# The Brothers Karamazov, The Prosecutor Catches Mitya

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c6. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c6.json.


Началось нечто совсем для Мити неожиданное и удивительное.  
Something began now that was wholly unexpected and astonishing to Mitya.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «Началось» («начаться» — to begin, intransitive) takes the clitic «-ся» to make the verb middle: the something begins of itself, with no agent doing the beginning. The transitive «начать» (to begin X) and its «-ся» partner «начаться» (X begins) are a classic pair where «-ся» turns the action inward.
> Topic-comment word order: The neutral order would buried the long predicate noun «нечто… неожиданное и удивительное» at the end; here the verb «Началось» is fronted and the heavy, new information — the unexpected thing — flows out after it. The case endings, not position, fix the grammar, so the inversion only weights the surprise.
> «нечто» — an indefinite 'something': «Нечто» is a bookish, slightly elevated indefinite pronoun, 'a certain something.' Unlike colloquial «что-то» it is largely frozen in the nominative/accusative and lends a faintly literary, abstract air — fitting for the ominous 'something' that is about to descend on Mitya.

Он ни за что бы не мог прежде, даже за минуту пред сим, предположить, чтобы так мог кто-нибудь обойтись с ним, с Митей Карамазовым!  
Not for anything could he have imagined beforehand — even a minute before this — that anyone could ever treat him so, treat Mitya Karamazov so!
> Conditional «бы» with negation: «Не мог бы… предположить» is the irrealis: past-tense «мог» plus the particle «бы» yields 'could (not) have imagined.' The «бы» has migrated forward to lean on the emphatic «ни за что» ('not for anything'), a typical mobile placement — it attaches to the first stressed element, not to the verb.
> Negative concord: «ни… не»: «Ни за что… не мог» shows Russian's obligatory double negation: the intensifier «ни» ('not for anything, not on any account') still requires «не» on the verb. Two negatives, one emphatic meaning.
> «чтобы» after a verb of supposing: After «предположить» ('to suppose') the content clause is opened by «чтобы» plus a past-form-style verb, framing the supposed event as something contrary to expectation rather than plain reported fact. This is the willed/hypothetical «чтобы», distinct from factual «что».

Главное, явилось нечто унизительное, а с их стороны «высокомерное и к нему презрительное».  
Above all, there appeared in it something humiliating, and on their part "something haughty and contemptuous toward him."
> Neuter agreement with «нечто»: «Нечто» counts as neuter singular, so the verb «явилось» and the adjective «унизительное» both take neuter -о endings. The same neuter governs «высокомерное и… презрительное» in the quoted half.
> Coordinating «а» of contrast: «А с их стороны…» uses «а», the mild contrastive 'and/but,' to pivot from what Mitya feels (something humiliating) to what they project (something haughty). It marks a shift of perspective rather than flat opposition — the untranslatable Russian hinge.
> The quoted free indirect voice: The quotation marks set off «высокомерное и к нему презрительное» as Mitya's own indignant phrasing, lifted into the narration — Dostoevsky's characteristic free-indirect blend. «Высокомерный» (haughty, supercilious) and «презрительный» (contemptuous) are the charged words of a man feeling his honour insulted.

Еще ничего бы снять сюртук, но его попросили раздеться и далее.  
To take off his frock-coat would have been nothing, but they asked him to undress further still.
> Conditional «бы» with an infinitive: «Ничего бы снять сюртук» is an elliptical irrealis: 'to take off the coat would (have) be(en) nothing.' The «бы» plus the bare infinitive «снять» frames a hypothetical — that step alone would not have mattered — setting up the «но» that follows.
> Subjectless «они»-form: «Попросили» (they asked) has no expressed subject — the third-person plural alone conveys an unspecified 'they,' the officials. Russian uses this indefinite-personal construction constantly where English needs a vague 'they' or a passive.

И не то что попросили, а, в сущности, приказали; он это отлично понял.  
And it was not so much that they asked as that, in essence, they ordered; he understood this perfectly well.
> Contrastive «не то что… а»: The frame «не то что X, а Y» ('not so much X as Y, rather Y') corrects one verb with a stronger one: not 'asked' but 'in essence ordered.' The pivot «а» carries the corrective force.
> Perfective «понял» — a completed grasp: «Понял» (perfective «понять») presents the understanding as a single accomplished event — he grasped it, fully and at once — against the imperfective «понимал» which would mean 'was understanding / used to understand.' The perfective sharpens Mitya's instant, total comprehension.

Из гордости и презрения он подчинился вполне, без слов.  
Out of pride and contempt he submitted completely, without a word.
> «из» + genitive of motive: «Из гордости и презрения» ('out of pride and contempt') uses «из» with the genitive to name the inner motive of an action — a standard causal pattern (из любви, из страха). The preposition «из» always governs the genitive.
> Reflexive «подчиниться» — to submit: «Подчинился» («подчиниться» — to submit, obey) is a «-ся» verb of change-of-state with no separate object; the person submitted-to would stand in the dative. Here the bare verb, modified by «вполне, без слов» (completely, without a word), conveys a proud, silent capitulation.

За занавеску вошли, кроме Николая Парфеновича, и прокурор, присутствовали и несколько мужиков, «конечно, для силы, — подумал Митя, — а может, и еще для чего-нибудь».  
Behind the curtain came, besides Nikolai Parfenovich, the prosecutor as well, and several peasants were present too, "to keep me in hand, of course," thought Mitya, "and maybe for something else besides."
> «за» + accusative for motion behind: «За занавеску вошли» ('went behind the curtain') uses «за» with the accusative because it expresses motion to a position behind something. The same «за» with the instrumental («за занавеской» in s19) would mean static location 'behind the curtain' — a meaning split typical of «за».
> Indefinite «-нибудь» — 'anything at all': «Для чего-нибудь» ('for something or other') uses the suffix «-нибудь», marking a non-specific, open referent — Mitya does not know what the further purpose might be. Contrast the specific-but-unknown «-то» of «что-то» elsewhere.

— Что ж, неужели и рубашку снимать? — резко спросил было он, но Николай Парфенович ему не ответил: он вместе с прокурором был углублен в рассматривание сюртука, панталон, жилета и фуражки, и видно было, что оба они очень заинтересовались осмотром: «Совсем не церемонятся, — мелькнуло у Мити, — даже вежливости необходимой не наблюдают».  
"Well, am I really to take off my shirt as well?" he asked sharply, but Nikolai Parfenovich did not answer him: together with the prosecutor he was absorbed in examining the frock-coat, the trousers, the waistcoat, and the cap, and it was plain that they had both grown very interested in the inspection — "They don't stand on ceremony at all," it flashed through Mitya, "they don't even observe the courtesy that's owed me."
> Incredulous particle «неужели»: «Неужели» opens a question of astonished disbelief — 'surely not…? am I really…?' It colours the whole utterance with Mitya's indignant incredulity, exactly the kind of attitudinal particle English must render with intonation or 'really.'
> The frustrative particle «было»: «Спросил было» uses the special particle «было», which marks an action begun or attempted but then cut off or reversed — he started to ask, but got no answer. It is a uniquely Russian aspectual nuance: the deed almost happened and then didn't carry through.
> Short passive participle «углублён»: «Был углублён» is the periphrastic passive: the short-form past passive participle «углублён» (absorbed, deepened) joins «был» to state a resulting state — he was deep in / absorbed in the examination. The short participle predicates and agrees only in gender and number.
> «церемониться» — to stand on ceremony: «Церемониться» means to be punctilious, to treat someone with formal courtesy; «совсем не церемонятся» = 'they don't stand on ceremony at all.' The reflexive verb, borrowed from «церемония», is the exact word for the social niceties Mitya feels are being withheld.

— Я вас спрашиваю во второй раз: надо или нет снимать рубашку? — проговорил он еще резче и раздражительнее.  
"I am asking you a second time: must I take off my shirt or not?" he brought out still more sharply and irritably.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо… снимать» ('must one take off') is an impersonal necessity construction: the invariable predicate «надо» plus an infinitive, with no nominative subject and the experiencer left in the dative if named. Such subjectless 'must / ought' frames are everywhere in Russian.
> Comparative adverbs in «-е/-ее»: «Резче» (more sharply, from «резкий») and «раздражительнее» (more irritably) are predicative comparatives — invariable forms in «-е» and «-ее». «Резче» also shows the stem-final consonant mutation к→ч (резк- → резч-), with the «з» retained — typical of «-е» comparatives.

— Не беспокойтесь, мы вас уведомим, — как-то начальственно даже ответил Николай Парфенович.  
"Don't trouble yourself, we shall let you know," Nikolai Parfenovich answered, even somewhat masterfully.
> Polite reflexive imperative: «Не беспокойтесь» ('don't trouble yourself') is the negated imperative of the reflexive «беспокоиться», with the polite/plural «-те» ending and the post-vocalic reflexive form «-сь». A stock courteous reassurance — here delivered with a faintly superior air.
> «начальственно» — in a bossy, superior way: The adverb «начальственно» (from «начальство», 'the authorities/the bosses') means 'in the manner of a superior, masterfully, with the air of one in charge.' It captures exactly the petty official's assumption of command that so galls the proud Mitya.

По крайней мере Мите так показалось.  
At least so it seemed to Mitya.
> Dative experiencer with «показалось»: «Мите… показалось» ('it seemed to Mitya') is a textbook impersonal: the experiencer «Мите» stands in the dative, the verb «показалось» is fixed in neuter, and there is no nominative subject. This dative-of-the-one-affected is the engine of Dostoevsky's inner monologue.

Между следователем и прокурором шло между тем заботливое совещание вполголоса.  
Meanwhile a careful conference in undertones was going on between the examining magistrate and the prosecutor.
> Imperfective «шло» — an action in progress: «Шло совещание» ('a conference was going on') uses the imperfective past of «идти» idiomatically for an event in progress — 'a conference was proceeding.' The imperfective paints standing background, here reinforced by «между тем» ('meanwhile').

Оказались на сюртуке, особенно на левой поле, сзади, огромные пятна крови, засохшие, заскорузлые и не очень еще размятые.  
On the frock-coat, especially on the left skirt, at the back, there turned out to be huge stains of blood, dried, stiffened, and not yet much rubbed.
> «пятна крови» — genitive of substance: «Пятна крови» ('stains of blood') puts «крови» in the genitive to express the substance the stains are made of — the all-purpose 'of'-genitive. The verb «оказались» ('turned out to be') is again reflexive «-ся» with middle, evidential sense.
> A chain of participles on the bloodstains: The stains are described by three adjective-participles: «засохшие» (dried out, past active participle of «засохнуть»), «заскорузлые» (stiffened, crusted), and the passive «размятые» (kneaded soft, rubbed). «Заскорузлый» is an expressive, slightly coarse word for crusted-stiff — the clotted, days-old texture of dried blood.

На панталонах тоже.  
On the trousers as well.
> Elliptical sentence: «на… тоже»: A verbless fragment — 'On the trousers as well [there turned out to be the same].' Russian freely drops a recoverable verb and even subject, leaving only the prepositional phrase «на панталонах» (location, prepositional case after «на») and «тоже». Telegraphic, like a note jotted in evidence.

Николай Парфенович, кроме того, собственноручно, в присутствии понятых, прошел пальцами по воротнику, по обшлагам и по всем швам сюртука и панталон, очевидно чего-то отыскивая, — конечно, денег.  
Nikolai Parfenovich, moreover, with his own hands and in the presence of the witnesses, ran his fingers along the collar, along the cuffs, and along all the seams of the frock-coat and the trousers, evidently searching for something — money, of course.
> Gerund «отыскивая» — attendant action: «Отыскивая» is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие»): 'searching, while searching.' It pins a simultaneous secondary action onto the main verb «прошёл пальцами» and must share its subject (Nikolai Parfenovich). The negated-style object «чего-то» sits in the genitive, as objects of 'seeking/searching for' regularly do.
> «по» + dative — along the surfaces: The repeated «по» governs the dative to mean 'along, over' each surface — «по воротнику» (along the collar), «по обшлагам» (cuffs), «по швам» (seams). The drumbeat of «по + dative» traces the magistrate's fingers methodically working the cloth.
> «собственноручно» — with his own hands: A compound bookish adverb, 'with one's own hand' («собственный» + «рука»), the very word used on documents signed in person. Its officialese flavour underlines that the magistrate himself, not a subordinate, performed the search — a small mark of how seriously they take it.

Главное, не скрывали от Мити подозрений, что он мог и способен был зашить деньги в платье.  
And above all, they did not conceal from Mitya their suspicion that he both could have and was capable of having sewn money into his clothes.
> Genitive of negation: «подозрений»: Under the negated verb «не скрывали» the object shifts to the genitive: «подозрений» (genitive plural of «подозрение»), not accusative «подозрения». A negated transitive verb regularly pulls its object into the genitive, especially with abstract nouns.
> Past conditional sense without «бы»: «Мог… зашить» ('could have sewn') and «способен был» ('was capable of') both govern the perfective infinitive «зашить» (to sew up, completed). The doubling — он both *could have* and *was capable of* — is the suspicious officials' careful, redundant phrasing, which the free indirect narration mimics.

«Это уж прямо как с вором, а не как с офицером», — проворчал он про себя.  
"This is simply how you'd treat a thief, not an officer," he muttered to himself.
> «как с» + instrumental — 'as with': «С вором» and «с офицером» put «вор» and «офицер» in the instrumental after «с» ('with'), and «как с» means 'as one would with.' The contrast — treated as with a thief, not as with an officer — is built on the instrumental of accompaniment.
> Reflexive «про себя» — to oneself: «Про себя» ('to oneself, inwardly') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» after «про» (+ accusative) to mean muttering silently, not aloud. «Себя» refers back to the clause's subject and has no nominative.

