at such a moment and in such agitation," solely in order to make certain whether the one witness to his crime was alive or not.
> Particle «же» marking the contrastive subject: Here «же» follows «прокурор» to set him in pointed contrast to Mitya of the previous sentence: 'the prosecutor, for his part…'. Placed after a noun like this, «же» is a topic-contrast marker, not an emphasizer of a verb.
> Imperfective «соскакивал» + purpose «чтобы»: Note the shift to imperfective «соскакивал» (vs Mitya's perfective «соскочил»): the prosecutor reframes the leap as characteristic, deliberate behavior. «чтобы убедиться» is the purpose clause, 'in order to make sure'.
> Short adjective «жив» with nominative subject: The embedded question 'whether the sole witness was alive or not' again uses the short predicative «жив», with «единственный свидетель» (the one and only witness) in the nominative. Calling Grigory the «единственный свидетель» is the prosecutor's whole theory in two words.

И что, стало быть, какова же была сила, решимость, хладнокровие и расчетливость человека даже в такой момент… и проч., и проч.  
And that this, accordingly, showed what strength, resolve, cold-bloodedness, and calculation the man possessed even at such a moment… and so on, and so forth.
> Short adjective «какова» + rhetorical «же»: «какова» is the short feminine form of «каков» ('what … was like'), agreeing with «сила» and heading the exclamatory list. «же» heightens the rhetoric: 'what strength, then, …!'. The piled-up abstract nouns mimic the prosecutor's inflating logic.
> «и прочее» — 'and so forth': «проч.» abbreviates «прочее» ('the rest'); the doubled «и проч., и проч.» is the narrator's dry shorthand for the prosecutor's self-satisfied rhetoric trailing on — a flick of authorial irony.

Прокурор был доволен: «Раздражил-де болезненного человека „мелочами“, он и проговорился».  
The prosecutor was pleased: "I needled the sickly fellow with 'trifles,' and he let it slip."
> Reportative particle «-де»: The clitic «-де» flags reported, second-hand speech — 'he supposedly… / [as he thought to himself]'. It frames the line as the prosecutor's own smug inner words, quoted at a sceptical distance by the narrator.
> Reflexive «проговориться» — to let slip: «проговориться» (perfective, with «-ся») means to blurt out, give oneself away — distinct from plain «проговорить» (to utter). The «-ся» turns the act inward and accidental: he betrayed himself. «и» here = 'and so / and sure enough'.
> «болезненный» — sickly, morbid: Not merely 'ill' but constitutionally sickly, nervous, morbid. The prosecutor's clinical label for Mitya feeds the trial's pseudo-medical psychology — the era's fashionable talk of pathology and temperament.

Митя с мучением продолжал далее.  
With anguish Mitya continued on.
> Imperfective «продолжал» of resumed narration: «продолжал» is imperfective, viewing the going-on as an ongoing process; «с мучением» ('with torment', instrumental of manner after «с») colors the whole resumption. The line is narrative connective tissue between two interrogation bursts.

Но тотчас же остановил его опять уже Николай Парфенович:  
But at once he was stopped again, this time by Nikolai Parfenovich:
> End-weight word order: subject last: The new agent «Николай Парфенович» is held to the very end of the clause — the comment/new-information slot — so the reader feels the interruption before learning who made it. Russian's free order is exploited for exactly this suspense.

— Каким же образом могли вы вбежать к служанке Федосье Марковой, имея столь окровавленные руки и, как оказалось потом, лицо?  
"In what manner were you able to run in to the servant girl Fedosya Markova with your hands so bloodied — and, as it later turned out, your face as well?"
> Instrumental idiom «каким образом»: «каким образом» ('in what manner', lit. 'by what means') is a fixed instrumental phrase; the inserted «же» sharpens it to 'however did you…?'. «вбежать» is a prefixed perfective of motion (в- 'into').
> Gerund «имея» + archaic «столь»: The imperfective gerund «имея» ('having', i.e. 'with') sets the attendant circumstance; «столь» is the bookish 'so' (vs colloquial «так»), and «окровавленные» is a past passive participle, 'bloodied'. The elevated «столь» belongs to the magistrate's careful register.

— Да я вовсе тогда и не заметил, что я в крови! — ответил Митя.  
"Why, I didn't notice at all at the time that I was covered in blood!" Mitya answered.
> Emphatic «да… и не» + reported clause: Sentence-initial «да» here is an emphatic 'why, …!' (not 'yes'), and «вовсе… не» with «и» piles up the denial: 'I didn't notice at all'. «что я в крови» is a reported clause with «что» and a zero-copula 'I [was] in blood'.

— Это они правдоподобно, это так и бывает, — переглянулся прокурор с Николаем Парфеновичем.  
"That is plausible enough, that's just how it happens," the prosecutor said, exchanging a glance with Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Imperfective «бывает» of habitual truth: «бывает» (imperfective of «быть», 'happens to be / it tends to happen') states a general, recurring fact — exactly the imperfective's job. «так и бывает» = 'that's just how it happens'. The plural «они» loosely points to Mitya's words/people in general.
> Reciprocal «-ся» + instrumental after «с»: «переглянуться» ('to exchange glances') is reciprocal: the «-ся» encodes the mutual action, and the other party comes in the instrumental after «с» («с Николаем Парфеновичем»). The shared look is the two officials silently confirming their theory.

— Именно не заметил, это вы прекрасно, прокурор, — одобрил вдруг и Митя.  
"Precisely, I didn't notice — that's an excellent point of yours, prosecutor," Mitya suddenly agreed with him.
> Zero copula + direct address: 'That [is] excellent of you' has no verb; «прокурор» stands in bare address (a remnant vocative function of the nominative). Mitya's naive enthusiasm — praising the man building the case against him — is captured in the breathless verbless syntax.
> «одобрить» — to approve, with «вдруг»: «одобрил» ('approved, endorsed') with «вдруг» ('suddenly') marks Mitya's abrupt, almost childlike swing into agreement — one of his characteristic impulsive reversals that so unnerve and so incriminate him.

Но далее пошла история внезапного решения Мити «устраниться» и «пропустить счастливых мимо себя».  
But then came the story of Mitya's sudden decision to "step aside" and "let the happy ones pass by him."
> Genitive of the gerundless infinitive + name: «история… Мити устраниться» links the genitive «Мити» (Mitya's [decision]) to the infinitive «устраниться» naming its content. «устраниться» ('to remove oneself, step aside') carries «-ся» as a true reflexive.
> «пропустить счастливых мимо себя»: 'To let the happy ones pass by'; «счастливых» is a substantivized adjective (the happy/lucky ones) in the accusative, «мимо себя» = 'past oneself' (genitive of the reflexive «себя» after «мимо»). The quoted phrase is Mitya's own romantic self-renunciation, set in quotation marks as his coinage.

И он уже никак не мог, как давеча, решиться вновь разоблачать свое сердце и рассказывать про «царицу души своей».  
And he could no longer bring himself, as he had earlier, to lay bare his heart afresh and speak of "the queen of his soul."
> Negative concord «никак не»: «никак не мог» — 'could in no way' — is negative concord: the ни-word «никак» co-occurs with «не», one negation expressed twice. «решиться» (with «-ся») = 'bring oneself to'; «вновь» is the bookish 'anew, afresh'.
> «царица души своей» — queen of his soul: Mitya's rhapsodic name for Grushenka, 'the queen of his soul'. «своей» is the reflexive possessive (his own), and «царицу» is the accusative of «царица» (tsaritsa/empress). The exalted, almost liturgical register marks his romantic idealization — now too raw to voice before cold men.

Ему претило пред этими холодными, «впивающимися в него, как клопы», людьми.  
It sickened him before these cold men, who "fastened on him like bedbugs."
> Dative subject «ему» with impersonal «претило»: «претить» ('to be repugnant') is impersonal: the affected person «ему» is dative and the verb is fixed neuter, with no nominative subject — 'it sickened him'. «пред» is the archaic/bookish form of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «этими… людьми».
> Simile: «как клопы» (like bedbugs): «впивающимися» is a present active participle in the instrumental ('fastening into'), agreeing with «людьми»; «как клопы» likens the interrogators to bloodsucking bedbugs. The grotesque, physical simile is pure Mitya — and pure Dostoevsky.

А потому на повторенные вопросы заявил кратко и резко:  
And so to their repeated questions he answered curtly and sharply:
> Past passive participle «повторенные»: «повторенные» ('repeated') is a past passive participle (from «повторить») used attributively, agreeing with «вопросы» in the accusative. «заявил» ('declared') is perfective; the curt adverbs «кратко и резко» set Mitya's hardened new tone.