Сообщали же друг другу мысли свои при нем до странности откровенно.  
And they exchanged their thoughts with one another, in front of him, with a frankness that was strange.
> Particle «же» of mild emphasis: The «же» in «Сообщали же» adds a faint insistent, resumptive emphasis — 'and they did exchange…, mind you.' One of Russia's tiny modal particles, it gives the narration the texture of an aside without translating to any single English word.
> The reciprocal «друг друга»: «Друг другу» ('to one another') is the fixed reciprocal expression: the first «друг» stays frozen while the second declines for the needed case — here dative «другу» as the indirect object of «сообщали». It marks mutual, two-way action.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «Мысли свои» ('their own thoughts') uses «свой», which always points back to the clause's subject — the magistrate and prosecutor — rather than «их», which could mean someone else's thoughts. The post-posed order «мысли свои» (instead of «свои мысли») gives a faintly literary, weighted rhythm.

Например, письмоводитель, очутившийся тоже за занавеской, суетившийся и прислуживавший, обратил внимание Николая Парфеновича на фуражку, которую тоже ощупали: «Помните Гриденку-писаря-с, — заметил письмоводитель, — летом жалованье ездил получать на всю канцелярию, а вернувшись, заявил, что потерял в пьяном виде, — так где же нашли?  
For instance, the clerk, who had also found his way behind the curtain, fussing about and making himself useful, drew Nikolai Parfenovich's attention to the cap, which they likewise felt over: "Remember Gridenko the copying-clerk, sir," the clerk observed, "in the summer he went to draw the salary for the whole office, and on coming back he declared he'd lost it while drunk — and where did they find it, then?
> A chain of past active participles: Three participles modify «письмоводитель»: «очутившийся» (who had found himself), «суетившийся» (fussing about), «прислуживавший» (making himself useful). These «-вший» past active participles each replace a «который»-clause and agree with the clerk in gender, number, and case — dense participial layering is a hallmark of the literary style.
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «Которую» agrees with its antecedent «фуражка» in feminine gender and singular number, but takes the accusative because it is the object of «ощупали» (felt over) inside the relative clause. Case follows the role in the clause; gender/number follow the antecedent.
> Perfective gerund «вернувшись»: «Вернувшись» is a perfective past gerund («-вши»): 'having returned.' It marks a completed prior action whose subject is the same as the main verb «заявил» — he came back and then declared. This is the gerund's other face, sequencing rather than overlapping events.
> Petty clerical ranks: A «письмоводитель» is a head clerk or office secretary; a «писарь» is a humble copying-clerk. The clerk's deferential «-с» (writeup in s20) and his anecdote about «Гриденку-писаря» place him firmly at the bottom of the chancery ladder, eager to be useful to his superiors.

Вот в этих самых кантиках, в фуражке-с, сторублевые были свернуты трубочками-с и в кантики зашиты».  
Why, right here, in these very pipings, in the cap, sir: hundred-rouble notes were rolled into little tubes, sir, and sewn into the pipings."
> The deferential particle «-с»: The clerk's speech is peppered with «-с» (писаря-с, фуражке-с, трубочками-с). This is the old slovoyer particle, a contraction of «сударь» ('sir'), tacked onto words to signal extreme deference to a social superior. It marks the speaker as a low-ranking subordinate; English has no equivalent — we render it loosely with an interjected 'sir,' which catches the obsequious tone if not the grammar.
> Short passive participles: «свёрнуты… зашиты»: «Были свёрнуты… и зашиты» is a compound periphrastic passive: «были» plus the short past passive participles «свёрнуты» (rolled up) and «зашиты» (sewn in), both agreeing as plural with «сторублёвые». The short participle is the standard way to state a completed passive result.
> Diminutive «трубочки» and «кантики»: «Трубочки» ('little tubes,' from «труба») and «кантики» ('little pipings,' from «кант', the cord trim on a cap) are diminutives in «-очк-»/«-ик-». They lend the clerk's tale a cosy, anecdotal vividness — the rolled banknotes tucked into the cap's piping.

Факт с Гриденкой очень помнили и следователь, и прокурор, а потому и Митину фуражку отложили и решили, что всё это надо будет потом пересмотреть серьезно, да и всё платье.  
Both the magistrate and the prosecutor remembered the affair of Gridenko very well, and so they set Mitya's cap aside too and decided that all of this would have to be gone over seriously afterward — and all the clothes besides.
> Correlative «и… и» — 'both… and': The repeated «и… и» («и следователь, и прокурор») is the 'both… and' construction, coordinating two subjects emphatically. Distinct from a single «и» joining them, the doubled form stresses that *each* of the two remembered the affair.
> Compound future of necessity: «Надо будет… пересмотреть» combines the impersonal «надо» with the future «будет» plus a perfective infinitive: 'it will be necessary to go over.' The future of the impersonal predicate is carried by «будет», while «надо» itself stays invariable.

— Позвольте, — вскрикнул вдруг Николай Парфенович, заметив ввернутый внутрь правый обшлаг правого рукава рубашки Мити, весь залитый кровью, — позвольте-с, это как же, кровь?  
"Allow me," Nikolai Parfenovich suddenly exclaimed, having noticed the right cuff of the right sleeve of Mitya's shirt, turned inward and soaked through with blood — "allow me, sir, what is this — blood?"
> Perfective gerund + passive participle: «Заметив» is a perfective gerund ('having noticed'); its object «ввёрнутый внутрь… обшлаг» contains the past passive participle «ввёрнутый» (turned inward), used attributively before the noun. Two non-finite verb forms stack to compress the action into one breath.
> A chain of genitives: «Обшлаг правого рукава рубашки Мити» strings four nested genitives — the cuff *of* the sleeve *of* the shirt *of* Mitya. Russian builds such possessive chains by simple genitive stacking, with no preposition, each noun specifying the last.
> «позвольте» — 'allow me / wait a moment': «Позвольте» is literally the polite imperative 'permit (me),' but as an exclamation it functions like 'hold on — wait a moment — what's this?' Nikolai Parfenovich's sudden «Позвольте-с» (with the deferential «-с») marks the abrupt, charged moment of spotting the blood.

— Кровь, — отрезал Митя.  
"Blood," Mitya snapped.
> «отрезать» — to snap (a reply): Literally 'to cut off,' «отрезал» is the standard verb for a curt, clipped retort — to 'snap' or bite off a one-word answer. Mitya's whole reply is the single word «Кровь», and «отрезал» makes its sharpness audible.

— То есть это какая же-с… и почему ввернуто внутрь рукава?  
"That is — what sort of blood, sir… and why is it turned inside the sleeve?"
> Particle «же» + deferential «-с» in one breath: «Какая же-с» packs two particles: «же» pressing the question ('what *sort* exactly?') and the servile «-с» softening it with deference. The clipped «То есть…» ('that is…') and the trailing dots render the magistrate fishing delicately for an admission.
> Impersonal short passive «ввёрнуто»: «Ввёрнуто» is a neuter short passive participle used impersonally — 'why has [it] been turned inward,' with no expressed subject. The bare neuter participle predicating a state is a compact, faintly official way to ask about a result.

Митя рассказал, как он запачкал обшлаг, возясь с Григорием, и ввернул его внутрь еще у Перхотина, когда мыл у него руки.  
Mitya told how he had stained the cuff while struggling with Grigory, and had turned it inward while still at Perkhotin's, when he washed his hands there.
> Imperfective gerund «возясь»: «Возясь» is an imperfective present gerund of the «-ся» verb «возиться» (to fuss, struggle, tussle with): 'while struggling with Grigory.' It names the simultaneous circumstance under which he stained the cuff. The reflexive «-сь» rides along on the gerund.
> Perfective pair of completed events: Inside the reported clause two perfectives chain the events: «запачкал» (stained) then «ввернул» (turned inward), each a single completed act moving the little narrative forward — the perfective's job against imperfective background.

— Рубашку вашу тоже придется взять, это очень важно… для вещественных доказательств.  
"We shall have to take your shirt too; this is very important… for the material evidence."
> Object fronting for emphasis: The accusative object «рубашку вашу» is moved to the front of the clause, ahead of «придётся взять», to make 'your shirt' the topic under discussion. Free word order lets the new demand — the shirt — lead.
> Impersonal «придётся» — 'one will have to': «Придётся» (from «прийтись») is an impersonal, subjectless verb of unavoidable necessity, 'it will fall to one to, one will have to,' governing the perfective infinitive «взять». The person obliged, if named, stands in the dative.

— Митя покраснел и рассвирепел.  
Mitya flushed and flew into a rage.
> Inceptive perfectives in «по-»/«рас-»: Both verbs are perfectives of sudden onset: «покраснел» (flushed, went red) and «рассвирепел» (flew into a fury, from «свирепый» — ferocious). The prefixes «по-» and «рас-» mark the abrupt entry into a state — he reddened and erupted in one motion.

— Что ж, мне голым оставаться? — крикнул он.  
"What then, am I to be left naked?" he shouted.
> Dative subject + instrumental predicate: «Мне… оставаться голым» fuses two patterns: the dative «мне» as the one obliged (with the infinitive 'am I to remain'), and the instrumental «голым» as the predicate complement of «оставаться» ('to remain [in the state of] naked'). Verbs like «оставаться/стать/быть» put their predicate adjective or noun in the instrumental.

— Не беспокойтесь… Мы как-нибудь поправим это, а пока потрудитесь снять и носки.  
"Don't trouble yourself… We'll set that right somehow, but for now be so good as to take off your socks too."
> Perfective future «поправим»: «Поправим» (perfective «поправить», conjugated with present-tense endings) carries simple future meaning — 'we'll set [it] right.' A perfective verb has no present; its conjugated form is future, here promising a single completed remedy.
> «потрудитесь» — 'be so good as to': «Потрудитесь» (imperative of «потрудиться», lit. 'take the trouble') is a stiffly polite, faintly imperious way of issuing an order, 'be so good as to / kindly.' Coming from the magistrate to a man being stripped, its surface courtesy is itself a small humiliation.

— Вы не шутите? Это действительно так необходимо? — сверкнул глазами Митя.  
"You aren't joking? Is this really so necessary?" Mitya's eyes flashed.
> Negated verb as incredulous question: «Вы не шутите?» literally 'you're not joking?' uses simple «не» negation as a question of disbelief — Russian phrases astonishment by negating the doubtful proposition. «Вы» is the polite second person, which Mitya keeps even while bristling.
> Instrumental of means: «глазами»: «Сверкнул глазами» ('flashed with his eyes') puts «глазами» in the instrumental as the means/organ of the action — a fixed idiom for flashing one's eyes. The verb-first order «сверкнул… Митя» tucks the dialogue tag behind the action.

— Нам не до шуток, — строго отпарировал Николай Парфенович.  
"We are in no mood for jokes," Nikolai Parfenovich parried sternly.
> The idiom «не до» + genitive: The construction «нам не до шуток» literally reads 'to us [there is] not up to jokes,' i.e. 'we have no time/inclination for jokes.' The pattern «мне не до + genitive» ('I can't be bothered with X / I'm in no state for X') is very common: «мне не до сна», «ему не до смеха». The logical subject goes in the dative.
> «отпарировать» — to parry (a remark): A fencing metaphor: «отпарировать» means to parry, to ward off a thrust — here applied to a verbal riposte. The choice paints the exchange as a duel, the magistrate coolly deflecting Mitya's sally with «Нам не до шуток».

— Что ж, если надо… я… — забормотал Митя и, сев на кровать, начал снимать носки.  
"Well, if it must be done… I…" Mitya mumbled, and, sitting down on the bed, began to take off his socks.
> Gerund «сев» + imperfective infinitive: «Сев» is a perfective gerund ('having sat down') marking the prior action; then «начал снимать» pairs the phasal verb «начать» with the imperfective infinitive «снимать» — phasal verbs (begin, continue, finish) always take the imperfective, viewing the undressing as an unfolding process.
> Inceptive «забормотать» — to start mumbling: «Забормотал» = «за-» (inceptive prefix) + «бормотать» (to mumble, mutter): 'began to mumble.' The «за-» prefix marks the abrupt onset of the sound. Mitya's broken «Что ж, если надо… я…» mumble shows his proud resistance collapsing.

Ему было нестерпимо конфузно: все одеты, а он раздет и, странно это, — раздетый, он как бы и сам почувствовал себя пред ними виноватым, и, главное, сам был почти согласен, что действительно вдруг стал всех их ниже и что теперь они уже имеют полное право его презирать.  
He felt unbearably embarrassed: everyone was dressed, and he was undressed, and — strangely — undressed, it was as though he himself felt guilty before them, and, above all, he himself was almost ready to agree that he had indeed suddenly become lower than all of them, and that now they already had every right to despise him.
> Dative experiencer of a feeling: «Ему было… конфузно» ('to him it was… mortifying') is the core impersonal-emotion frame: dative «ему» for the one feeling, neuter «было», and an invariable predicate «конфузно». No nominative subject — the shame simply *is*, to him.
> Short adjectives «одеты / раздет»: «Одеты» (dressed) and «раздет» (undressed) are short-form adjectives/participles, used predicatively to state a current state. Their pivot on the contrastive «а» — everyone clothed, but he stripped — is the heart of his shame, sharpened by the bookish short forms.
> «себя» + instrumental predicate: «Почувствовал себя… виноватым» ('felt himself guilty') combines the reflexive object «себя» with the predicate instrumental «виноватым» — after «чувствовать себя» the predicate adjective stands in the instrumental, the case of an assumed or transient role.
> Comparative «ниже» with genitive of comparison: «Ниже» is the predicative comparative of «низкий» (low); «всех их ниже» means 'lower than all of them,' with «всех их» in the genitive — the genitive of comparison, where Russian can express 'than X' simply by putting X in the genitive after the comparative.

«Коли все раздеты, так не стыдно, а один раздет, а все смотрят — позор! — мелькало опять и опять у него в уме. — Точно во сне, я во сне иногда такие позоры над собою видывал».  
"When everyone's undressed it's no shame, but when one man's undressed and all the rest are looking — what a disgrace!" flashed again and again through his mind. "Just as in a dream — sometimes in dreams I've known disgraces like this fall on me."
> Folk conditional «коли… так»: «Коли… так» is a colloquial, folk-flavoured 'if… then,' where standard Russian would use «если… то». «Коли» belongs to Mitya's heated, plain-spoken inner voice. The apodosis «не стыдно» is again an impersonal, subjectless 'it's no shame.'
> Iterative «видывал» — 'used to see now and then': «Видывал» is a rare iterative/frequentative past of «видеть», formed with the «-ыва-» suffix and carrying a sense of 'used to see (repeatedly), have had occasion to see.' It lends an old-fashioned, reflective colour — such disgraces he has known in dreams before.
> «позор» — disgrace, public shame: «Позор» is shame in its public, dishonouring sense — disgrace, ignominy, a spectacle of degradation — stronger than private «стыд». For Mitya the officer, to be naked under their eyes is precisely «позор», a stain on his honour like the shaming dreams he recalls.

Но снять носки ему было даже мучительно: они были очень не чисты, да и нижнее белье тоже, и теперь это все увидали.  
But to take off his socks was positively agonizing to him: they were very dirty, and so was his underwear, and now everyone had seen it.
> Dative subject with infinitive topic: The infinitive phrase «снять носки» ('to take off his socks') is the logical subject, the predicate is the impersonal «было… мучительно» ('was agonizing'), and «ему» is the dative experiencer. Russian routinely makes an infinitive the theme of a dative-experiencer judgment.
> Short adjective + folksy «да и»: «Не чисты» is a short-form adjective ('were unclean'), predicative; «да и… тоже» ('and… too') is a colloquial additive connective tacking on the underwear. The short adjective gives a flat, factual verdict on the state of the socks.

А главное, он сам не любил свои ноги, почему-то всю жизнь находил свои большие пальцы на обеих ногах уродливыми, особенно один грубый, плоский, как-то загнувшийся вниз ноготь на правой ноге, и вот теперь все они увидят.  
And, above all, he himself disliked his own feet; for some reason he had thought the big toes of both feet hideous all his life, especially one coarse, flat toenail on the right foot that had somehow curled downward, and now they would all see it.
> Object + instrumental predicate: «Находил… пальцы… уродливыми» ('found his toes hideous') is the 'consider X to be Y' pattern: the accusative object «пальцы» and the predicate adjective «уродливыми» in the instrumental. Verbs of considering/finding put the predicate complement in the instrumental.
> Perfective future «увидят»: «Увидят» (perfective «увидеть») is the simple future: 'they will [now] see' — a single, completed, dreaded act of seeing. The imperfective «видели» would mean ongoing or habitual seeing; the perfective fixes it as the one mortifying moment about to arrive.
> «большой палец» — toe (lit. 'big finger'): Russian has no separate word for 'toe': the «большой палец на ноге» is literally the 'big finger on the foot.' «Палец» covers both fingers and toes, disambiguated by «на руке» / «на ноге» — a small but characteristic gap between the two languages' anatomy of the hand and foot.

От нестерпимого стыда он вдруг стал еще более и уже нарочно груб.  
From unbearable shame he suddenly became still more, and now deliberately, rude.
> «от» + genitive of cause: «От… стыда» ('from shame') uses «от» with the genitive to name the cause of an involuntary reaction — a standard causal frame for feelings that overcome one (от страха, от радости). «От» always governs the genitive.
> Short adjective «груб» as the new state: «Стал… груб» ('became rude') links the verb of becoming «стать» to the short adjective «груб», stating the state he passed into. «Ещё более… и… нарочно» piles intensifiers — more, and now deliberately, rude. The short form fits the predicative 'became X' frame.

Он сам сорвал с себя рубашку.  
He tore off his shirt himself.
> «с себя» — reflexive 'off himself': «Сорвал с себя рубашку» ('tore the shirt off himself') uses «с» + the genitive of the reflexive «себя» to mark the source of removal — off his own body. The reflexive «себя» points back to the subject Mitya; «сам» reinforces that he did it himself, pre-empting them.

— Не хотите ли и еще где поискать, если вам не стыдно?  
"Wouldn't you care to search somewhere else too, if you've no shame?"
> Particle «ли» + «не» as ironic invitation: «Не хотите ли… поискать?» pairs the interrogative particle «ли» with negated «не хотите» to form a politely-shaped offer — 'wouldn't you care to…?' Mitya turns this courteous formula bitterly ironic: would you care to search me somewhere else, if you've no shame?
> Dative «вам» of impersonal shame: «Вам не стыдно» ('[if] you feel no shame') is the impersonal shame-frame again: dative «вам» for the one who would feel it, the invariable «стыдно», no subject. Mitya throws the very construction of his own humiliation back at his interrogators.

— Нет-с, пока не надо.  
"No, sir, that won't be necessary for now."
> Deferential «-с» on the negative: «Нет-с» tacks the servile «-с» onto the bare 'no,' and «пока не надо» ('for now it's not necessary') is the impersonal «надо» negated. The clerkly «-с» keeps even this curt refusal swaddled in deference.

— Что ж, мне так и оставаться голым? — свирепо прибавил он.  
"What then, am I to stay like this, naked?" he added savagely.
> Dative + instrumental, with insistent «так и»: A near-repeat of s28: dative «мне» of obligation, infinitive «оставаться», predicate instrumental «голым». The added «так и» ('just… like this, then') heightens the indignant insistence — am I really to be left just so, naked?

— Да, это пока необходимо… Потрудитесь пока здесь присесть, можете взять с кровати одеяло и завернуться, а я… я это всё улажу.  
"Yes, for the moment it's necessary… Be so good as to sit here for a while; you may take the blanket from the bed and wrap yourself up, and I… I'll arrange all this."
> Modal «мочь» + perfective infinitives: «Можете взять… и завернуться» ('you may take… and wrap yourself') governs two perfective infinitives, the second the reflexive «завернуться» (to wrap oneself up), its «-ся» making the wrapping reflexive. The pairing offers a single permitted action, not an ongoing one.
> Predicate «необходимо» — impersonal necessity: «Это пока необходимо» ('this is for now necessary') uses the neuter predicative «необходимо» impersonally to state a present obligation. «Пока» ('for now, for the time being') keeps it provisional — a small sop of reassurance.

Все вещи показали понятым, составили акт осмотра, и наконец Николай Парфенович вышел, а платье вынесли за ним.  
All the things were shown to the witnesses, a record of the inspection was drawn up, and at last Nikolai Parfenovich went out, and the clothes were carried out after him.
> A chain of perfectives advancing the action: Four perfectives drive the paragraph forward event by event: «показали» (showed), «составили» (drew up), «вышел» (went out), «вынесли» (carried out). Each is a single completed step, the perfective's narrative pulse — the search is concluded and the clothes removed.
> Subjectless «они»-form for the passive sense: «Платье вынесли» ('they carried the clothes out / the clothes were carried out') again uses the bare third-plural with no stated subject, where English prefers a passive. The object «платье» (a neuter inanimate, accusative = nominative) is fronted as the topic.

Ипполит Кириллович тоже вышел.  
Ippolit Kirillovich went out too.

Остались с Митей одни мужики и стояли молча, не спуская с него глаз.  
Only the peasants were left with Mitya, and they stood in silence, not taking their eyes off him.
> «одни» — 'only / alone': «Одни мужики» here means not 'one peasant' but 'only the peasants, the peasants alone' — «один» in the plural takes the sense 'only, nothing but.' Verb-first «Остались…» fronts the action, leaving the lingering peasants as the new, ominous information.
> Negated gerund «не спуская» + genitive object: «Не спуская с него глаз» ('not taking their eyes off him') is an imperfective gerund of attendant circumstance, negated; the idiom «не спускать глаз с кого-то» governs «глаз» (genitive under negation) and «с него» (off him). The whole frozen phrase means to watch unwaveringly.

Митя завернулся в одеяло, ему стало холодно.  
Mitya wrapped himself in the blanket; he had begun to feel cold.
> Dative + inceptive «стало холодно»: «Ему стало холодно» ('he began to feel cold') is the impersonal sensation frame with an inceptive twist: dative «ему», the inchoative «стало» ('became'), and the invariable «холодно». «Стать» + such a predicate marks the onset of a state — the cold creeping in.
> Reflexive «завернуться» of self-action: «Завернулся» («завернуться» — to wrap oneself up) is a true reflexive «-ся» verb: Mitya wraps himself. «В одеяло» takes the accusative after «в» for motion into / enveloping in the blanket.

Голые ноги его торчали наружу, и он всё никак не мог так напялить на них одеяло, чтоб их закрыть.  
His bare feet stuck out, and try as he might he could not draw the blanket over them so as to cover them.
> Negative concord with «никак»: «Никак не мог» ('could in no way / try as he might could not') pairs the ни-adverb «никак» with the obligatory «не» on «мог» — negative concord again. «Всё» ('all the while, keep…') stresses his repeated, futile efforts to cover his feet.
> Purpose «чтоб» + perfective infinitive: «Чтоб их закрыть» ('so as to cover them') is the purpose clause «чтобы» (here clipped to «чтоб») with the perfective infinitive «закрыть» — since the subject is the same as the main clause, «чтобы» governs an infinitive rather than a past-form verb.
> «напялить» — to yank/pull on (clumsily): «Напялить» is a colloquial, slightly comic-pejorative verb for pulling clothing on awkwardly or with effort — to 'drag / yank on.' Applied to tugging a blanket over his bare feet, it captures the undignified, fumbling struggle, in keeping with Mitya's mortification.

Николай Парфенович что-то долго не возвращался, «истязательно долго», «за щенка меня почитает», скрежетал зубами Митя.  
Nikolai Parfenovich was a long time about not coming back — "a tormentingly long time," "he takes me for a puppy," Mitya ground his teeth.
> Imperfective «не возвращался» of a drawn-out non-event: «Долго не возвращался» ('was a long time not coming back') uses the imperfective «возвращался» to dwell on the prolonged, ongoing absence rather than a single act — the perfective «не вернулся' would simply state he didn't return. The imperfective stretches the tormenting wait.
> «за» + accusative — 'takes me for': «За щенка… почитает» ('takes me for a puppy') uses «почитать за + accusative» in the sense 'to regard as, take for.' «За щенка» is accusative; «меня» the object. The construction frames Mitya's bitter sense of being treated as a contemptible nobody.
> «истязательно» — torturously: «Истязательно» is a strong, rare adverb from «истязать» (to torture, torment): 'in a tormenting, torturous way.' Mitya's hyperbolic «истязательно долго» (in quotation marks, his own phrasing) shows the wait magnified by wounded pride into something like deliberate cruelty.

«Эта дрянь прокурор тоже ушел, верно из презрения, гадко стало смотреть на голого».  
"That wretch of a prosecutor went off too, out of contempt no doubt — it sickened him to look at a naked man."
> Impersonal «гадко стало» + infinitive: «Гадко стало смотреть» ('it became sickening to look') is an impersonal-emotion frame with an infinitive subject: «гадко» (loathsome, disgusting) as the predicate, inceptive «стало», and «смотреть» supplying what was sickening. The substantivized adjective «на голого» ('at a naked [man]') is accusative.
> «дрянь» — trash, a worthless wretch: «Дрянь» literally means rubbish, trash, and as an insult 'a contemptible wretch, a piece of trash.' The appositive «эта дрянь прокурор» ('that trash of a prosecutor') is pure Mitya — venomous, dismissive, the voice of a man lashing out from humiliation.

Митя все-таки полагал, что платье его там где-то осмотрят и принесут обратно.  
Mitya still supposed that his clothes would be examined somewhere out there and brought back.
> Perfective future in reported thought: Inside Mitya's supposition the verbs are perfective futures — «осмотрят» (will examine) and «принесут» (will bring back) — the bare third-plural again standing for an indefinite 'they.' He expects two single completed acts: a look-over, then return of his clothes.
> «полагать» — to suppose, reckon: «Полагал» («полагать») is a slightly bookish verb for 'to suppose, assume, be of the opinion,' more formal than «думал». It frames Mitya's mistaken expectation — he reckoned his own clothes would come back — setting up the indignant surprise of the next sentence.