— Ну и решился убить себя. Зачем было оставаться жить: это само собой в вопрос вскакивало.  
"Well, so I resolved to kill myself. What was there to go on living for? — the question leaped up of its own accord."
> Impersonal «было» + infinitive: 'What was there to go on living for?' is impersonal: neuter «было» plus the infinitives «оставаться жить», no nominative subject. The implied dative experiencer (for me) is left unspoken — a bleak, weary rhetorical question.
> Idiom «само собой» + imperfective «вскакивало»: «само собой» ('of its own accord', instrumental of the reflexive «себя») plus imperfective «вскакивало» ('kept leaping up') renders the question as recurring, involuntary. The choice of imperfective makes the despairing thought habitual rather than a one-off.

Явился ее прежний, бесспорный, ее обидчик, но прискакавший с любовью после пяти лет завершить законным браком обиду.  
"Her old, indisputable lover had appeared — the very man who had wronged her — but galloping back now with love, after five years, to crown the wrong with lawful marriage."
> Verb-first presentational order: Putting «Явился» ('there appeared') first, ahead of its subject «обидчик», is presentational word order — introducing a new participant onto the stage, like English 'there appeared…'. «явиться» carries «-ся» as a verb existing only in that form.
> Past active participle «прискакавший» + instrumental «браком»: «прискакавший» ('who had galloped up', from prefixed «прискакать') is a past active participle modifying «обидчик». «завершить законным браком обиду» — 'to crown the wrong with lawful marriage' — uses the instrumental «браком» as the means.
> «обидчик» — the wrong-doer: From «обида» (an injury, wrong, slight), «обидчик» is the one who wronged her — the Polish officer who seduced and abandoned Grushenka years before. «обида» is a key Dostoevskian word for a nursed grievance, and it sounds twice in this very sentence.

Ну и понял, что всё для меня пропало…  
"Well, so I understood that everything was lost for me…"
> «для меня» — genitive of the affected party: «для меня» ('for me') takes the genitive after «для»; «пропало» is perfective neuter agreeing with «всё». The phrasing makes the ruin total and personal — 'everything was lost for me' — a flat finality in three words.

А сзади позор, и вот эта кровь, кровь Григория… Зачем же жить?  
"And behind me disgrace, and there was that blood — Grigory's blood… What was there to live for?"
> Verbless naming + genitive «Григория»: No verb: just nouns thrown down — «позор» (disgrace), «кровь» — in the present's zero-copula style. «кровь Григория» is the possessive genitive, 'Grigory's blood'. The bare nominatives hammer like the things themselves crowding in on Mitya.
> «позор» — shame, public disgrace: Not private guilt but public dishonor, the shame that can be seen. The blood and the «позор» together are what make life unbearable to Mitya — a coupling of the moral and the social that drives the whole confession.

Ну и пошел выкупать заложенные пистолеты, чтобы зарядить и к рассвету себе пулю в башку всадить…  
"So I went to redeem the pawned pistols, to load them and at daybreak put a bullet through my own skull…"
> Purpose «чтобы» + perfective infinitives: «пошел выкупать» (went to redeem) is followed by the purpose clause «чтобы зарядить… всадить» — 'in order to load and put a bullet…'. After «чтобы» the perfective infinitives name the willed, completed aims; this is the conjunction's core job.
> «в башку всадить» — coarse 'put a bullet in his head': «башка» is slangy, crude for 'head' (vs neutral «голова»), and «всадить» ('to drive/plant in') is brutally physical. Mitya describes his own planned suicide in deliberately rough, self-lacerating words.

— А ночью пир горой?  
"And by night a feast in full swing?"
> Idiom «пир горой»: Literally 'a feast [piled] mountain-high', i.e. a lavish, riotous banquet. «горой» is instrumental of «гора» used adverbially. The prosecutor's curt verbless jab juxtaposes the planned suicide with the wild revelry at Mokroye.

— Ночью пир горой. Э, черт, господа, кончайте скорей.  
"By night a feast in full swing. Eh, the devil, gentlemen, finish it quickly."
> Imperative «кончайте» + comparative «скорей»: «кончайте» is the imperfective plural imperative ('finish up, get it over with'); «скорей» is the predicative comparative of «скоро» ('faster, quicker'). The imperfective imperative here urges a general 'just get on with it'.

Застрелиться я хотел наверно, вот тут недалеко, за околицей, и распорядился бы с собою часов в пять утра, а в кармане бумажку приготовил, у Перхотина написал, когда пистолет зарядил.  
"I meant to shoot myself for certain, right here, not far off, beyond the edge of the village, and I'd have done away with myself toward five in the morning; and I'd a note ready in my pocket, written at Perkhotin's when I loaded the pistol."
> Conditional «бы» + reflexive «с собою»: «распорядился бы» (past form + «бы») is the irrealis 'I would have done away with myself'. «с собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive «себя» after «с» — 'with oneself'. The «бы» signals the suicide as a thwarted intention, never carried out.
> Approximate time by inversion: «часов в пять»: Putting «часов» before «в пять» (instead of «в пять часов») signals approximation — 'around five o'clock'. This inversion-for-approximation is a neat, very Russian trick of word order.

Вот она бумажка, читайте. Не для вас рассказываю! — прибавил он вдруг презрительно.  
"Here's the note, read it. It isn't for you I'm telling all this!" he suddenly added with contempt.
> Presentational «вот она» + imperative: «Вот она бумажка» is a presentational flourish — 'here it is, the note' — with «она» resuming «бумажка» before it is even named, pure spoken syntax. «читайте» is the polite/plural imperfective imperative, 'read [it]'.
> Fronted negation «не для вас» for focus: Moving «не для вас» to the front negates and stresses the phrase 'not for you', putting it in the focus slot ahead of the verb: 'it isn't for YOU that I'm telling this'. Word order, not a special particle, does the emphatic work.

Он выбросил им на стол бумажку из жилетного своего кармана; следователи прочли с любопытством и, как водится, приобщили к делу.  
He tossed onto the table a note from his waistcoat pocket; the investigators read it with curiosity and, as is the custom, entered it into the file.
> Pair of perfectives advancing the action: «прочли» (read through) and «приобщили» (entered, attached) are both perfective, two completed acts in sequence. «к делу» is dative after «к» — to attach 'to the case/file'.

— А руки всё еще не подумали вымыть, даже и входя к господину Перхотину? Не опасались, стало быть, подозрений?  
"And it still never occurred to you to wash your hands, even on going in to Mr. Perkhotin? You weren't afraid, then, of arousing suspicion?"
> Negated «не подумали» + gerund «входя»: «не подумали вымыть» ('didn't think to wash') governs «руки»; the imperfective gerund «входя» ('on going in / while entering') gives the attendant circumstance. «даже и» ('even') sharpens the magistrate's insinuating point.
> Genitive «подозрений» after «опасаться»: «опасаться» ('to be afraid of') governs the genitive, hence «подозрений» (gen. pl. 'suspicions'). The verb also carries «-ся» as one of the fear-class verbs that exist only in that form. «стало быть» = 'so, then', a deductive aside.

— Каких таких подозрений? Подозревай — хоть нет, всё равно, я бы сюда ускакал и в пять часов застрелился, и ничего бы не успели сделать.  
"Suspicion of what sort? Suspect me or not, it's all the same — I'd have galloped off here and shot myself at five o'clock, and you'd have had no time to do anything."
> Imperative «подозревай» with concessive force: A 2nd-person singular imperative «подозревай» ('suspect [me]') used concessively, 'suspect me or not' — the imperative thrown out hypothetically rather than as a real command, reinforced by «хоть нет» ('or not') and «всё равно» ('all the same').
> Conditional «бы» of the counterfactual: «я бы… ускакал… застрелился» (past forms + «бы») is the counterfactual: 'I would have galloped off and shot myself' — events that never happened. «ускакал» is a prefixed perfective of motion (у- 'away'), «застрелился» reflexive 'shot oneself'.

Ведь если бы не случаи с отцом, ведь вы бы ничего не узнали и сюда не прибыли.  
"Why, if it weren't for what happened with my father, you'd have learned nothing at all and never have come here."
> «ведь» + counterfactual «если бы не»: Twice-repeated «ведь» appeals to shared obviousness — 'why, after all…'. «если бы не случаи» is the counterfactual 'if it weren't for what happened', and the main clause «вы бы… не узнали» mirrors it with «бы». The particle and the conditional together give Mitya's outburst its 'surely you see' insistence.
> Negative concord «ничего не»: «ничего не узнали» pairs the ни-word «ничего» (gen. of «ничто») with «не» — the obligatory double negative meaning 'learned nothing at all'. «ничего» is also in the genitive, the typical case for the object under negation.

О, это черт сделал, черт отца убил, через черта и вы так скоро узнали!  
"Oh, it was the devil who did it, the devil who killed my father, and it's through the devil that you found out so quickly!"
> «через» + accusative «черта»: «через черта» ('through/by means of the devil') takes the accusative; since «черт» is animate masculine, the accusative «черта» borrows the genitive form (animacy at work). The repetition of «черт» three times hammers Mitya's near-superstitious refrain.