Но каково же было его негодование, когда Николай Парфенович вдруг воротился совсем с другим платьем, которое нес за ним мужик.  
But what was his indignation when Nikolai Parfenovich suddenly returned with quite different clothes, carried in behind him by a peasant.
> Exclamatory «каково же было…»: «Каково же было его негодование!» is a rhetorical exclamatory frame — 'what (great) was his indignation!' — using the neuter interrogative «каково» plus emphatic «же» to set up a 'imagine how X he was when…' construction. A stock device of dramatic narration.
> Relative «которое» in the accusative: «Которое» agrees with «платье» (neuter singular) but is the accusative object of «нёс» inside its clause — 'clothes which a peasant carried.' The imperfective «нёс» (was carrying) holds the bringing-in as an ongoing image behind the magistrate's return.
> «воротиться» — an old/folk 'to return': «Воротился» is a colloquial, slightly archaic-folk variant of «вернулся» (returned), common in 19th-century prose and peasant speech. Dostoevsky's narration mixes such homely forms freely with bookish ones, giving the prose its characteristic range of registers.

— Ну, вот вам и платье, — развязно проговорил он, по-видимому очень довольный успехом своего хождения.  
"Well, here are some clothes for you," he said breezily, evidently very pleased with the success of his errand.
> Long adjective «довольный» + instrumental: «Довольный успехом» — the adjective «доволен/довольный» ('pleased') governs its cause in the instrumental, «успехом» (with the success). This fixed government (доволен чем) is why the source of his pleasure stands in the instrumental, not the genitive.
> «развязно» — breezily, with too-easy familiarity: «Развязно» (from «развязный») means in an over-familiar, unbuttoned, cheekily casual manner — a faint pejorative for someone too pleased with himself and lacking proper reserve. The magistrate's «развязно» tone, after the grim search, is itself a needle to Mitya's pride.
> «хождение» — a going, an errand: «Хождение» is a bookish verbal noun from «ходить» (to go about), here 'his going / errand' — the trip to fetch clothes. The «-ение» abstract noun lends a mock-solemn weight, as if his small errand were an undertaking, matching his self-satisfaction.

— Это господин Калганов жертвует на сей любопытный случай, равно как и чистую вам рубашку.  
"It's Mr. Kalganov who donates them for this curious occasion, and a clean shirt for you as well.
> Archaic demonstrative «сей»: «Сей» ('this') is the bookish, archaic demonstrative of 19th-century literary Russian, where everyday speech uses «этот». «На сей… случай» ('for this occasion') gives the magistrate's pronouncement a touch of mock-official solemnity — period-elevated, not wrong.
> Bookish connective «равно как и»: «Равно как и» ('as well as, equally with') is a formal, literary additive conjunction, stiffer than a plain «и». It coordinates «чистую… рубашку» with the donated clothes, lending the sentence the flavour of officialese.

С ним всё это, к счастию, как раз оказалось в чемодане.  
Luckily, he happened to have all of it with him in his trunk.
> Archaic «к счастию» + middle «оказалось»: «К счастию» is the old-spelling/bookish form of «к счастью» ('luckily'), a frozen «к» + dative parenthetical. «Оказалось» ('it turned out') is the reflexive «-ся» verb used impersonally, a middle of fortuitous discovery — it happened to be in his trunk.

Нижнее белье и носки можете сохранить свои.  
Your underwear and socks you may keep."
> Fronted objects + reflexive «свои»: The objects «нижнее бельё и носки» are fronted as the topic, and «свои» ('your own,' reflexive possessive referring to the subject 'you') is post-posed after the verb «сохранить» for emphasis — 'your underwear and socks, those you may keep — your own.' The scattered word order foregrounds the small concession.

Митя страшно вскипел.  
Mitya flared up terribly.
> «вскипеть» — to boil over (with rage): «Вскипел» («вскипеть») literally means 'to come to the boil'; figuratively, to flare up, boil over with sudden anger. The inceptive «вс-» prefix marks the abrupt surge. «Страшно вскипел» ('flared up terribly') is the perfective burst of Mitya's temper at the offer of charity clothes.

— Не хочу чужого платья! — грозно закричал он, — давайте мое!  
"I don't want another man's clothes!" he shouted menacingly. "Give me my own!"
> Genitive of negation: «чужого платья»: «Не хочу чужого платья» ('I don't want another man's clothes') puts the object «платья» in the genitive under the negated «не хочу». Negated «хотеть» especially favours the genitive object, marking the thing wanted as non-specific and refused.
> Imperative «давайте» — 'give / let's': «Давайте» is the plural/polite imperative of «давать» (to give): here a blunt 'give (me) [it]!' The same form, plus an infinitive or future, also makes the 'let's…' exhortative — but here it is the literal command, hurled with «моё!» ('mine!').

— Невозможно.  
"That's impossible."
> One-word impersonal predicate: «Невозможно» ('[it is] impossible') is a complete utterance — a bare impersonal predicate with no subject or copula, the present tense leaving 'is' unexpressed. Russian readily makes such neuter predicatives stand alone as a flat verdict.

— Давайте мое, к черту Калганова, и его платье, и его самого!  
"Give me my own — to the devil with Kalganov, and his clothes, and himself too!"
> «к чёрту» + accusative; intensive «сам»: «К чёрту Калганова… и его самого» ('to the devil with Kalganov… and himself too') takes the objects of consignment in the accusative (animate «Калганова», «его самого»). «Самого» is the intensifier «сам» ('himself, the very man') in the accusative, piling Kalganov-the-person onto the curse.

Его долго уговаривали.  
They spent a long time talking him round.
> Imperfective «уговаривали» — a drawn-out effort: «Долго уговаривали» ('they spent a long time talking [him] round') uses the imperfective «уговаривать» to stress the protracted, repeated effort of persuasion — not «уговорили» (succeeded in persuading), but the wearing process. The subjectless third-plural again means an indefinite 'they.'

Кое-как, однако, успокоили.  
Somehow, however, they calmed him down.
> «кое-как» — somehow, after a fashion: «Кое-как» means 'somehow', 'any old how', often with a tinge of effort, sloppiness, or barely managing. Here it underscores that calming Mitya took some doing; the same word reappears in s63 («Митя кое-как… понял»), a small narrative echo of his frayed state.
> Subjectless «успокоили» — 'they calmed him': The verb is third-person plural with no stated subject — a standard Russian way to say 'people / they' impersonally, leaving the actors vague (the officials). The perfective «успокоили» frames it as a single accomplished result: they got him calmed.

Ему внушили, что платье его, как запачканное кровью, должно «примкнуть к собранию вещественных доказательств», оставить же его на нем они теперь «не имеют даже и права… в видах того, чем может окончиться дело».  
They impressed on him that his clothes, being stained with blood, must "be joined to the body of material evidence," and that to leave them on him they now "had not even the right… in view of how the case might end."
> Dative «ему» + the 'they' verb: «Внушить» ('to impress upon, instil') takes a dative person: «ему внушили» = 'they impressed upon him'. Paired again with the subjectless third-person-plural verb, the sentence keeps the bureaucratic 'they' faceless while Mitya stands as the dative recipient of their instruction.
> «как запачканное кровью» — a past passive participle: «Запачканное» is a past passive participle ('soiled, stained') agreeing with neuter «платье»; «кровью» is the instrumental of means ('with blood'). The «как» here reads 'inasmuch as / being', giving the clause a causal-legalistic ring fitting the officials' jargon.
> «вещественные доказательства» — material evidence: A fixed legal term: 'material (physical) evidence', the tangible objects entered into a case. «Примкнуть к собранию вещественных доказательств» ('be joined to the body of material evidence') is deliberately stiff officialese — Dostoevsky lets the investigators' bureaucratic register clash with Mitya's anguish.
> Particle «же» marking the contrast: Here «же» is not 'but' lexically; it is a modal particle pinning a contrast — 'as for leaving them on him, that they have no right to'. It picks the infinitive «оставить» up as a new topic and weights the turn in the argument.
> Genitive of negation: «не имеют… права»: Under the negation «не имеют», the object «право» shifts to the genitive «права» ('have not even the right'). This case shift after a negated verb is one of Russian's most pervasive habits.

Митя кое-как наконец это понял.  
Mitya somehow understood this at last.
> Perfective «понял» — the penny finally drops: «Понял» is the perfective past of «понимать/понять»: not 'was understanding' but the single moment of grasping. With «кое-как наконец» ('somehow at last') it captures comprehension arriving as one belated event.

Он мрачно замолчал и стал спеша одеваться.  
He fell gloomily silent and began hurriedly to dress.
> «спеша» — an imperfective gerund: «Спеша» ('hurrying') is the present (imperfective) adverbial participle, a деепричастие, describing the manner of the main verb: he began to dress, hurrying. It shares Mitya's subject and folds a whole 'as he hurried' into one word — a hallmark of literary narration.
> «стал» + infinitive — inception, and the -ся of «одеваться»: «Стал» ('began') plus the imperfective infinitive marks the onset of an activity. The infinitive «одеваться» carries the reflexive clitic -ся ('to dress oneself'), the true reflexive use where the action turns back on the doer.

Заметил только, надевая платье, что оно богаче его старого платья и что он бы не хотел «пользоваться».  
He only remarked, as he put on the clothes, that they were finer than his own old clothes, and that he would rather not "profit by it."
> Subject-drop + the gerund «надевая»: The subject 'he' is dropped — the -л verb «заметил» already shows masculine singular. «Надевая» is again an imperfective gerund ('as he put on'), simultaneous with the remarking. Note «надевать» (put on oneself) versus «одевать» (dress someone) — a famous pair Russians police carefully.
> Comparative «богаче» + genitive of comparison: «Богаче» is the predicative comparative of «богатый» ('richer, finer'). The thing compared against stands in the genitive, «его старого платья» ('than his old clothes') — Russian's bare-genitive comparison, an alternative to «чем».
> Conditional «бы» — 'he would rather not': Past-tense «хотел» plus the particle «бы» builds the irrealis: 'he would not want / would rather not'. It softens the statement into a delicate refusal, fitting Mitya's flash of scruple about wearing another man's finery.
> «пользоваться» — to make use of, profit by: «Пользоваться» (+ instrumental) means 'to use / avail oneself of'. In quotation marks here it carries a moral charge — Mitya recoils from 'profiting' off Kalganov's clothes, the verb hinting at unearned advantage rather than mere wearing.

Кроме того, «унизительно узко.  
Besides, they were "humiliatingly tight.
> Short adjective «узко» as predicate: «Узко» is the neuter short form of «узкий» ('tight, narrow'), used predicatively of «платье» — 'it is tight'. «Унизительно» ('humiliatingly') is an adverb modifying it. Short adjectives in the predicate carry a clipped, emphatic, bookish flavor very common in this prose.

Шута, что ли, я горохового должен в нем разыгрывать… к вашему наслаждению!»  
Am I to play the pea-clown in them, then… for your delight!"
> Animate accusative «шута» + «должен» of obligation: «Шута» is the accusative of animate masculine «шут», borrowing the genitive form (the object of «разыгрывать», 'to play the part of'). «Должен» ('must, am obliged') governs the infinitive — Mitya bitterly asks whether he is obliged to play the buffoon.
> «что ли» — a needling rhetorical tag: «Что ли» (built on the interrogative particle «ли») tacks doubt or sarcasm onto a question: 'Am I supposed to…, then?'. It is colloquial and indignant, voicing Mitya's outraged incredulity.
> «к вашему наслаждению» — dative governed by «к»: The preposition «к» governs the dative, here 'for your delight / enjoyment'. The bitterly polite «вашему» throws the sarcasm at the investigators directly.

Ему опять внушили, что он и тут преувеличивает, что господин Калганов, хоть и выше его ростом, но лишь немного, и разве только вот панталоны выйдут длинноваты.  
Again they impressed on him that here too he was exaggerating, that Mr. Kalganov, though taller than he, was so only by a little, and that perhaps only the trousers would come out somewhat long.
> «внушить, что…» — reported reassurance: Again the dative «ему» plus subjectless «внушили» plus a «что»-clause: 'they impressed on him that…'. The subordinating «что» reports plain fact, and the repetition of this exact frame (cf. s62) marks the officials' patient, wearing insistence.
> Comparative «выше» + instrumental «ростом»: «Выше» is the comparative 'taller'; «его» is the genitive of comparison ('than he'); «ростом» is the instrumental of respect — 'taller in stature'. The «хоть… но» pair ('though… yet') concedes the point only to shrink it: taller, but only by a little.
> «длинноваты» — 'a touch too long': The suffix -оват- softens an adjective to 'somewhat, a bit', and «длинноваты» is its short plural form: the trousers are 'a little on the long side'. This hedging suffix lets the officials minimize the misfit Mitya is complaining about.

Но сюртук оказался действительно узок в плечах.  
But the frock-coat did indeed prove tight across the shoulders.
> «сюртук» — a frock-coat: A «сюртук» is the long, fitted men's frock-coat standard for respectable 19th-century dress. Wearing Kalganov's instead of his own is part of Mitya's degradation — a borrowed gentleman's coat that pinches.
> «оказался» + short adjective «узок»: «Оказаться» ('to turn out to be') here links to the masculine short adjective «узок» ('tight'). Short-form predicates after such linking verbs are the bookish norm; «действительно» ('indeed') concedes that Mitya's complaint was, this time, justified.

— Черт возьми, и застегнуться трудно, — заворчал снова Митя, — сделайте одолжение, извольте от меня сей же час передать господину Калганову, что не я просил у него его платья и что меня самого перерядили в шута.  
"Devil take it, it's even hard to button up," Mitya grumbled again. "Do me the favor, be so kind as to inform Mr. Kalganov this very instant on my behalf that I did not ask him for his clothes, and that I have been dressed up as a clown."
> «Чёрт возьми» — 'devil take it': A common oath, literally 'may the devil take [it]', the perfective «возьми» being an optative-imperative. Mild but coarse; it sets Mitya's grumbling, profane register against the officials' polished speech.
> «извольте» — frostily formal 'be so kind': «Извольте» (+ infinitive) is a stiff, old-fashioned polite imperative, 'be so good as to…'. Mitya wields it sarcastically: the exaggerated courtesy («сделайте одолжение… извольте… сей же час») mocks the very formality being shown to him.
> «сей же час» — this very instant: An archaic, bookish phrase using the old demonstrative «сей» ('this') with intensifying «же»: 'this very hour / instant'. The elevated «сей» belongs to the 19th-century literary register and adds mock-grandeur to Mitya's command.
> Subjectless «перерядили» + «в шута»: Another faceless third-plural verb, 'they dressed me up'. «Перерядить в шута» ('rig out as a clown') uses «в» + accusative to mark the role one is turned into. «Самого» (intensive 'me myself') sharpens Mitya's sense of personal humiliation.

— Он это очень хорошо понимает и сожалеет… то есть не о платье своем сожалеет, а, собственно, обо всем этом случае… — промямлил было Николай Парфенович.  
"He understands that very well and regrets it… that is, it is not his clothes he regrets, but, properly speaking, this whole affair…" Nikolai Parfenovich began to mumble.
> «промямлить» + the particle «было»: «Промямлить» is to mumble/mutter indistinctly; we render it 'began to mumble'. The particle «было» after a perfective marks an action begun but interrupted or undone — Nikolai Parfenovich starts to mumble an excuse and is cut off, which is exactly what happens in the next line.
> Reflexive possessive «своём» + «о» + prepositional: «Сожалеть о» governs the prepositional, «о платье» ('regrets the clothes'). «Своём» is the reflexive possessive 'his own', pointing back to the subject (Kalganov) — he regrets his own clothes, the self-referring «свой» being chosen over «его».
> «собственно» — 'properly speaking': Here «собственно» is a discourse hedge, 'strictly / properly speaking', used to correct and refine what was just said. It mirrors the speaker's flustered self-correction ('not the clothes… but, properly, the whole affair').

— Наплевать на его сожаление! Ну, куда теперь? Или всё здесь сидеть?  
"To hell with his regret! Well, where to now? Or am I to go on sitting here?"
> «наплевать на» — to spit on / not care a bit: «Наплевать на (что-л.)» literally 'to spit on' is a coarse idiom of contempt: 'to hell with it, I couldn't care less'. Mitya's gutter-blunt phrase answers the official's delicate condolence with open scorn.
> Bare infinitive «сидеть» as exasperated question: An infinitive with no subject and no modal, framing a vexed deliberative question: 'Or [am I] to go on sitting here?'. Russian uses such bare infinitives for impersonal 'what is to be done?' musings; «всё» here means 'still, the whole time'.

Его попросили выйти опять в «ту комнату».  
They asked him to step out again into "that room."
> Animate accusative «его» + subjectless «попросили»: Once more the faceless 'they': «его попросили» = 'they asked him', with «его» the accusative of the personal pronoun. «Попросить (кого) + infinitive» ('ask someone to do') governs the perfective «выйти» ('step out').

Митя вышел хмурый от злобы и стараясь ни на кого не глядеть.  
Mitya went out scowling with spite and trying not to look at anyone.
> Gerund «стараясь» + negative concord «ни на кого… не»: «Стараясь» is an imperfective gerund ('trying'), sharing Mitya's subject. Inside it sits negative concord: «ни на кого… не глядеть» pairs the ни-pronoun «ни на кого» ('at no one') with the verb's «не» — two negatives, one meaning, 'trying not to look at anyone'.

В чужом платье он чувствовал себя совсем опозоренным, даже пред этими мужиками и Трифоном Борисовичем, лицо которого вдруг зачем-то мелькнуло в дверях и исчезло.  
In another man's clothes he felt utterly disgraced, even before these peasants and before Trifon Borisovich, whose face suddenly flickered for some reason in the doorway and vanished.
> «чувствовать себя» + instrumental participle «опозоренным»: «Чувствовать себя» ('to feel oneself [to be]') takes a predicate in the instrumental: «опозоренным», the instrumental of the past passive participle 'disgraced'. The reflexive «себя» supplies the object, and the instrumental frames the state he feels himself to be in.
> Relative «которого» across a clause: «Которого» is the relative pronoun in the genitive ('whose'): «лицо которого» = 'whose face'. It agrees in gender/number with its antecedent Trifon but takes the genitive its own role (possessor) demands — a textbook of «который» case-flexibility.

«На ряженого заглянуть приходил», — подумал Митя.  
"He came to gawk at the man in fancy dress," thought Mitya.
> «ряженый» — a mummer, one in fancy dress: «Ряженый» (a substantivized participle, 'one dressed up') evokes the costumed mummers of Christmas-time folk revels — a figure to be gawked at. Mitya bitterly casts himself as the comic spectacle the innkeeper came to ogle. «Заглянуть» here is 'to peep / drop a look in'.

Он уселся на своем прежнем стуле.  
He sat down on his former chair.
> Reflexive «усесться» + «своём» + prepositional of location: «Усесться» (perfective, -ся middle verb 'to settle oneself down') describes a change of position. «На своём прежнем стуле» uses «на» + prepositional for location, with reflexive «своём» = 'his own former chair'.

Мерещилось ему что-то кошмарное и нелепое, казалось ему, что он не в своем уме.  
Something nightmarish and absurd kept rising before him; it seemed to him that he was out of his mind.
> Impersonal «мерещилось ему» — dative experiencer: «Мерещиться» ('to seem to appear, loom hazily') is used impersonally with a dative experiencer: «мерещилось ему» = 'something kept rising/looming before him'. The grammatical subject is the indefinite «что-то», while Mitya, in the dative, is the one to whom it appears — the dative-experiencer pattern that pervades Dostoevsky's inner life.
> Indefinite «что-то» — 'something' specific but unnamed: The particle «-то» on «что» makes it a specific-but-unidentified 'something' — a real thing Mitya can't name — as against «что-нибудь» 'anything at all'. The neuter adjectives «кошмарное и нелепое» agree with it.
> «не в своём уме» — out of one's mind: A set idiom, literally 'not in one's [own] mind', i.e. mad, not in one's right senses. The reflexive «своём» again binds the mind to its owner. Mitya feels himself slipping toward unreason.

— Ну что ж теперь, пороть розгами, что ли, меня начнете, ведь больше-то ничего не осталось, — заскрежетал он, обращаясь к прокурору.  
"Well, what now — are you going to start flogging me with birch-rods, or something? After all, there's nothing left," he ground out, turning to the prosecutor.
> Particles «ведь» and «-то» + double negation: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all'), and the emphatic clitic «-то» on «больше» stresses the topic ('there's nothing more, you see, left'). «Ничего не осталось» is negative concord — ни-pronoun plus «не». These tiny particles carry the bitter, knowing tone English can only suggest by intonation.
> «заскрежетать» — to grind out / gnash: From «скрежет» (a grating, gnashing sound), «заскрежетал» means he ground the words out as through clenched, gnashing teeth — the «за-» prefix marking the onset. A vivid, physical speech-verb conveying barely-contained fury.

К Николаю Парфеновичу он и повернуться уже не хотел, как бы и говорить с ним не удостоивая.  
Toward Nikolai Parfenovich he no longer wished even to turn, as though not deigning to speak with him at all.
> «к… повернуться» — fronted topic + reflexive verb: The phrase «к Николаю Парфеновичу» is fronted for emphasis ('toward N.P. he no longer even wished to turn'), a topic-comment reordering Russian's free word order permits. «Повернуться» is a -ся middle verb ('to turn oneself'); «к» governs the dative.
> «как бы» + gerund «не удостоивая»: «Как бы» ('as if, as though') colors the clause as a seeming, and «удостоивая» is an imperfective gerund ('deigning'), here negated: 'as though not deigning to speak with him'. The «как бы + gerund» construction lets the narrator render Mitya's disdainful pose without committing to it as fact.

«Слишком уж пристально мои носки осматривал, да еще велел, подлец, выворотить, это он нарочно, чтобы выставить всем, какое у меня грязное белье!»  
"He examined my socks far too intently, and what's more, the scoundrel ordered them turned inside out — he did it on purpose, to show everyone what filthy underclothes I have!"
> «подлец» — scoundrel, villain: «Подлец» is a strong term of abuse: a low, base, contemptible man. Hurled here at Nikolai Parfenovich in Mitya's inner monologue, it shows his thoughts running far hotter than his outward speech.
> «велел» + infinitive; topic-fronted «это»: «Велеть» ('to order') governs the bare infinitive «выворотить» ('to turn inside out'). The follow-up «это он нарочно» ('he did it on purpose') fronts «это» as topic before the new, accusatory comment «нарочно» — Russian word order spotlighting the deliberateness Mitya imputes.
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + infinitive: «Чтобы» + infinitive expresses purpose ('in order to show everyone…'). The embedded «какое у меня грязное бельё» is an exclamatory indirect question ('what filthy underclothes I have'), with «у меня» the genitive-of-having construction. «Чтобы» is the fused «что» + «бы».

— Да вот придется теперь перейти к допросу свидетелей, — произнес Николай Парфенович, как бы в ответ на вопрос Дмитрия Федоровича.  
"Well, now we shall have to proceed to the examination of witnesses," Nikolai Parfenovich pronounced, as if in answer to Dmitri Fyodorovich's question.
> Impersonal «придётся» + dative-less obligation: «Придётся» (perfective future of «прийтись», used impersonally) means 'it will be necessary / one will have to': 'we shall now have to proceed'. «Перейти к допросу» ('move on to the questioning') has «к» + dative «допросу». This subjectless 'it falls to one to…' is a core Russian way of stating necessity.

— Да-с, — вдумчиво проговорил прокурор, тоже как бы что-то соображая.  
"Yes, sir," the prosecutor said thoughtfully, also as though turning something over in his mind.
> «как бы» + gerund «соображая»: Parallel to s80: «как бы» ('as though') plus the imperfective gerund «соображая» ('working something out') renders the prosecutor's manner of turning something over in his mind. The «как бы» keeps it a calculated appearance, not a stated fact.

— Мы, Дмитрий Федорович, сделали что могли в ваших же интересах, — продолжал Николай Парфенович, — но, получив столь радикальный с вашей стороны отказ разъяснить нам насчет происхождения находившейся при вас суммы, мы в данную минуту…  
"We, Dmitri Fyodorovich, have done what we could in your own interest," Nikolai Parfenovich went on, "but, having met with so radical a refusal on your part to explain to us the origin of the sum that was found on you, we, at the present moment…"
> «сделали что могли» — perfective + relative «что»: «Сделали» (perfective 'did, accomplished') plus «что могли» ('what we could'), where «что» functions as a relative 'what / that which'. The perfective frames a completed best effort, formally laid before Mitya.
> Perfective gerund «получив» — 'having received': «Получив» is the perfective past gerund ('having received'), marking a prior, completed circumstance before the main clause. The bookish «столь» ('so') for «такой» heightens the formal register of this official's sentence.
> Past active participle «находившейся»: «Находившейся» is the past active participle of «находиться» ('to be located'), declined into the genitive feminine to agree with «суммы» ('of the sum that was found on you'). Such participial phrases condense a whole «которая находилась» relative clause into one modifier — pure literary-bureaucratic compression.

— Это из чего у вас перстень? — перебил вдруг Митя, как бы выходя из какой-то задумчивости и указывая пальцем на один из трех больших перстней, украшавших правую ручку Николая Парфеновича.  
"What is that ring of yours made of?" Mitya suddenly interrupted, as if emerging from some reverie, and pointing his finger at one of the three large rings adorning Nikolai Parfenovich's right hand.
> «из чего» — 'made of what', genitive after «из»: «Из» governs the genitive, and «из чего» asks 'out of what / made of what'. The abrupt, fronted «Это из чего…» captures Mitya's mind veering off mid-interrogation onto the prosecutor's ring.
> Two coordinated gerunds: «выходя… указывая»: The narrator stacks two imperfective gerunds, «выходя» ('emerging') and «указывая» ('pointing'), both attendant on «перебил» and sharing Mitya's subject — a typical literary chain of деепричастия painting simultaneous action. «Как бы» again softens 'emerging from a reverie' to a seeming.
> «перстень» — a (signet/jewelled) ring: «Перстень» is a more elevated, old-fashioned word than the everyday «кольцо» — specifically a ring with a stone or seal, worn on the finger. The dandyish three rings on the examining magistrate's hand quietly characterize him.

— Перстень? — переспросил с удивлением Николай Парфенович.  
"A ring?" Nikolai Parfenovich queried in astonishment.
> Prefix «пере-» in «переспросить»: «Переспросить» = «пере-» (re-, over again) + «спросить»: to ask again, to query back for clarification. The prefix neatly conveys the magistrate echoing Mitya's word in surprise: 'A ring?'.

— Да, вот этот… вот на среднем пальце, с жилочками, какой это камень? — как-то раздражительно, словно упрямый ребенок, настаивал Митя.  
"Yes, that one… there, on the middle finger, with the little veins — what stone is that?" Mitya insisted, somehow irritably, like a stubborn child.
> «жилочки» — 'little veins', a diminutive: «Жилочки» is the diminutive of «жилы/жилки» ('veins, threads'), the suffix -очк- lending a small, intimate, almost tender note as Mitya peers at the stone's veining. The diminutive marks his oddly absorbed, childlike fixation.
> «словно» — bookish 'as if / like': «Словно» ('as if, like') is a slightly literary comparative conjunction introducing the simile 'like a stubborn child'. The narrator uses it to frame Mitya's irritable insistence as childish — a recurring note in his characterization.