Как сюда-то так скоро поспели? Диво, фантазия!  
"How did you get here so fast? It's a marvel, a fantasy!"
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «сюда» ('here') emphasizes the known topic — 'how did you get HERE so fast' — distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то». «поспели» (perfective, 'managed to get [here in time]') and «скоро» ('quickly') complete the marveling question.
> «диво» — a wonder: «диво» is a folksy, somewhat archaic word for a marvel or wonder (related to «удивить», to astonish); paired with the bookish «фантазия», Mitya's two exclamations swing between peasant idiom and educated speech — the very mixture of his voice.

— Господин Перхотин передал нам, что вы, войдя к нему, держали в руках… в окровавленных руках… ваши деньги… большие деньги… пачку сторублевых бумажек, и что видел это и служивший ему мальчик!  
"Mr. Perkhotin told us that when you came in to him you were holding in your hands — in your bloodied hands — your money… a great deal of money… a wad of hundred-rouble notes, and that the boy who served him saw it too!"
> Perfective gerund «войдя»: «войдя» ('having entered / on entering') is the perfective past gerund of «войти», marking the prior moment to «держали». It sets the time-frame of the main verb cleanly: at the instant of coming in, he was holding the money.

— Так, господа, помнится, что так.  
"So it was, gentlemen, as I recall it; so it was."
> Impersonal reflexive «помнится»: «помнится» ('it is recalled / as I recall', with «-ся») is an impersonal reflexive: the verb turns inward and subjectless, like «кажется» ('it seems'). It softens Mitya's assent to 'so it was, as I recall it'.

— Теперь встречается один вопросик. Не можете ли вы сообщить, — чрезвычайно мягко начал Николай Парфенович, — откуда вы взяли вдруг столько денег, тогда как из дела оказывается по расчету времени даже, что вы не заходили домой?  
"Now a small question arises. Could you not tell us," Nikolai Parfenovich began with extreme gentleness, "where you suddenly got so much money, when it appears from the case — by the very reckoning of the time — that you did not go home?"
> «не… ли» request + genitive «денег»: The magistrate's silky «Не можете ли вы…» is again the «не… ли» polite request. «столько денег» ('so much money') takes the genitive plural «денег» after the quantifier «столько» — the regular quantity-governs-genitive rule.
> Contrastive (adversative) «тогда как» + imperfective «заходили»: «тогда как» ('whereas, when in fact') opens a contrastive subordinate clause. Imperfective «заходили» ('did not drop in / call by home') denies the action as a general fact, the natural aspect under flat negation.
> Diminutive «вопросик»: «вопросик» is the diminutive of «вопрос» ('question') — 'a little question'. The magistrate's coy minimizing of the most dangerous question in the inquiry is pure manipulation, the affectionate suffix doing insinuating work.

Прокурор немножко поморщился от вопроса, поставленного так ребром, но не прервал Николая Парфеновича.  
The prosecutor winced a little at the question being put so bluntly, but he did not interrupt Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Past passive participle «поставленного» + genitive after «от»: «от вопроса» is genitive after «от» (the cause of his wincing); «поставленного» is a past passive participle agreeing with «вопроса», 'put/posed'. «поморщился» carries «-ся» as a change-of-state verb (his face wrinkled).
> Idiom «поставить ребром»: «поставить вопрос ребром» (lit. 'to set the question on its edge') means to put it point-blank, bluntly, leaving no evasion. «ребром» is instrumental of «ребро» (edge, rib). The young magistrate's bluntness makes even his ally the prosecutor wince.

— Нет, не заходил домой, — ответил Митя, по-видимому очень спокойно, но глядя в землю.  
"No, I didn't go home," Mitya answered, apparently quite calmly, but staring at the ground.
> Adverb «спокойно» vs gerund «глядя»: «спокойно» ('calmly') describes the manner of answering, while the imperfective gerund «глядя в землю» ('staring at the ground') adds a simultaneous, telltale action that belies the calm. «по-видимому» ('apparently') flags the narrator's reserve about that calm.

— Позвольте же повторить вопрос в таком случае, — как-то подползая, продолжал Николай Парфенович. — Откуда же вы могли разом достать такую сумму, когда, по собственному признанию вашему, еще в пять часов того дня…  
"Allow me, then, to repeat the question in that case," Nikolai Parfenovich went on, somehow worming his way forward. "Where could you have come by such a sum all at once, when, by your own admission, only at five o'clock that day…"
> Conditional-flavored «могли» + emphatic «же»: «могли достать» ('could have come by') with «же» presses the impossibility — 'wherever could you…?'. «разом» ('all at once') and «такую сумму» (accusative, 'such a sum') sharpen the trap the magistrate is laying.
> «подползая» — 'worming his way': The imperfective gerund «подползая» (from «подползать», to creep/crawl up to) likens the magistrate's approach to a stealthy crawl — the narrator's vivid, faintly contemptuous image of his insinuating method. «по собственному признанию вашему» is the formal 'by your own admission'.

— Нуждался в десяти рублях и заложил пистолеты у Перхотина, потом ходил к Хохлаковой за тремя тысячами, а та не дала, и проч., и всякая эта всячина, — резко прервал Митя, — да, вот, господа, нуждался, а тут вдруг тысячи появились, а?  
"I was short of ten roubles and pawned my pistols at Perkhotin's, then went to Madame Khokhlakov for three thousand, and she wouldn't give it, and so on, and all that rigmarole," Mitya cut in sharply. "Yes, gentlemen, I was hard up — and then all at once the thousands turn up, eh?"
> «нуждаться в» + prepositional: «нуждаться в» ('to be in need of') governs the prepositional case, hence «в десяти рублях». The numeral phrase «десяти рублях» is itself in the prepositional, the whole quantity re-declining as the preposition demands.
> Multidirectional «ходил» + «за» + instrumental: «ходил» is the multidirectional motion verb — a completed there-and-back trip ('went to and came back'). «за тремя тысячами» uses «за» + instrumental for 'to fetch / after [the money]', and the numeral «тремя тысячами» is itself instrumental.
> «всякая всячина» — 'all that rigmarole': A reduplicative folk idiom, «всякая всячина», 'all sorts of odds and ends, this and that'. Mitya's dismissive «и проч., и всякая эта всячина» waves away the whole damning sequence of his money troubles with irritated colloquial flippancy.

Знаете, господа, ведь вы оба теперь трусите: а что как не скажет, откуда взял?  
"You know, gentlemen, the two of you are quaking now: what if he won't tell us where he got it?"
> The appeal-particle «ведь»: «Ведь» does not translate as a word but as a tone: it appeals to what both sides already half-know — 'after all, you two are quaking now.' It is one of the modal particles that carry the conspiratorial intimacy of Dostoevsky's dialogue.
> «трусить» — to funk, to lose nerve: «Трусить» (here 2nd-pl. present «трусите») means to turn coward, to get cold feet — sharper and more taunting than 'to be afraid'. Mitya is needling the two officials with it.
> Colloquial «а что как» = 'what if': «А что как…» is a 19th-century conversational frame for an anxious hypothetical, 'and what if…'. The perfective future «не скажет» ('won't tell') names the dreaded single outcome they fear from him.

Так и есть: не скажу, господа, угадали, не узнаете, — отчеканил вдруг Митя с чрезвычайною решимостью.  
"And so it is: I won't tell, gentlemen — you've guessed right, you'll not find out," Mitya rapped out suddenly with extraordinary resolve.
> Perfective future as flat refusal: «Скажу» is the conjugated perfective of «сказать», so it carries future, completed force: 'I will (not) tell.' Negated and unsoftened, «не скажу» becomes a blunt, final 'I won't tell.'
> «отчеканить» — to rap out crisply: Literally 'to mint/coin' (as of striking a die), «отчеканить» of speech means to bite off each word with hard, deliberate precision — exactly the 'rapped out' of the English.
> Old instrumental ending «-ою»: The bookish 19th-century instrumental «решимостью» governed by «с» appears here with the literary feminine ending «-ою» (чрезвычайн-ою), where modern Russian would write «-ой». It is a period flavour, not a different case.

Следователи капельку помолчали.  
The investigators fell silent a moment.
> «капельку» — 'a tiny drop' of time: A diminutive of «капля» ('drop') used adverbially to mean 'a wee bit, just a moment'. The expressive suffix softens and shrinks the pause — the investigators were silent only the smallest instant.

— Поймите, господин Карамазов, что нам это знать существенно необходимо, — тихо и смиренно проговорил Николай Парфенович.  
"Understand, Mr. Karamazov, that it is essential — vitally necessary — for us to know this," Nikolai Parfenovich said softly and humbly.
> Polite/plural imperative «Поймите»: Perfective imperative of «понять», with the polite-plural «-те»: 'do understand.' Built on the future stem «пойм-», it presses a single act of comprehension rather than ongoing effort.
> Dative experiencer of necessity: No nominative subject: the people who need stand in the dative «нам», and the predicate «необходимо» is the impersonal neuter — 'for us it is necessary to know this.' This dative-first framing of need is pervasive in the novel's speech.