— Это дымчатый топаз, — улыбнулся Николай Парфенович, — хотите посмотреть, я сниму…  
"That's a smoky topaz," Nikolai Parfenovich smiled. "Would you like to look — I'll take it off…"
> «дымчатый топаз» — smoky topaz: «Дымчатый» ('smoky', from «дым», smoke) plus «топаз» names the brownish-grey gem. The exact, almost connoisseurial naming continues the small portrait of the foppish magistrate and his three rings.
> «сниму» — perfective future in present-looking form: «Сниму» is the perfective «снять» ('take off') conjugated like a present, but with future meaning — 'I'll take it off'. Perfectives have no present tense; this conjugated form is the simple future, a constant trap and tool for the reader.

— Нет, нет, не снимайте! — свирепо крикнул Митя, вдруг опомнившись и озлившись на себя самого, — не снимайте, не надо… Черт… Господа, вы огадили мою душу!  
"No, no, don't take it off!" Mitya shouted savagely, suddenly coming to himself and growing furious with his own self. "Don't take it off, never mind… Devil… Gentlemen, you have befouled my soul!
> Imperfective imperative «не снимайте» — 'don't take it off': Negated commands in Russian normally use the imperfective imperative: «не снимайте» ('don't be taking it off'). Where the bare perfective imperative would urge an act, the imperfective under «не» forbids one — the standard pairing.
> Two perfective gerunds + reflexive «себя»: «Опомнившись» ('having come to himself') and «озлившись» ('having grown furious') are perfective past gerunds, marking sudden prior changes of state. «На себя самого» ('at his own self') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» intensified by «самого» — his fury turns back on himself.
> «огадить» — to befoul, make loathsome: «Огадить» (from «гадкий», loathsome/vile) is a strong, coarse-expressive verb: to make foul, to defile, to fill with disgust. 'You have befouled my soul' is a cry of spiritual violation — the interrogation has soiled something sacred in him.

Неужели вы думаете, что я стал бы скрывать от вас, если бы в самом деле убил отца, вилять, лгать и прятаться?  
Do you really suppose that I would hide it from you, if I had really killed my father — that I would dodge and lie and conceal myself?
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы… если бы»: A full irrealis conditional: the «если бы»-clause with past «убил» ('if I had killed') and the main clause «я стал бы скрывать» ('I would hide it'), both built on past form + «бы». It is grammatically tenseless — context alone makes it past-counterfactual: 'would I be hiding it, had I really killed my father?'.
> «вилять» — to dodge, prevaricate: Literally 'to wag (the tail), swerve', «вилять» figuratively means to be evasive, to wriggle and dodge rather than answer straight. Chained with «лгать» (lie) and «прятаться» (hide oneself), it paints the cringing guilt Mitya insists he could never stoop to.

Нет, не таков Дмитрий Карамазов, он бы этого не вынес, и если б я был виновен, клянусь, не ждал бы вашего сюда прибытия и восхода солнца, как намеревался сначала, а истребил бы себя еще прежде, еще не дожидаясь рассвета!  
No, that is not what Dmitri Karamazov is like; he could not have borne it, and if I had been guilty, I swear, I would not have waited here for your arrival and for the rising of the sun, as I meant to at first, but would have destroyed myself sooner, before daybreak even came!
> «таков» — short demonstrative predicate: «Таков» is the short, predicative form of «такой» ('such, of that kind'), used only as a predicate: 'that is not what Dmitri Karamazov is [like]'. The fronting «не таков…» before the subject lends a ringing, rhetorical, almost heroic self-reference.
> Conditional «если б… бы» + short adjective «виновен»: Another counterfactual: «если б я был виновен» ('if I were guilty', with «б» the reduced «бы») governs «истребил бы себя» ('I would have destroyed myself'). «Виновен» is the short adjective 'guilty', the bookish predicate form. «Себя» is the reflexive object.
> Genitive objects after the negated conditional: Under the negated «не ждал бы» the objects fall into the genitive: «вашего… прибытия» ('your arrival') and «восхода солнца» ('the rising of the sun', with «солнца» a possessive genitive). The genitive after a negated verb is at work even inside this hypothetical.
> «истребить себя» — to destroy / make away with oneself: «Истребить» is to exterminate, wipe out, destroy utterly; «истребить себя» is a forceful, elevated way of saying he would have killed himself. The heavy verb suits Mitya's grand, near-tragic register in this outburst.

Я чувствую это теперь по себе.  
I feel this now, from my own self.
> «по себе» — 'from my own self': «По» + the reflexive «себе» (dative) gives 'by/from oneself, from one's own experience': 'I feel this now from my own self'. The reflexive pronoun has no nominative and here folds Mitya's inner certainty into a tight idiom.

Я в двадцать лет жизни не научился бы столькому, сколько узнал в эту проклятую ночь!..  
In twenty years of living I would not have learned so much as I have learned in this accursed night!..
> Conditional «бы» + dative «столькому… сколько»: «Научиться» ('to learn') takes a dative object, hence «столькому» ('so much') and the correlative «сколько» ('as much as'). The main clause «не научился бы» is conditional (past + «бы»): 'I would not have learned so much…'. The genitive-of-negation does not apply because «научиться» governs the dative, not the accusative.
> Perfective «узнал» + accusative of time «в эту… ночь»: «Узнал» is the perfective 'came to know, learned' — a completed, transformative event. «В эту… ночь» uses «в» + accusative for a span of time ('in / during this night'), with «проклятую» ('accursed') agreeing in accusative feminine.

И таков ли, таков ли был бы я в эту ночь и в эту минуту теперь, сидя с вами, — так ли бы я говорил, так ли двигался, так ли бы смотрел на вас и на мир, если бы в самом деле был отцеубийцей, когда даже нечаянное это убийство Григория не давало мне покоя всю ночь, — не от страха, о! не от одного только страха вашего наказания!  
And would I be such — would I be such — on this night and at this very minute now, sitting here with you — would I speak so, would I move so, would I look so upon you and upon the world, if I were truly a parricide, when even this accidental killing of Grigory gave me no peace all night long — and not out of fear, oh! not out of fear of your punishment alone!
> Anaphoric «так ли бы» — conditional question chain: Mitya stacks parallel conditional questions: «так ли бы я говорил…» ('would I speak so… move so… look so?'). Each combines «так» ('thus'), the question particle «ли», and the conditional «бы» on a past-form verb. The repetition is rhetorical insistence — could a real parricide behave like this?
> «отцеубийца» — parricide: «Отцеубийца» compounds «отец» (father) + «убийца» (killer): 'one who kills his father'. It stands in the instrumental «отцеубийцей» as the predicate after «был бы» ('if I were a parricide'). The word names the novel's central horror.
> Genitive of negation: «не давало… покоя»: «Не давало покоя» ('gave [me] no peace') puts the object «покой» into the genitive «покоя» under negation, with the dative «мне» as the one denied peace. A compact instance of two patterns at once: genitive of negation and dative experiencer.

Позор!  
The disgrace of it!
> «позор» — shame, disgrace, public dishonor: «Позор» is not mere embarrassment but disgrace before others, public shame, dishonor. Standing alone as a one-word cry, it concentrates Mitya's whole sense of being degraded and exposed. (Note the deceptive Slavonic root «зор-», 'sight' — позор is shame seen.)

И вы хотите, чтоб я таким насмешникам, как вы, ничего не видящим и ничему не верящим, слепым кротам и насмешникам, стал открывать и рассказывать еще новую подлость мою, еще новый позор, хотя бы это и спасло меня от вашего обвинения?  
And you want me to go laying open and recounting to mockers like you — who see nothing and believe in nothing, blind moles and mockers — yet another vileness of mine, yet another disgrace, even were it to save me from your accusation?
> «хотите, чтоб…» — willed clause with «чтобы» + past form: After a verb of wanting, «чтобы» (here clipped to «чтоб») takes a past-tense verb, not an infinitive, when the subjects differ: «вы хотите, чтоб я… стал открывать» ('you want that I should start laying open'). This is the irrealis «чтобы» of indirect command — willed, not factual.
> Present active participles in negative concord: «Видящим» and «верящим» are present active participles ('seeing', 'believing') in the dative plural, agreeing with «насмешникам». Each is negated with full concord: «ничего не видящим» ('seeing nothing'), «ничему не верящим» ('believing in nothing' — «верить» takes the dative «ничему').
> «слепые кроты» — blind moles: A «крот» is a mole; «слепые кроты» ('blind moles') is Mitya's scornful epithet for the investigators who 'see nothing'. The image of the burrowing, sightless animal sharpens his contempt for their blindness to his inner truth.
> «хотя бы… и» — concessive 'even if': «Хотя бы… и» plus a past-form verb («спасло») makes a concessive conditional: 'even were it to save me from your accusation'. The «бы» again does the irrealis work, conceding a hypothetical benefit only to reject it.

Да лучше в каторгу!  
No, sooner to the penal mines!
> «да» as intensifying interjection + «в» + accusative: Here «да» is not 'yes' but an emphatic interjection, 'why, rather…!'. «В каторгу» uses «в» + accusative for motion-toward a destination/state ('off to the penal mines'). The elliptical exclamation ('sooner to katorga [than tell you]!') is pure spoken emphasis.

Тот, который отпер к отцу дверь и вошел этою дверью, тот и убил его, тот и обокрал.  
The one who unlocked the door to my father and went in by that door — he is the one who killed him, he is the one who robbed him.
> Correlative «тот… тот» framing: The demonstrative «тот» sets up a correlative structure: «Тот, который отпер… тот и убил» ('the one who unlocked… he is the very one who killed'). The resumptive «тот и» with emphatic «и» drives the point home — that one, no other. A solemn, almost biblical cadence.
> «обокрасть» — to rob (someone) clean: «Обокрал» (perfective of «обокрасть») means to rob a person of their belongings, to thieve everything from them — the «об-» prefix conveying a thoroughness, 'cleaned him out'. Distinct from «украсть» (to steal a thing); here the victim, the father, is the object.

Кто он — я теряюсь и мучаюсь, но это не Дмитрий Карамазов, знайте это, — и вот всё, что я могу вам сказать, и довольно, не приставайте… Ссылайте, казните, но не раздражайте меня больше.  
Who he is — I am lost, I torment myself over it, but it is not Dmitri Karamazov, know that — and there is everything I can tell you, and enough of it, don't badger me… Exile me, execute me, but provoke me no further.
> Reflexive verbs «теряюсь», «мучаюсь»: Both verbs carry -ся: «теряться» ('to be at a loss, lose one's bearings') and «мучиться» ('to torment oneself, be in anguish'). These are middle/reflexive verbs where the state turns inward on the subject — Mitya is lost in and tortured by his own ignorance of the killer.
> Imperatives, positive and negated: Three imperatives: «ссылайте» ('exile [me]'), «казните» ('execute'), then the negated imperfective «не раздражайте» ('don't provoke'). The pattern is textbook — bare imperatives to urge action, but the imperfective under «не» to forbid one. «Раздражать» = to irritate, exasperate.
> «приставать (к кому)» — to pester, badger: «Приставать» means to keep at someone, to badger, nag, or cling; «не приставайте» = 'don't badger me, leave off'. A colloquial, irritated note that drops Mitya's grand register back to raw exhaustion.

Я замолчал.  
I have fallen silent.
> Perfective «замолчать» — onset, not state: «Замолчал» (perfective, «за-» of inception) means 'I have fallen / have gone silent', the entering into silence as a completed act — not 'I am silent'. Mitya declares his silence as an accomplished decision: I have shut up, the matter is closed.

Зовите ваших свидетелей!  
Call in your witnesses!"
> Imperative «зовите» + animate accusative plural: «Зовите» is the plural/polite imperative of «звать» ('call'). «Ваших свидетелей» is the accusative of an animate plural, which borrows the genitive ending («свидетелей») — animate nouns mark the accusative this way. A curt, challenging command closing his outburst.

Митя проговорил свой внезапный монолог, как бы совсем уже решившись впредь окончательно замолчать.  
Mitya delivered his sudden monologue as though now wholly resolved to keep silent from this point on for good.
> «как бы» + perfective gerund «решившись»: «Решившись» is the perfective past gerund of «решиться» ('having resolved', a -ся verb), modifying how Mitya delivered the monologue: 'as though now wholly resolved'. «Как бы» frames it as the narrator's reading of his manner. «Впредь… замолчать» = 'to keep silent henceforth'.

Прокурор всё время следил за ним и, только что он замолчал, с самым холодным и с самым спокойным видом вдруг проговорил точно самую обыкновенную вещь:  
The prosecutor had been watching him the whole time, and the moment he fell silent, with the coldest and calmest air, he suddenly pronounced, as though it were the most ordinary thing:
> «следить за» + instrumental — to watch / keep an eye on: «Следить за (кем)» governs the instrumental: «следил за ним» ('was watching him'). The imperfective «следил» gives the durative background — the prosecutor had been watching all along — against which the perfective «проговорил» lands as the sudden event.
> Superlative «самый» + instrumental of manner: «Самый» forms the superlative and declines with its adjective: «с самым холодным… видом» ('with the coldest… air'), the whole phrase in the instrumental of manner after «с». The icy calm is set deliberately against Mitya's just-spent frenzy.

— Вот именно по поводу этой отворенной двери, о которой вы сейчас упомянули, мы, и как раз кстати, можем сообщить вам, именно теперь, одно чрезвычайно любопытное и в высшей степени важное, для вас и для нас, показание раненного вами старика Григория Васильева.  
"With regard to precisely that open door you have just mentioned, we can — and, as it happens, very opportunely — inform you, right now, of one exceedingly curious and, in the highest degree, important piece of testimony, for you and for us, from old Grigory Vasilyev, the man you wounded.
> «по поводу» + genitive; participle «отворённой»: «По поводу» ('with regard to, apropos of') governs the genitive: «этой отворённой двери». «Отворённой» is the past passive participle of «отворить» ('opened'), agreeing in genitive feminine. The bookish «по поводу» suits the prosecutor's measured legal speech.
> Past passive participle «раненного вами» + instrumental agent: «Раненного» is the past passive participle 'wounded', in the animate accusative agreeing with «старика». The agent is named in the instrumental: «вами» ('by you'). This 'wounded-by-you old man' is precisely the participial passive whose agent goes instrumental — and a pointed reminder that the witness is Mitya's own victim.

Он ясно и настойчиво передал нам, очнувшись, на расспросы наши, что в то еще время когда, выйдя на крыльцо и заслышав в саду некоторый шум, он решился войти в сад чрез калитку, стоявшую отпертою, то, войдя в сад, еще прежде чем заметил вас в темноте убегающего, как вы сообщили уже нам, от отворенного окошка, в котором видели вашего родителя, он, Григорий, бросив взгляд налево и заметив действительно это отворенное окошко, заметил в то же время, гораздо ближе к себе, и настежь отворенную дверь, про которую вы заявили, что она всё время, как вы были в саду, оставалась запертою.  
On coming round, in answer to our questions, he related to us clearly and insistently that at the very time when, having gone out onto the porch and caught the sound of some noise in the garden, he resolved to go into the garden through the wicket-gate, which stood open — then, on entering the garden, even before he noticed you fleeing in the darkness away from the open window in which you had seen your father, as you have already told us, he, Grigory, casting a glance to the left and indeed noticing this open window, noticed at the same moment, much nearer to himself, the door standing wide open as well — the door about which you declared that all the while you were in the garden it remained locked.
> A chain of perfective gerunds: This single, vast sentence is held together by a cascade of perfective past gerunds — «очнувшись» (having come round), «выйдя» (having gone out), «заслышав» (having caught the sound), «войдя» (on entering), «бросив взгляд» (casting a glance), «заметив» (having noticed). Each marks a prior, completed step sharing Grigory's subject. Such dense gerund-chains are the engine of Dostoevsky's long periodic sentences.
> Past active participle «стоявшую» + long passive «отпертою»: «Стоявшую» is the past active participle of «стоять» ('which was standing'), accusative feminine agreeing with «калитку». It governs «отпертою», the long-form (full) feminine instrumental passive participle 'open/unlocked' — 'the wicket-gate which stood open' (a long-form predicative instrumental, «стоять отпертою»). The -ою ending is the archaic variant of the long-form instrumental ending -ой (отпертая → отпертой/отпертою); short-form participles have no instrumental, and the short form here would be «отперта».
> «калитка» — a wicket-gate: A «калитка» is a small gate for people set into a fence or beside the larger driveway gate (the «ворота»). Whether this little garden gate stood open or locked is the physical crux of the prosecutor's case against Mitya.
> Present active participle «убегающего» predicatively: «Убегающего» is the present active participle of «убегать» ('fleeing'), in the animate accusative agreeing with «вас» — 'noticed you fleeing'. Used as a secondary predicate after «заметил», it captures Mitya caught in the very act of running, exactly the image the testimony hangs on.

Не скрою от вас, что сам Васильев твердо заключает и свидетельствует, что вы должны были выбежать из двери, хотя, конечно, он своими глазами и не видал, как вы выбегали, заприметив вас в первый момент уже в некотором от себя отдалении, среди сада, убегающего к стороне забора…  
I will not conceal from you that Vasilyev himself firmly concludes and testifies that you must have run out of the door, although, of course, he did not see with his own eyes how you ran out, having caught sight of you at the first moment already at some distance from himself, in the middle of the garden, fleeing toward the side of the fence…"
> Perfective future «не скрою» — 'I'll not hide': «Скрою» is the perfective «скрыть» conjugated as a simple future ('I will conceal'); negated, «не скрою от вас» = 'I will not conceal from you'. The perfective future projects a single, deliberate disclosure — the prosecutor's measured candor.
> «должны были» + perfective infinitive — inferred necessity: «Должны были» ('must have, were bound to') plus the perfective infinitive «выбежать» ('to have run out') expresses an inference about a completed past act: 'you must have run out of the door'. This is the logical conclusion the testimony forces — the heart of the trap.
> Perfective gerund «заприметив» + participle «убегающего»: The sentence ends on another gerund, «заприметив» ('having caught sight of', the «за-» prefix lending a sudden noticing), governing «вас… убегающего» — 'you, fleeing'. Once more a present active participle pins Mitya in motion across the garden toward the fence.

Митя еще с половины речи вскочил со стула.  
Mitya leapt up from his chair while the speech was still only half through.
> «с половины речи» + perfective «вскочил»: «С половины речи» ('from halfway through the speech', «с» + genitive) marks the point from which the action springs. «Вскочил» is the perfective 'leapt up' — a single sharp event, the «в(с)-» giving the sudden upward jerk out of the chair.

— Вздор! — завопил он вдруг в исступлении, — наглый обман! Он не мог видеть отворенную дверь, потому что она была тогда заперта… Он лжет!..  
"Nonsense!" he suddenly howled in a frenzy. "A barefaced lie! He couldn't have seen the open door, because it was locked then… He's lying!.."
> «вздор» — nonsense, rubbish: «Вздор» is nonsense, balderdash, utter rubbish — a curt dismissal flung at an assertion. Paired with «наглый обман» ('barefaced deceit'), it is Mitya's whole desperate refusal of the testimony in two words.
> «потому что» + short passive «заперта»: «Потому что» ('because') opens the causal clause. «Заперта» is the short-form past passive participle of «запереть» ('locked'), feminine, predicating of «дверь»: 'because it was [in a] locked [state]'. The short passive joined to «была» is the standard way to state a resulting condition.
> «в исступлении» — in a frenzy: «Исступление» is a state of frenzy, distraction, ecstatic or raging loss of self-control — a charged Dostoevskian word for souls pushed past their limit. «Завопил» ('howled out', «за-» onset) matches it: Mitya's denial bursts out as a cry, not speech.

— Долгом считаю вам повторить, что показание его твердое.  
"I consider it my duty to repeat to you that his testimony is firm.
> Instrumental predicate «долгом» + fronting: «Считаю долгом» ('I deem it [my] duty') puts the predicate noun «долг» into the instrumental «долгом» after «считать», on the pattern of предикативный творительный. Fronting «Долгом» before the verb gives the statement formal, weighty emphasis — the prosecutor's correctness.
> Long adjective «твёрдое» as predicate: «Твёрдое» ('firm') is the long-form adjective used predicatively of «показание» ('his testimony is firm'). The clipped sentences that follow (s110, s111) hammer the same point — the cold, declarative rhythm of a man certain of his evidence.

Он не колеблется.  
He does not waver.
> Reflexive «колебаться» — to waver: «Колебаться» (-ся, 'to waver, hesitate, vacillate') is a verb that exists only in the reflexive form. Negated and standing as a terse, complete sentence, «Он не колеблется» ('He does not waver') is part of the prosecutor's drumbeat of short, decisive clauses.

Он стоит на нем.  
He stands by it.
> «стоять на (своём)» — to stand by / insist: «Стоять на (чём-л.)» idiomatically means to stand firm by a statement, to hold to one's position: «стоит на нём» = 'he stands by it'. The literal 'stands on it' becomes 'will not budge from it' — the witness is immovable.

Мы несколько раз его переспрашивали.  
We questioned him over several times."
> Imperfective «переспрашивали» — repeated questioning: «Переспрашивали» is the imperfective past of «переспрашивать» ('to re-question, ask over again'), and with «несколько раз» ('several times') the imperfective is right: it names a repeated action. The «пере-» here marks 'again/over', not a single completion.

— Именно, я несколько раз переспрашивал! — с жаром подтвердил и Николай Парфенович.  
"Just so, I questioned him over several times!" Nikolai Parfenovich confirmed with warmth.
> Emphatic «именно» + eager confirmation: «Именно» ('precisely, just so') seizes on and confirms the prosecutor's words. Nikolai Parfenovich's «с жаром» ('with warmth/eagerness') and the exclamation show him echoing his senior almost too keenly — a touch of the younger official's deference to the prosecutor.

— Неправда, неправда! Это или клевета на меня, или галлюцинация сумасшедшего, — продолжал кричать Митя, — просто-запросто в бреду, в крови, от раны, ему померещилось, когда очнулся… Вот он и бредит.  
"It's untrue, untrue! This is either slander against me or the hallucination of a madman," Mitya went on shouting. "It's simply that in his delirium, in his blood, from the wound, it seemed so to him when he came round… So he's raving."
> «просто-запросто» — plain and simple: «Просто-запросто» is an emphatic colloquial reduplication of «просто», meaning 'quite simply, plainly and simply'. Mitya uses it to wave the testimony away as obviously explicable — mere delirium, nothing more.
> Impersonal «померещилось» + dative «ему»: Like «мерещилось» in s78, «померещиться» is used impersonally with a dative experiencer: «ему померещилось» = 'it seemed to him, he imagined it'. The perfective «по-» here frames it as a single bout of seeming. Mitya recasts Grigory's evidence as a dative-experiencer hallucination.
> «бредить» — to rave, be delirious: «Бредить» means to be in delirium, to rave; «бред» is feverish raving or, by extension, nonsense. Mitya pins everything on the wounded man having been «в бреду» ('in delirium') — his last defense against the testimony.

— Да-с, но ведь заметил он отпертую дверь не когда очнулся от раны, а еще прежде того, когда только он входил в сад из флигеля.  
"Yes, sir, but, you see, he noticed the open door not when he came round from the wound, but earlier than that, when he was only just entering the garden from the lodge."
> «ведь» + «не… а» correction: «Ведь» appeals to what they both know ('but you see…'), and the «не… а» frame corrects a false assumption: «не когда очнулся… а еще прежде» ('not when he came round… but earlier'). This precise 'not X but Y' is the pivot on which the prosecutor demolishes Mitya's delirium theory.

— Да неправда же, неправда, это не может быть! Это он со злобы на меня клевещет… Он не мог видеть… Я не выбегал из двери, — задыхался Митя.  
"But it's untrue, untrue, it can't be! He's slandering me out of spite… He couldn't have seen it… I didn't run out of the door," Mitya gasped.
> «да… же» — exasperated insistence: The opening «да» (emphatic, not 'yes') plus the particle «же» on «неправда» drive home Mitya's frantic protest: 'But it's untrue, I tell you!'. «Же» insists against the listener; the repetition mounts the desperation.
> «со злобы» — genitive of cause after «с»: «Со злобы» («с» + genitive «злоба») expresses cause/motive: 'out of spite, from malice'. «Клеветать на (кого)» governs «на» + accusative ('to slander someone'). Mitya now shifts his charge: not delirium but deliberate malice on Grigory's part.
> Imperfective «выбегал» under negation: Mitya denies with the imperfective «выбегал» ('I did not run out'), and «из двери» is «из» + genitive ('out of the door'). The imperfective under «не» here denies the fact of the action altogether — not 'I didn't manage to run out' but 'no such running-out ever happened'.

Прокурор повернулся к Николаю Парфеновичу и внушительно проговорил ему:  
The prosecutor turned to Nikolai Parfenovich and said to him impressively:
> Reflexive «повернуться» + «к» + dative: «Повернуться» (-ся middle, 'to turn [oneself]') takes «к» + dative for the person turned toward: «к Николаю Парфеновичу». Note the patronymic declines too — «Парфеновичу» in the dative. The cold, deliberate movement sets up the trap to come.

— Предъявите.  
"Produce it."
> «Предъявите» — a one-word legal imperative: «Предъявить» ('to present, produce, exhibit [evidence]') is a legal term; «предъявите» is its plural/polite imperative. Standing alone, the curt command 'Produce it' is the prosecutor springing the trap — the bare imperative carries all the cold authority of the moment.

— Знаком вам этот предмет? — выложил вдруг Николай Парфенович на стол большой, из толстой бумаги, канцелярского размера конверт, на котором виднелись еще три сохранившиеся печати.  
"Is this object familiar to you?" Nikolai Parfenovich suddenly laid on the table a large envelope of thick paper, of official size, on which three preserved seals were still visible.
> Short adjective «знаком» + dative «вам»: «Знаком» is the masculine short form of «знакомый» ('familiar'), predicating of «предмет», with the person to whom it is familiar in the dative: «знаком вам» = 'familiar to you'. Short adjective plus dative experiencer — a tidy, formal 'Is this object known to you?'.
> Numeral «три» + genitive singular; participle «сохранившиеся»: After «три» the counted noun would take the genitive singular, but the modifying participle «сохранившиеся» ('preserved, surviving', past active reflexive participle) appears in the nominative plural — the standard pattern with 2/3/4. It describes the seals 'still visible' on the envelope.