— Понимаю, а все-таки не скажу.  
"I understand, and all the same I won't tell."
> Concessive «а всё-таки»: The contrastive «а» plus «всё-таки» ('and yet, all the same') sets Mitya's refusal squarely against his own admission «понимаю». The little hinge «а» marks the pivot from concession to defiance without any heavy 'but'.

Ввязался и прокурор и опять напомнил, что допрашиваемый, конечно, может не отвечать на вопросы, если считает для себя это выгоднейшим и т. д., но в видах того, какой ущерб подозреваемый может сам нанести себе своим умолчанием и особенно ввиду вопросов такой важности, которая…  
The prosecutor too broke in and reminded him again that the person under examination was of course free not to answer the questions if he thought it more to his advantage, and so forth — but that, in view of the harm a suspect might do himself by his silence, and especially given questions of such importance, which…
> «ввязаться» — to butt in: Reflexive perfective 'to get oneself tangled into, to break in' — a faintly disapproving way to say the prosecutor inserted himself into the exchange. The «-ся» here marks the self-involving, middle sense.
> «допрашиваемый» — 'the one being questioned': A rare present passive participle of «допрашивать» used as a legal noun: 'the person under examination.' The bookish «-емый» form belongs to officialese, fitting the prosecutor's stiff register.
> «умолчание» — deliberate silence: Not mere quiet but a chosen withholding — 'reticence, passing over in silence.' The legal point is the harm a suspect does himself by «умолчание», keeping back what he could say.
> The relative «который», broken off: The prosecutor's sentence trails away mid-clause on the relative «которая» ('which…'), agreeing in feminine singular with «важности». Dostoevsky lets the official's ponderous syntax collapse just as Mitya cuts him off.

— И так далее, господа, и так далее! Довольно, слышал эту рацею и прежде! — опять оборвал Митя, — сам понимаю, какой важности дело и что тут самый существенный пункт, а все-таки не скажу.  
"And so on, gentlemen, and so on! Enough, I've heard this homily before too!" Mitya broke in again. "I understand for myself how important the case is and that this is the very crux of it, and all the same I won't tell."
> «рацея» — a tiresome sermon: An archaic, mocking word (from Latin oratio via Polish) for a long-winded moralising harangue — a 'homily, lecture.' Mitya throws it at the prosecutor's officialese with weary contempt.
> «оборвать» — to cut someone short: Perfective 'to break off, snap off' — of speech, to interrupt someone abruptly. Repeated «опять оборвал» marks Mitya's habit of slicing through the officials' set phrases.
> Genitive of quality «какой важности»: 'A matter of what importance' uses the genitive «какой важности» to express a quality or degree — the genitive's job of saying 'of what kind/measure.' It compresses 'how important the case is' into two words.

— Ведь нам что-с, это ведь не наше дело, а ваше, сами себе повредите, — нервно заметил Николай Парфенович.  
"Why, what is it to us, sir — it isn't our affair after all, but yours; you'll do yourself harm," Nikolai Parfenovich remarked nervously.
> The deferential clitic «-с»: «Что-с» carries the servile «-с» (a worn-down «сударь», 'sir') tacked onto words to signal deference. Nervous Nikolai Parfenovich peppers his speech with it — a marker of class politeness pervasive in 19th-century talk.
> Contrastive «а» pairing 'ours / yours': The zero-copula present ('it is not our affair') needs no verb 'to be', and «а» pivots cleanly from «не наше» to «ваше» — the soft contrastive that opposes the two possessives without a heavy 'but'.
> Reflexive «себе» + intensifier «сами»: «Сами» ('yourselves, of your own doing') intensifies, while the dative reflexive «себе» points the harm back at the subject: 'you'll do harm to your own self.' The perfective future «повредите» makes it a warned-of single result.

— Видите, господа, шутки в сторону, — вскинулся глазами Митя и твердо посмотрел на них обоих. — Я с самого начала уже предчувствовал, что мы на этом пункте сшибемся лбами.  
"You see, gentlemen, joking aside," Mitya flashed his eyes and looked firmly at the two of them. "From the very start I had a foreboding that we'd lock horns on this point."
> Idiom: «шутки в сторону»: Literally 'jokes to the side' — the fixed phrase 'joking aside, all kidding apart.' Mitya uses it to mark a turn into deadly seriousness.
> Idiom: «сшибиться лбами»: 'To knock our foreheads together' — to clash head-on, lock horns. The vivid bodily image (perfective future «сшибёмся») foretells the deadlock over where the money came from.
> «предчувствовать» — to forebode: Built on «чувствовать» ('to feel') with «пред-» ('fore-'), this is to feel beforehand, to have a presentiment. The imperfective past «предчувствовал» gives the sense of a dread that had been hanging over him all along.

Но вначале, когда я давеча начал показывать, всё это было в дальнейшем тумане, всё плавало, и я даже был так прост, что начал с предложения «взаимного между нами доверия».  
"But at the outset, when I began giving my testimony earlier, all this was still in a far-off haze, everything was afloat, and I was even so simple as to begin by proposing 'mutual trust between us.'"
> «давеча» — 'a while ago, earlier today': A homely, slightly archaic adverb meaning 'a short while ago, earlier (today).' It belongs to colloquial 19th-century speech and dates the testimony to earlier the same scene.
> Subordinating «когда» + ingressive «начал»: «Когда» opens a time-clause set off by commas; «начал показывать» pairs the perfective «начал» ('began') with the imperfective infinitive «показывать» — aspect cooperating, since beginning is a point but the testifying is a process.
> «показывать» — to give testimony: Beyond 'to show', «показывать/показать» is the legal term 'to depose, give evidence'; the noun «показания» ('depositions') recurs through the chapter. Here it is Mitya's act of testifying before the magistrates.

Теперь сам вижу, что доверия этого и быть не могло, потому что всё же бы мы пришли к этому проклятому забору!  
"Now I see for myself that there could be no such trust, because we would have come all the same to this accursed fence!"
> Genitive of negation in non-existence: With negated 'could not be', the absent thing goes into the genitive: «доверия… не могло (быть)» — 'of such trust there could be none.' Fronting «доверия этого» also topicalises it before the verb collapses the possibility.
> Conditional «бы» with detached particle: «Бы» plus the past «пришли» makes the irrealis: 'we would have come' to the same wall regardless. Note how «бы» floats forward to lean on «всё же» rather than sitting by the verb — its typical mobility.
> «забор» as metaphor — the 'accursed fence': «Забор» is a plain wooden fence; «проклятый» ('accursed, damned') makes it the impassable barrier the conversation keeps running into. The dative «проклятому забору» follows «прийти к» ('to come up against').

Ну, вот и пришли! Нельзя, и кончено!  
"Well, and so we've come to it! It can't be done, and that's the end of it!"
> Impersonal «нельзя» + «кончено»: «Нельзя» ('it can't / mustn't be done') is a subjectless modal taking no nominative; «кончено» ('it's finished, done') is the neuter short passive participle used as a verdict. Together: 'impossible, and that's that.'

Впрочем, я ведь вас не виню, нельзя же и вам мне верить на слово, я ведь это понимаю!  
"Still, I don't blame you — you can't take me at my word either, I understand that!"
> «нельзя» with dative «вам» + emphatic «же»: Another impersonal «нельзя», now with the dative experiencer «вам» ('it's not for you to…') and the insistent particle «же» softening it to 'after all, you can't be expected to.' «Верить» takes its object in the dative («мне»).
> Idiom: «верить на слово»: 'To believe on (someone's) word' — to take a person at their word, trust without proof. Mitya concedes the magistrates cannot simply do this for him.

Он мрачно замолчал.  
He fell into a gloomy silence.
> Ingressive perfective «за-»: The prefix «за-» on «молчать» gives «замолчать» — to fall silent, to begin keeping quiet. This 'inceptive' «за-» marks the onset of a state, here Mitya's gloomy lapse into silence.

— А не могли ли бы вы, не нарушая нисколько вашей решимости умолчать о главнейшем, не могли ли бы вы в то же время дать нам хоть малейший намек на то: какие именно столь сильные мотивы могли бы привести вас к умолчанию в столь опасный для вас момент настоящих показаний?  
"Could you not, without breaking in the least your resolve to keep silent about the main thing — could you not at the same time give us at least the faintest hint as to this: what motives, precisely, so powerful, could have led you to silence at a moment so dangerous to you, in the present depositions?"
> Stacked politeness: «ли» + «бы» + negation: A very deferential request piles three softeners together: negation «не», the question-particle «ли», and conditional «бы» — 'might you not be able…'. Nikolai Parfenovich even repeats the whole frame, the height of magistrate's tact.
> Gerund «нарушая» with negative concord: «Нарушая» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие»), 'while breaking,' sharing the subject «вы»: 'without breaking your resolve in the least.' «Нисколько» ('not at all') joins the «не» in negative concord — the doubled negation strengthening, not cancelling.
> Bookish «столь» = 'so': «Столь» ('so, to such a degree') is the elevated, literary equivalent of «так/такой», repeated here («столь сильные… столь опасный») to lend the magistrate's question a formal, rhetorical weight.

Митя грустно и как-то задумчиво усмехнулся.  
Mitya gave a sad and somehow pensive smile.
> Semelfactive «-ну-» in «усмехнуться»: The «-ну-» suffix marks a single, instantaneous act: «усмехнуться» is to give one (faint, often wry) smile, not to keep smiling. The «-ся» is the lexicalised reflexive that this verb always carries.
> «усмехнуться» — a wry, knowing smile: Distinct from «улыбнуться» (a warm smile), «усмехнуться» is a one-sided, ironic or bitter smirk. Paired with «грустно… задумчиво» it gives Mitya's sad, inward half-smile.

— Я гораздо добрее, чем вы думаете, господа, я вам сообщу почему, и дам этот намек, хотя вы того и не стоите.  
"I'm far kinder than you think, gentlemen, I'll tell you why, and give you this hint, though you're not worth it."
> Comparative «добрее» + intensifier «гораздо»: «Добрее» is the predicative comparative of «добрый» ('kinder'), and «гораздо» ('far, much') intensifies it. The comparison is drawn with «чем» plus a finite clause: 'far kinder than you think.'
> Concessive «хотя» + genitive after «стоить»: «Хотя» ('although') opens the concessive clause; «стоить» here ('to be worth, to deserve') governs the genitive «того» ('it'). The «и» before «не стоите» is the emphatic 'even' — 'though you don't even deserve it.'

Потому, господа, умалчиваю, что тут для меня позор.  
"I keep silent, gentlemen, because there is disgrace for me in this."
> «умалчивать» — to keep deliberately silent: Imperfective partner of «умолчать»: to pass over in silence, withhold on purpose (cf. «умолчание» in s186). The present tense «умалчиваю» states his standing policy: 'I am keeping silent.'
> «позор» — disgrace, shame before others: «Позор» is public shame, dishonour, ignominy — the eye of others upon one, stronger than private «стыд» ('shame'). It is the chapter's keyword: the unbearable thing Mitya guards behind his silence.
> Zero-copula 'there is' with «для меня»: No verb 'to be': «тут… позор» states bare existence in the present, and «для меня» ('for me') localises the shame to him personally. Russian leaves the copula unspoken in such present-tense statements.

В ответе на вопрос: откуда взял эти деньги, заключен для меня такой позор, с которым не могло бы сравняться даже и убийство, и ограбление отца, если б я его убил и ограбил.  
"In the answer to the question — where I got that money — there is contained for me such a disgrace as could not be matched even by the murder and robbery of my father, had I killed and robbed him."
> Short passive participle «заключён»: «Заключён» is the masculine short form of the past passive participle of «заключить» ('to contain, enclose') — 'is contained.' This predicative short form, joining an implied быть, states a result: in the answer 'is contained' such a disgrace.
> Relative «который» (instrumental) + conditional: «С которым» is the relative in the instrumental governed by «сравняться с» ('to be equal to'), agreeing with «позор». The conditional «не могло бы сравняться» frames the comparison as hypothetical: 'with which not even murder could compare.'
> Conditional «если б» with reduced «бы»: «Если б» (clipped «если бы») plus the perfective past «убил и ограбил» builds the counterfactual: 'had I killed and robbed him.' The hypothetical murder of his father is voiced only as an unreal condition — a chilling near-miss.

Вот почему не могу говорить. От позора не могу.  
"That is why I cannot speak. For the disgrace I cannot."
> Causal «от» + genitive, verb gapped: «От» governs the genitive «позора» in a causal sense — 'because of / from the shame.' The verb «говорить» is gapped from the prior clause, leaving the stark fragment 'For the disgrace I cannot.'

Что вы это, господа, записывать хотите?  
"What is this, gentlemen — you mean to write it down?"
> Expostulatory «Что вы это»: «Что вы это…?» is an idiomatic exclamation of surprised remonstrance — 'What's this you're…?, You don't mean to…?'. The aspectual contrast in «записывать хотите» (imperfective infinitive) frames the writing-down as an ongoing intention.

— Да, мы запишем, — пролепетал Николай Парфенович.  
"Yes, we'll write it down," Nikolai Parfenovich mumbled.
> «пролепетать» — to mumble, falter out: From «лепетать» ('to babble, prattle, as a child'), the perfective «пролепетать» is to bring out timidly and indistinctly. It paints the nervous, deferential Nikolai Parfenovich, who keeps faltering before Mitya.
> Perfective future «запишем»: «Запишем» is the conjugated perfective of «записать» — a completed future act, 'we will write it down (and have it down).' The «за-» prefix supplies the result-oriented sense of recording.

— Вам бы не следовало это записывать, про «позор»-то.  
"You oughtn't to write that down — about the 'disgrace.'"
> Dative «вам» + «бы» = gentle 'ought not': The impersonal «следовать» ('to behove') takes its experiencer in the dative «вам»; adding «бы» softens it to advice/reproach: 'you really oughtn't to.' A textbook dative-subject construction made conditional.
> Topicalising clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «позор» singles it out as the known topic under discussion — 'that bit about the disgrace.' This is the emphatic «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».

Это я вам по доброте только души показал, а мог и не показывать, я вам, так сказать, подарил, а вы сейчас лыко в строку.  
"I revealed it to you only out of the goodness of my soul, and I needn't have revealed it; I made you a present of it, so to speak, and here you are turning it straight against me."
> Causal «по» + dative «доброте»: «По доброте (души)» — 'out of (the) goodness (of soul)' — uses «по» with the dative to give motive. «Показал» here means 'revealed, disclosed,' the same testimonial verb as «показывать» (s190).
> Modal «мог» + «и не» imperfective: «Мог (и) не показывать» — 'I needn't have revealed it' — pairs the past of «мочь» with a negated imperfective infinitive, where the imperfective fits the option of simply not doing it at all. The «и» adds 'might equally not have.'
> Idiom: «(ставить) лыко в строку»: An earthy proverb from bast-weaving — 'to set every bast-strip into the row' — meaning to hold every slip or word against someone, to nitpick. Mitya accuses them of turning his confided shame straight into evidence.

Ну пишите, пишите что хотите, — презрительно и брезгливо заключил он, — не боюсь я вас и… горжусь пред вами.  
"Well, write away, write whatever you like," he concluded with contempt and disgust. "I'm not afraid of you, and… I hold my head high before you."
> Imperfective imperative of dismissal: «Пишите» is the imperfective imperative — for an open, unbounded 'write away, go on writing' — repeated for contemptuous insistence. Imperfective commands invite/permit an activity, where a perfective would demand one finished act.
> «бояться» + genitive object, inverted: The reflexive-only verb «бояться» ('to fear') governs its object in the genitive «вас». Word order puts the verb first («не боюсь я вас») for defiant emphasis — the comment 'I'm-not-afraid' thrust forward.
> «брезгливо» — with squeamish disgust: «Брезгливый/брезгливо» conveys fastidious revulsion, as at something dirty or beneath one. Paired with «презрительно» ('contemptuously'), it gives Mitya's loathing a physical, recoiling quality.

— А не скажете ли вы, какого бы рода этот позор? — пролепетал было Николай Парфенович.  
"And won't you tell us what sort of disgrace it would be?" Nikolai Parfenovich began to mumble.
> Negated «ли» question = tentative invitation: «Не скажете ли вы…?» — negation plus the question-particle «ли» — is a polite, hopeful 'won't you tell us…?'. The perfective future «скажете» asks for one act of disclosure, softened by the deferential frame.
> Genitive of quality «какого рода» + «бы»: «Какого рода» ('of what sort') is a genitive-of-quality phrase, and the slipped-in «бы» makes the whole question tentative and hypothetical: 'what sort of disgrace it might be.' A doubly cautious magistrate's probe.

Прокурор ужасно наморщился.  
The prosecutor frowned dreadfully.
> «наморщиться» — to knit one's brow: Reflexive perfective 'to wrinkle up, screw up one's face/brow.' The «-ся» makes it the involuntary change of state — the prosecutor frowns of his own at his colleague's tactless question.

— Ни-ни, c’est fini, не трудитесь.  
"No, no, c'est fini, don't trouble yourselves."
> Reduplicated «ни-ни» as flat refusal: Doubling the intensifying negative particle «ни» gives the colloquial «ни-ни» — an absolute 'no, no, not a bit of it, out of the question.' It refuses even to entertain the magistrate's request.
> Negated imperfective imperative «не трудитесь»: «Трудитесь» is the imperative of reflexive «трудиться» ('to take pains'); negated, «не трудитесь» means 'don't bother, don't trouble yourselves.' Negative commands in Russian normally take the imperfective.

Да и не стоит мараться. Уж и так об вас замарался.  
"And it's not worth soiling myself over. I've soiled myself enough on your account already."
> «мараться / замараться» — to soil oneself: «Марать» is to soil, dirty, smear; reflexive «мараться/замараться» is to get oneself dirty — here morally, to demean oneself by contact. Mitya says it isn't worth dirtying himself, having already «замарался» on their account.
> Emphatic «уж» + colloquial «об вас»: The particle «уж» ('already, indeed') intensifies the rueful admission. Note the period-colloquial «об вас» for modern «о вас» — the older preposition form before a pronoun, governing the prepositional case.

Не стоите вы, ни вы и никто… Довольно, господа, обрываю.  
"You're not worth it, neither you nor anyone… Enough, gentlemen, I break off."
> Negative concord with «ни… никто»: «Не стоите вы, ни вы и никто» heaps negatives — «не», «ни», «никто» — all reinforcing one denial: 'you're not worth it, neither you nor anyone.' Russian's negative concord requires the negatives to agree, not cancel.
> «обрывать» — 'I break off': The same verb used of cutting someone short (s187) now turned on himself: «обрываю», present-tense 'I break off (here).' Mitya performatively ends the exchange with the word.

Проговорено было слишком решительно.  
It was spoken too resolutely.
> Impersonal short passive «проговорено было»: A subjectless passive: the neuter short participle «проговорено» plus «было» states 'it was spoken' with no named agent — the words simply stand uttered, too resolutely. This agentless passive is a favourite of narrative summary.

Николай Парфенович перестал настаивать, но из взглядов Ипполита Кирилловича мигом успел усмотреть, что тот еще не теряет надежды.  
Nikolai Parfenovich ceased to insist, but from Ippolit Kirillovich's looks he managed in an instant to perceive that the latter had not yet given up hope.
> Correlative «тот» tracking the other man: «Тот» ('the latter, that one') points across to Ippolit Kirillovich, neatly distinguishing him from the subject Nikolai Parfenovich — the demonstrative doing reference-tracking that free word order makes necessary. «Терять надежды» shows genitive of negation under «не теряет».

— Не можете ли по крайней мере объявить: какой величины была сумма в руках ваших, когда вы вошли с ней к господину Перхотину, то есть сколько именно рублей?  
"Could you not at least state how large the sum was that you held in your hands when you came in with it to Mr. Perkhotin — that is, exactly how many roubles?"
> Polite «не… ли» request again: Once more the deferential 'can't you at least…?' frame: negation plus «ли». «По крайней мере» ('at least') lowers the ask, the magistrate retreating to a smaller question after the firm refusal.
> Genitive of measure «какой величины»: 'Of what size was the sum' uses the genitive «какой величины» to ask about magnitude — the genitive-of-quality construction applied to quantity. It is glossed immediately by the plainer «сколько именно рублей».

— Не могу и этого объявить.  
"That too I cannot state."
> Emphatic «и» = 'this too': The particle «и» before «этого» means 'even/too' — 'that too I cannot state' — extending the refusal to the new, smaller question. «Этого» is genitive object under the negated «не могу… объявить».

— Господину Перхотину вы, кажется, заявляли о трех тысячах, будто бы полученных вами от госпожи Хохлаковой?  
"To Mr. Perkhotin you declared, it seems, that you had three thousand, supposedly received by you from Madame Khokhlakov?"
> Past passive participle + reportive «будто бы»: «Полученных» is the past passive participle of «получить» ('received'), declined to agree with «трёх тысячах» and naming the money as the thing received; the agent stands in the instrumental «вами». «Будто бы» ('supposedly, as if') flags the claim as merely reported, not vouched for.

— Может быть, и заявил. Довольно, господа, не скажу сколько.  
"Perhaps I did declare it. Enough, gentlemen, I won't say how much."
> Concessive «и» = 'I may indeed have': «Может быть, и заявил» — 'perhaps I did declare it' — uses «и» to concede the point grudgingly. The perfective past «заявил» admits one past act while the following «не скажу» refuses the next.

— Потрудитесь в таком случае описать, как вы сюда поехали и всё, что вы сделали, сюда приехав?  
"Then would you take the trouble to describe how you traveled here and everything you did once you'd arrived?"
> «Потрудитесь» — formal 'be so good as to': The reflexive perfective imperative «потрудитесь» ('take the trouble, be so kind as to') is a stiff, officially polite way to issue a request. It governs the infinitive «описать», setting the magistrate's bureaucratic courtesy.
> Perfective past gerund «приехав»: «Приехав» is the perfective past «деепричастие» of «приехать», 'having arrived,' compressing a prior completed action into one adverbial form sharing the main subject: 'everything you did once (having) arrived.'

— Ох, об этом спросите всех здешних. А впрочем, пожалуй, и я расскажу.  
"Oh, ask everyone here about that. But there — very well, I'll tell it myself."
> Imperative + animate accusative=genitive «всех»: «Спросите» is the polite-plural imperative ('ask'); its object «всех здешних» ('everyone hereabouts') takes the animate accusative, which for the plural borrows the genitive form «всех». «Здешний» means 'local, of this place.'
> Concessive «впрочем» + hedging «пожалуй»: «Впрочем» ('however, on second thought') reverses his brush-off, and «пожалуй» ('very well, I suppose, I daresay') marks a half-willing concession. The perfective future «расскажу» promises one full telling.

Он рассказал, но мы уже приводить рассказа не будем.  
He told it, but we will not reproduce the account here.
> Compound future negative + genitive of negation: «Не будем приводить» is the imperfective compound future of «приводить» ('to adduce, reproduce'), and under its negation the object slips into the genitive «рассказа» — 'we will not reproduce the account.' A neat pairing of compound future and genitive of negation.

Рассказывал сухо, бегло.  
He told it dryly, in a rush.
> Imperfective «рассказывал» for manner: The imperfective past «рассказывал» views the telling as a process whose manner is being described — 'he told it (in a) dry, hurried (way).' The aspect, not the lexicon, is what frames it as ongoing texture rather than a single completed act.

О восторгах любви своей не говорил вовсе.  
Of the raptures of his love he said nothing at all.
> Fronted topic «о восторгах» + reflexive «своей»: The prepositional phrase «о восторгах любви своей» is moved to the front as the topic ('of the raptures of his love…'), the new information being the flat «не говорил вовсе». «Своей» ('his own') reflexively points back to the subject Mitya.

Рассказал, однако, как решимость застрелиться в нем прошла, «ввиду новых фактов».  
He told them, however, how his resolve to shoot himself had passed off, "in view of new facts."
> Reflexive «застрелиться» + «как»-clause: «Застрелиться» is reflexive 'to shoot oneself (dead)'; the «-ся» turns the act back on the agent. «Как… прошла» here means 'how (his resolve) passed off, faded,' the «как»-clause reporting the manner of its disappearance.
> «ввиду» + genitive — 'in view of': The compound preposition «ввиду» governs the genitive «новых фактов» to mean 'in view of, owing to.' Set in quotation marks, the phrase echoes Mitya's own self-justifying turn of speech.

Он рассказывал, не мотивируя, не вдаваясь в подробности.  
He recounted it without giving his motives, without entering into particulars.
> Two negated present gerunds in chain: «Мотивируя» and «вдаваясь» are imperfective present «деепричастия» ('giving motives,' 'entering into'), both negated and sharing the subject: 'without giving his motives, without going into particulars.' Stacked gerunds like these are a signature of literary narration.

Да и следователи не очень его на этот раз беспокоили: ясно было, что и для них не в том состоит теперь главный пункт.  
Nor did the investigators trouble him much this time: it was clear that for them, too, the main point did not lie there now.
> Emphatic «и для них» + «в том состоит»: «И для них» ('for them too') adds the magistrates to the point, and «в том состоит» ('consists in that') is a bookish idiom of definition. The negation «не в том» says the crux does not lie 'there' — anticipating where it really does lie.

— Мы это всё проверим, ко всему еще возвратимся при допросе свидетелей, который будет, конечно, происходить в вашем присутствии, — заключил допрос Николай Парфенович. — Теперь же позвольте обратиться к вам с просьбою выложить сюда на стол все ваши вещи, находящиеся при вас, а главное, все деньги, какие только теперь имеете.  
"We shall verify all this, we'll return to everything again at the examination of the witnesses, which will, of course, take place in your presence," Nikolai Parfenovich said, bringing the interrogation to a close. "Now, however, allow me to turn to you with a request: lay out here on the table all your belongings on your person, and above all, all the money you have on you just now."
> Relative «который» + compound future: «Который» ('which') heads the relative clause about the «допрос свидетелей», agreeing in masculine singular with «допрос» but nominative as the clause's own subject. «Будет происходить» is the imperfective compound future — an event seen as taking place over time.
> «позвольте» + infinitive; old «-ою»: The polite imperative «позвольте» ('allow [me]') plus the infinitive «обратиться» is a formal request-opener. Note again the literary instrumental «просьбою» (for «просьбой») governed by «с» — period flavour in the magistrate's courtesy.
> Perfective infinitive of request «выложить»: «Выложить» (perfective, 'to lay out (all at once)') names the single completed act requested; with «на стол» in the accusative of motion-toward, the things are to be set out on the table. The «вы-» prefix gives the sense of producing everything out.

— Деньги, господа? Извольте, понимаю, что надо. Удивляюсь даже, как раньше не полюбопытствовали.  
"Money, gentlemen? By all means, I understand it's necessary. I'm even surprised you didn't take an interest sooner."
> «Извольте» — 'by all means, as you please': An archaic, ceremonious word of compliance (from «изволить», 'to deign/be pleased to'), «извольте» means 'certainly, here you are, if you please.' Mitya uses its old-fashioned politeness half-mockingly toward the officials.
> Exclamatory «как» + perfective «полюбопытствовали»: «Как… не полюбопытствовали» is an exclamatory 'how is it you didn't take an interest!' The perfective «полюбопытствовать» (with inceptive «по-») marks the one act of getting curious that, surprisingly, hadn't happened sooner.

Правда, никуда бы не ушел, на виду сижу. Ну, вот они, мои деньги, вот считайте, берите, все, кажется.  
"True, I couldn't have gone anywhere — I'm sitting in plain sight. Well, here it is, my money, here, count it, take it, that's all of it, I think."
> Counterfactual «бы» with «никуда»: «Никуда бы не ушёл» — 'I couldn't have gone anywhere' — joins the negative adverb «никуда» (negative concord with «не») to the conditional «бы» + past «ушёл». It reasons unreally: even had he wanted to flee, he could not.
> Imperfective imperatives «считайте, берите»: A string of imperfective plural imperatives ('count, take') invites the officials to set about the activity freely — the imperfective fitting an open, ongoing handling of the money. «Вот они, мои деньги» fronts the cash for display.

Он вынул всё из карманов, даже мелочь, два двугривенных вытащил из бокового жилетного кармана.  
He emptied everything out of his pockets, even the small change, and pulled two twenty-kopeck pieces from the side pocket of his waistcoat.
> «мелочь» — small change: From «мелкий» ('fine, small'), «мелочь» is the loose small coin, 'odd change.' Here even the smallest coins are turned out of his pockets.
> «жилет» — the gentleman's waistcoat: «Жилет» is a waistcoat/vest; «жилетный карман» the small side pocket of it. The detail of fishing coins from his waistcoat pocket sharpens the picture of Mitya emptying himself out completely.

Сосчитали деньги, оказалось восемьсот тридцать шесть рублей сорок копеек.  
They counted the money; it came to eight hundred and thirty-six roubles and forty kopecks.
> Subjectless plural «сосчитали» + «оказалось»: «Сосчитали» ('they counted'), a 3rd-plural with no stated subject, is the impersonal 'they/one' of narration; «оказалось» ('it turned out') is the impersonal neuter introducing the result. Russian narrates such bookkeeping without naming the counters.
> Numerals governing «рублей» / «копеек»: The compound numbers end in «шесть» and «сорок», so they pull the genitive plural «рублей» and «копеек» (5-and-up rule). Reading the case off the noun confirms 'roubles' and 'kopecks' are counted, not subjects.

— И это всё? — спросил следователь.  
"And is that all?" the investigator asked.
> Bare elliptical question: 'And is that all?' — no verb at all, the zero-copula present leaving «это всё» to stand as a complete question by intonation. Russian dispenses with 'to be' in the present, so the bare phrase suffices.

— Всё.  
"That's all."

— Вы изволили сказать сейчас, делая показания ваши, что в лавке Плотниковых оставили триста рублей, Перхотину дали десять, ямщику двадцать, здесь проиграли двести, потом…  
"You were pleased to say just now, in giving your testimony, that you left three hundred roubles at the Plotnikovs' shop, gave Perkhotin ten, the coachman twenty, lost two hundred gambling here, then…"
> «изволили сказать» — deferential past: «Изволить» + infinitive ('to be pleased to do') forms a stiffly polite past, 'you were pleased to say.' The magistrate's officialese keeps reaching for these archaic courtesies even while pinning down hard facts.
> Dative recipients in an itemised list: The list runs on datives of the recipient — «Перхотину» ('to Perkhotin'), «ямщику» ('to the coachman') — with the verb «дали» gapped after the first. The dative quietly marks 'to whom' across the whole tally.

Николай Парфенович пересчитал всё. Митя помог охотно.  
Nikolai Parfenovich reckoned it all up. Mitya helped readily.
> «пересчитать» — to tally up, count over: The prefix «пере-» here gives 'to count through, reckon up (item by item).' Nikolai Parfenovich totals the whole list; «помог охотно» ('helped readily') shows Mitya's odd, careless cooperation.

Припомнили и включили в счет всякую копейку.  
They recalled and brought into the account every last kopeck.
> Perfective pair driving the action forward: Two perfective pasts «припомнили» ('recalled') and «включили» ('brought in') move the bookkeeping forward as discrete completed events. «Всякую копейку» ('every last kopeck'), accusative singular, makes the thoroughness vivid.

Николай Парфенович бегло свел итог.  
Nikolai Parfenovich rapidly drew the total.
> Idiom: «свести итог»: «Свести итог» is 'to strike/draw the total, sum up.' With «бегло» ('rapidly, fluently') it pictures the magistrate swiftly drawing the final figure.

— С этими восьмьюстами было, стало быть, всего у вас первоначально около полутора тысяч?  
"So with these eight hundred, then, you had altogether at the start something like fifteen hundred?"
> Instrumental of the numeral «восемьсот»: After «с» ('with'), the whole numeral phrase re-declines into the instrumental: «восемьсот» becomes «восьмьюстами» — both parts inflected, a notorious bit of Russian numeral declension. It means 'with these eight hundred.'
> «стало быть» — 'therefore, so then': A fossilised parenthetical ('it has come to be' → 'consequently, ergo'), «стало быть» draws an inference. The magistrate uses it to deduce the original sum was about fifteen hundred.
> «полтора» — 'one and a half': «Полтора» ('one and a half'), here in the genitive «полутора» after «около» ('about'), with «тысяч» in the genitive plural: 'about fifteen hundred.' This special numeral has its own irregular declension.

— Стало быть, — отрезал Митя.  
"So it would seem," Mitya snapped.
> «отрезать» — to snap, retort curtly: Literally 'to cut off,' «отрезать» of speech means to answer sharply and finally, with no opening for reply. Mitya's clipped «Стало быть» echoing the magistrate's word, then 'snapped,' conveys his curt impatience.

— Как же все утверждают, что было гораздо более?  
"How is it, then, that everyone maintains there was a great deal more?"
> Challenging «как же» + comparative «более»: «Как же…?» — 'how is it then…?' — with the insistent particle «же» presses the contradiction. «Гораздо более» ('a great deal more') is the bookish comparative «более» (vs colloquial «больше») intensified by «гораздо».

— Пусть утверждают.  
"Let them maintain it."
> Third-person imperative with «пусть»: «Пусть» plus the 3rd-person present «утверждают» forms a let-imperative: 'let them maintain it.' It is Russia's way of commanding or conceding to a third party, here Mitya's contemptuous shrug.

— Да и вы сами утверждали.  
"And you yourself maintained it too."
> Additive «да и» + intensifier «сами»: «Да и» ('and besides, and what's more') tacks on a clinching point, and «сами» ('yourself') throws Mitya's own earlier claim back at him: 'and you yourself maintained it too.' The imperfective «утверждали» views it as his standing assertion.

— И я сам утверждал.  
“And I myself maintained the same.”
> Emphatic «сам»: «сам» ('myself') is the intensifier that stresses the subject in person: 'I, for my own part, also maintained it.' Distinct from the reflexive «себя», it underlines that the assertion came from Mitya himself.
> Imperfective past of a stance: «утверждал» is imperfective past — Mitya was 'maintaining / asserting' it as a held position over time, not registering a single completed act. The imperfective fits a continuing claim he kept making.

— Мы еще проверим всё это свидетельствами еще не спрошенных других лиц; о деньгах ваших не беспокойтесь, они сохранятся где следует и окажутся к вашим услугам по окончании всего… начавшегося… если окажется или, так сказать, докажется, что вы имеете на них неоспоримое право.  
“We shall yet verify all of this through the testimony of other persons not yet questioned; as for your money, do not trouble yourself — it will be kept in its proper place and will be at your disposal once everything… that has been set in motion… is concluded, if it should turn out, or, so to speak, be proven, that you have an indisputable right to it.”
> Perfective future «проверим»: A perfective verb conjugated like a present yields a completed future: «проверим» = 'we shall verify (and settle).' The first-person plural is the official, institutional 'we' of the examining magistrate.
> Instrumental of means + past passive participle: «свидетельствами» is instrumental — the 'means' by which they will verify ('through the testimony'). Nested inside, «не спрошенных» is a past passive participle ('not-yet-questioned'), declined in the genitive plural to agree with «лиц».
> Negated imperative of a -ся verb: «не беспокойтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of reflexive «беспокоиться» ('to worry oneself'), negated by «не»: 'do not trouble yourself.' Note the bookish word order «деньгах ваших», with the possessive following the noun.
> Middle -ся «сохранятся» + impersonal «следует»: «сохранятся» is a -ся middle, intransitive future ('they will be kept / will keep'). «где следует» is a fixed impersonal idiom — literally 'where it follows/is proper' — i.e. 'in the proper place,' a bit of bureaucratic delicacy.
> Conditional «если» + reflexive-passive «докажется»: «если» opens a real conditional; both «окажется» ('it should turn out') and «докажется» ('it should be proven') are impersonal -ся forms with no named agent. «что …» then reports the content with the subordinator 'that.'
> «так сказать» — 'so to speak': A stock hedging phrase, 'so to speak / as it were.' Coupled with «или … докажется», it captures Nikolai Parfenovich's fussy, qualifying legal manner as he softens 'turn out' into 'be proven.'
> «неоспоримое право» — indisputable right: «неоспоримый» = 'incontestable, indisputable,' from «оспаривать» ('to contest'); here a juridical 'indisputable right' to the money. The elevated legalism marks the magistrate's official register.

Ну-с, а теперь…  
“Well then, sir, and now…”
> «-с» — the deferential clitic: The «-с» tacked onto «Ну» is the «словоер», a shortened «сударь» ('sir') once added to show politeness or self-effacement. «Ну-с» means 'Well then, sir' — a verbal tic of obsequious or formal 19th-century speech that pervades the interrogation scene.

Николай Парфенович вдруг встал и твердо объявил Мите, что «принужден и должен» учинить самый подробный и точнейший осмотр «как платья вашего, так и всего…»  
Nikolai Parfenovich suddenly rose and firmly announced to Mitya that he was “compelled and obliged” to carry out the most thorough and most exact examination “of both your clothing and of everything else…”
> Perfective chain of events: Two perfective pasts in sequence — «встал» ('rose'), «объявил» ('announced') — move the narration forward as discrete completed acts. «вдруг» ('suddenly') and the adverb «твердо» ('firmly') sharpen the abruptness.
> Short adjectives as predicate: «принужден» (short form of «принуждённый», 'compelled') and «должен» ('obliged') are short, predicate-only forms — the bookish, formal register the magistrate adopts. The quotation marks flag them as his own stiff phrasing.
> «учинить осмотр» — to carry out an examination: «учинить» ('to carry out, effect') is an archaic, officialese verb, and «осмотр» the technical 'inspection / examination.' The pairing is deliberately chancery-stiff, the magistrate hiding behind procedure as he orders Mitya stripped.
> Correlative «как… так и…»: The paired conjunction «как…, так и…» means 'both… and…'. Both «платья» and «всего» stand in the genitive governed by «осмотр» ('an examination of…'), and «платья вашего» again shows the bookish post-posed possessive.

— Извольте, господа, все карманы выверну, если хотите.  
“By all means, gentlemen, I’ll turn out every pocket, if you like.”
> «Извольте» — 'by all means / if you please': From «изволить» ('to deign, be pleased to'), «извольте» is a polite formula granting assent, 'by all means, kindly.' Here it carries Mitya's brusque, half-mocking compliance as he offers to be searched.
> Perfective future «выверну»: «выверну» (from «вывернуть», 'to turn inside out') is a perfective future — a single decisive act Mitya volunteers: 'I'll turn out every pocket.' The prefix «вы-» gives the sense of turning the lining out.
> Dropped pronoun in «если хотите»: 'If you like' — the subject «вы» is omitted because the second-person plural ending of «хотите» already carries it, the normal Russian default. The polite/plural «вы» addresses the «господа».

И он действительно принялся было вывертывать карманы.  
And he did in fact begin to turn his pockets inside out.
> The particle «было» — an abandoned start: «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun but then interrupted or undone: 'he began to… (but stopped / it came to nothing).' «принялся вывертывать» = 'set about turning out,' the perfective «принялся» taking an imperfective infinitive for the ongoing process.
> «действительно» — 'in fact, really': An adverb confirming that the action genuinely happened — 'and he did in fact begin.' Dostoevsky's narrator uses it to vouch for Mitya's impulsive sincerity in the moment.

— Необходимо будет даже снять одежду.  
“It will even be necessary to remove your clothing.”
> Impersonal necessity «необходимо будет»: A subjectless construction: the neuter predicative «необходимо» ('it is necessary') plus future «будет» plus the infinitive «снять» — 'it will be necessary to remove.' No nominative subject; the obligation simply hangs over Mitya.
> Intensifying particle «даже»: «даже» ('even') escalates the demand — not merely the pockets but 'even' the clothing itself. Placed before «снять одежду», it stresses how far the search must go, raising the humiliation.

— Как? Раздеться? Фу, черт! Да обыщите так! Нельзя ли так?  
“What? Undress? Ugh, the devil! Just search me as I am! Can’t it be done that way?”
> Reflexive infinitive «раздеться»: «раздеться» is the -ся verb 'to undress (oneself)' — the action turns back on the subject. Standing alone as an incredulous question, the bare infinitive captures Mitya's recoil: 'Undress?!'
> «Фу, черт!» — an oath of disgust: «Фу» is an interjection of revulsion ('ugh, faugh'); «черт» ('the devil') is the everyday mild curse. Together they vent Mitya's exasperation — colloquial, vehement, utterly in his voice.
> Imperative «обыщите» + insistent «да»: «обыщите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «обыскать» ('to search'), 'search me'; sentence-initial «да» here is not 'yes' but an urging particle, 'Why, just search me as I am!' «так» = 'thus, like this (clothed).'
> «нельзя ли» — a tentative request with «ли»: The impersonal «нельзя» ('it is not possible / not allowed') softened by the interrogative enclitic «ли» makes a pleading 'Couldn't it be done that way?' The «ли» turns flat impossibility into an appeal for leave.

— Ни за что нельзя, Дмитрий Федорович. Надо одежду снять.  
“That is out of the question, Dmitri Fyodorovich. The clothing must be taken off.”
> «ни за что» — emphatic refusal: «ни за что» literally 'for nothing / on no account,' built on intensifying «ни», means 'out of the question, not for anything.' With «нельзя» it is a flat impossibility — note the negative concord that «ни» governs.
> Impersonal «надо» + accusative object: «надо» ('one must') is another subjectless necessity word taking an infinitive; «одежду» is the accusative direct object of «снять». Curt and absolute — 'The clothing must be taken off' — leaving no room for Mitya's plea.

— Как хотите, — мрачно подчинился Митя, — только, пожалуйста, не здесь, а за занавесками. Кто будет осматривать?  
“As you wish,” Mitya submitted glumly, “only, please, not here, but behind the curtains. Who is going to do the examining?”
> «Как хотите» — 'as you wish': Literally 'as you (pl./polite) want,' a resigned formula of yielding. The dropped subject and the second-person plural «хотите» make it a curt, deferential surrender — fitting Mitya's glum capitulation.
> Reflexive «подчинился» + inverted word order: «подчиниться» ('to submit, yield') is a -ся verb taking a dative; here it is intransitive 'submitted.' The verb-before-subject order «подчинился Митя» is the ordinary Russian pattern for a speech/action tag inside dialogue.
> Contrastive «а» after negation: The pattern «не X, а Y» ('not here, but behind the curtains') uses «а» as the corrective contrastive — replacing one option with another. «за занавесками» is «за» + instrumental for static location 'behind.'
> Compound imperfective future: «будет осматривать» = «быть» future + imperfective infinitive, the analytic future for an ongoing/unbounded action: 'who is going to do the examining?' Mitya asks about the process, not a single completed act, hence the imperfective.

— Конечно, за занавесками, — в знак согласия наклонил голову Николай Парфенович.  
“Behind the curtains, of course,” said Nikolai Parfenovich, inclining his head in token of assent.
> Inverted tag with «в знак согласия»: 'In token of assent he inclined his head' — the adverbial phrase «в знак согласия» (genitive «согласия» after «знак») precedes the perfective «наклонил», then the subject. The fronting weights the gesture before naming the actor.
> «в знак согласия» — 'as a sign of assent': A set phrase, 'in token / as a sign of agreement.' «знак» is 'sign, token'; the whole governs the genitive of what is signified. A small formality that lends the magistrate's nod a ceremonious air.

Личико его изобразило особенную даже важность.  
His little face had assumed an air of quite particular importance.
> Diminutive «личико»: «личико» is the diminutive of «лицо» ('face') — 'little face.' Applied to the small, self-important magistrate, the suffix is faintly ironic, miniaturizing him just as he assumes 'an air of particular importance.'
> Perfective «изобразило» + intrusive «даже»: «изобразило» (perfective past, neuter to agree with «личико») = 'depicted / assumed.' The particle «даже» ('even') is wedged between adjective and noun — «особенную даже важность» — a colloquial intensifying placement, 'an importance that was even special.'
---

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.