Самый же конверт был пуст и с одного бока разорван.  
The envelope itself was empty and torn open along one side.
> «самый» as 'the very' + short adjective «пуст»: Here «самый» means not 'most' but 'the very' — «самый конверт» = 'the envelope itself'; «же» marks the contrastive turn ('but the envelope itself…'). «Пуст» is the short masculine adjective 'empty', predicating of «конверт». The damning detail lands in clipped, weighted words.
> Short passive participle «разорван» + «с» + genitive: «Разорван» is the short-form past passive participle of «разорвать» ('torn open'), masculine, predicating of «конверт». «С одного бока» («с» + genitive «бок») locates the tear, 'along one side'. The short passive states the envelope's resulting condition — empty and torn, the money gone.

Митя выпучил на него глаза.  
Mitya stared at him, his eyes bulging.
> «выпучить глаза» — to goggle: The idiom «выпучить глаза» means to bulge or pop one's eyes wide — a coarse, physical expression of shock. The perfective «выпучил» catches the single, sudden start of the stare.
> Perfective for a single jolt: The perfective past «выпучил» frames the action as one completed event — the eyes snap wide in an instant — against the imperfective that would describe a continuing stare. Aspect here delivers the abruptness of Mitya's shock.

— Это… это отцовский, стало быть, конверт, — пробормотал он, — тот самый, в котором лежали эти три тысячи… и, если надпись, позвольте: «цыпленочку»… вот: три тысячи, — вскричал он, — три тысячи, видите?  
"This… this is my father's envelope, then," he muttered, "the very one that held those three thousand… and if there's writing on it, allow me: 'to my little chick'… here: three thousand," he cried out, "three thousand, you see?"
> «стало быть» — so, then: A colloquial discourse marker meaning 'so', 'then', 'it follows that'. Frozen from «стать» + «быть», it threads through 19th-century speech as a verbal tic of working-through-aloud — exactly Mitya's halting reasoning here.
> Diminutive in the dative of address: «цыплёночку» is the dative singular of the diminutive «цыплёночек» — 'to the little chick', the addressee of the inscription. The suffix «-очек» layers affection (or lechery) onto the bare «цыплёнок», a constant emotional dial in Russian.
> «в котором» — relative clause of place: «который» joins the relative clause and agrees with «конверт» in masculine singular, but takes the prepositional case after «в» because it names the place where the money lay. The pronoun's case is set by its own clause, not its antecedent.
> «позвольте» — 'allow me': A polite imperative ('permit [me]'), here a parenthetical hesitation as Mitya peers at the writing — 'if there's an inscription, allow me [to look]…'. The «-те» marks the formal/plural address he keeps even in agitation.

— Как же-с, видим, но мы денег уже в нем не нашли, он был пустой и валялся на полу, у кровати, за ширмами.  
"Of course we see, but we found no money in it; it was empty and lay on the floor by the bed, behind the screens."
> «-с» — the deferential particle: The clitic «-с» (from «сударь», 'sir') tacked onto «как же» lends a servile, punctilious politeness — the speech-marker of clerks and minor officials addressing a superior. Here the investigator's «Как же-с, видим» ('Of course we do, sir') carries a faintly mocking deference.
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated «не нашли» the object «деньги» appears in the genitive «денег» rather than the accusative — the standard genitive of negation, stressing the sheer absence of money: 'we found no money at all in it'.
> «валяться» — to lie about: Not neutral 'to lie' («лежать») but «валяться» — to lie around discarded, in a heap, carelessly. The verb paints the empty envelope flung on the floor, an image of robbery's aftermath.

Несколько секунд Митя стоял как ошеломленный.  
For several seconds Mitya stood as if stunned.
> «ошеломлённый» — thunderstruck: A strong past passive participle from «ошеломить», to stun or daze utterly — etymologically as if struck on the helmet («шелом»). Stronger than English 'stunned'; it conveys a blow that empties the mind.
> Imperfective for a held state: The imperfective «стоял» holds the picture open for the «несколько секунд» — Mitya stands frozen, the duration itself the point. «как ошеломлённый» ('as if stunned') uses the participle predicatively to compare his stillness to a man dealt a blow.

— Господа, это Смердяков! — закричал он вдруг изо всей силы, — это он убил, он ограбил! Только он один и знал, где спрятан у старика конверт… Это он, теперь ясно!  
"Gentlemen, it was Smerdyakov!" he suddenly shouted with all his strength, "it was he who killed, he who robbed! He alone knew where the old man kept the envelope hidden… It was he, it's clear now!"
> Emphatic «он» — topic-comment fronting: Russian readily drops subject pronouns, so the repeated, retained «он» ('it was HE') is pure emphasis. Fronting «это он» before each verb throws all the weight onto the culprit's identity — Mitya's whole accusation rides on that pronoun.
> Short passive participle «спрятан»: «спрятан» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «спрятанный» — 'is/was hidden'. The short form states a result, here in an embedded question: 'where the envelope was hidden'. The possessor «у старика» ('at the old man's') marks whose it was.
> «и» as intensifying particle: Here «и» is not 'and' but an emphatic particle reinforcing «только он один» — 'he alone, and no one but he, knew'. Paired with «только… один», it slams the door on any other knower, a key plank of Mitya's argument.

— Но ведь и вы же знали про конверт и о том, что он лежит под подушкой.  
"But you, too, knew about the envelope and that it lay under the pillow."
> Stacked particles «ведь… же»: Three little words crowd the prosecutor's rebuttal: «ведь» appeals to what they both know ('but after all'), «и» means 'you too', and «же» insists. Together they press the contradiction home — 'but YOU yourself knew about the envelope too, didn't you'.
> «о том, что» — correlative + что-clause: The correlative «о том» ('about that') props up the reported clause «что он лежит…» — literally 'about that, that it lay…'. The demonstrative «том» (prepositional after «о») anchors the subordinate fact that «что» then unpacks.

— Никогда не знал: я и не видел никогда его вовсе, в первый раз теперь вижу, а прежде только от Смердякова слышал… Он один знал, где у старика спрятано, а я не знал… — совсем задыхался Митя.  
"I never knew it: I never even saw it at all, I'm seeing it now for the first time, and before I had only heard of it from Smerdyakov… He alone knew where the old man kept it hidden, but I didn't know…" Mitya was completely gasping for breath.
> Negative concord piled high: Russian requires every negative word to agree: «не видел… никогда… вовсе» stacks the verbal «не», the negative adverb «никогда» ('never'), and the reinforcer «вовсе» ('at all') without cancelling out. The pile-up is one emphatic denial: 'I never saw it at all'.
> «задыхаться» — to gasp, choke: The imperfective «задыхался» — 'was gasping for breath, suffocating' — conveys Mitya physically choking on his own agitation. The «совсем» ('completely') intensifies it; speech and breath fail him together.
> «от» + genitive: source: «от Смердякова» puts the name in the genitive after «от», marking the source of hearsay — 'I'd only heard it FROM Smerdyakov'. The preposition «от» governs the genitive and frames where the knowledge came from.

— И однако ж, вы сами показали нам давеча, что конверт лежал у покойного родителя под подушкой.  
"And yet you yourself told us a moment ago that the envelope lay under your late father's pillow."
> «однако ж» — 'and yet': «однако» means 'however, yet'; the tacked-on «ж» (reduced «же») sharpens the contrast — 'and yet'. A bookish, slightly old-fashioned adversative the prosecutor uses to turn Mitya's own earlier words against him.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': A colloquial, now-archaic adverb meaning 'earlier today, just a moment ago'. It places the contradiction firmly in the recent past — Mitya said the opposite only minutes earlier — and flavours the dialogue with period speech.
> Intensifier «сами» — 'you yourself': «сами» (the intensifier «сам» agreeing with formal «вы») underscores that the damning testimony came from Mitya's own mouth: 'you yourself gave evidence'. Note «показать» here in its legal sense, 'to testify, depose'.

Вы именно сказали, что под подушкой, стало быть, знали же, где лежал.  
"You said precisely that it was under the pillow, so you did know where it lay."
> «же» clinching the inference: After «стало быть» ('therefore'), the «же» on «знали же» drives the logical noose tight — 'so you DID know, then'. The particle insists on a conclusion the speaker takes to be undeniable.
> Imperfective «лежал» for a standing state: «лежал» (imperfective past of «лежать») describes the envelope's continuous resting position — where it 'lay', a stable state rather than an event. Russian uses the dedicated stative «лежать» (to lie) where English makes do with 'was'.

— Мы так и записали! — подтвердил Николай Парфенович.  
"That's just how we recorded it!" Nikolai Parfenovich confirmed.
> «так и» — 'just so, exactly': The set phrase «так и» means 'exactly thus, precisely that way' — here 'that's just how we wrote it down'. The «и» is again the emphatic particle, confirming the record matches Mitya's earlier words to the letter.

— Вздор, нелепость! Я совсем не знал, что под подушкой.  
"Nonsense, absurdity! I had no idea at all that it was under the pillow."
> «вздор», «нелепость» — nonsense, absurdity: Two exclamations of dismissal: «вздор» is 'rubbish, twaddle' (bookish, contemptuous), «нелепость» 'an absurdity, a piece of nonsense'. Hurled bare, they show Mitya batting the magistrate's logic aside before he can think.
> «совсем не» — flat total denial: «совсем» ('completely') stacked with «не» yields an absolute negation — 'I had no idea at all'. The intensifier insists there was zero knowledge, escalating from a simple «не знал».

Да, может быть, вовсе и не под подушкой… Я наобум сказал, что под подушкой… Что Смердяков говорит?  
"Yes, maybe it wasn't under the pillow at all… I said at random that it was under the pillow… What does Smerdyakov say?"
> «наобум» — at random: An adverb meaning 'haphazardly, off the top of one's head, without thinking'. Mitya pleads that he named the pillow «наобум» — blurted it blindly — a key (and self-incriminating) retraction.
> «вовсе и не» — emphatic 'not at all': «вовсе… не» means 'not… at all', and the inserted «и» reinforces it — 'maybe not under the pillow at all'. The clustering of intensifying negators conveys Mitya frantically backpedalling from his own earlier claim.
> Present «говорит» for current testimony: The imperfective present «говорит» ('what does Smerdyakov say?') asks about his standing statement now — what his account is. Mitya, drowning, grasps at the absent witness who could clear him.

Вы его спрашивали, где лежал?  
"Did you ask him where it lay?"
> Imperfective «спрашивали» — 'did you ask?': The imperfective past «спрашивали» asks merely whether the action of questioning took place at all — a general fact, not a single completed result. Russian often prefers the imperfective for such 'did you (ever) do X?' inquiries.

Что Смердяков говорит?  
"What does Smerdyakov say?"
> Refrain by repetition: The same question returns verbatim within seconds — a deliberate rhetorical repetition that dramatizes Mitya's fixation. Russian narration leaves the bare present «говорит» to do the work English would soften.

Это главное… А я нарочно налгал на себя… Я вам соврал не думавши, что лежал под подушкой, а вы теперь… Ну знаете, сорвется с языка, и соврешь.  
"That's the main thing… And I deliberately told a lie against myself… I lied to you without thinking, saying it lay under the pillow, and now you… Well, you know how it is, the tongue slips and out comes a lie."
> «нарочно» — on purpose: 'Deliberately, intentionally'. Mitya's self-accusing «нарочно налгал на себя» — 'I deliberately lied against myself' — turns the adverb into a paradox: a lie told on purpose, yet (he insists) thoughtlessly.
> «налгать на» — to slander, lie against: «налгать на (кого-то)» means to tell lies to someone's detriment, to bear false witness against. Here «на себя» — against himself: Mitya has slandered his own case. The verb «соврать» that follows is the plainer 'to fib, tell a lie'.
> Past gerund «не думавши»: «думавши» is a past adverbial participle (деепричастие) of «думать», negated — 'without having thought'. The «-вши» ending and the negation give 'I lied thoughtlessly'; the form is bookish/folk-archaic, where modern Russian would say «не думая».
> Generic 'you' in the perfective future: Both verbs are perfective conjugated forms with future meaning, but used gnomically for a general truth — 'something slips off the tongue and out you lie'. The 2nd-person «соврёшь» is impersonal 'one', a vivid Russian way to state a universal from inside experience.

А знал один Смердяков, только один Смердяков, и никто больше!.. Он и мне не открыл, где лежит!  
"And the only one who knew was Smerdyakov, only Smerdyakov, and no one else!.. He didn't even reveal to me where it lay!"
> Exclusivity by negative concord: Mitya hammers exclusivity with «только… один… и никто больше» — 'only Smerdyakov, and no one else'. The negative «никто» (with the verb's negation implied/elided) seals off every alternative; the repetition is obsessive emphasis.
> «и мне» — 'even to me': The particle «и» before the dative «мне» means 'even to me': Smerdyakov didn't reveal the hiding place even to Mitya. «открыть» here is 'to disclose, reveal' (a secret), governing the dative of the person told.

Но это он, это он; это несомненно он убил, это мне теперь ясно как свет, — восклицал всё более и более в исступлении Митя, бессвязно повторяясь, горячась и ожесточаясь.  
"But it was he, it was he; beyond all doubt it was he who killed, that is now as clear to me as daylight," Mitya kept exclaiming, ever more and more beside himself, repeating himself incoherently, growing heated and embittered.
> «ясно как свет» — clear as daylight: A set simile — 'as clear as the light [of day]', i.e. perfectly obvious. The compact «свет» ('light') stands for daylight; Mitya's certainty is rhetorical, not evidential, which is the tragic irony.
> «исступление» — frenzy, transport: «исступление» denotes a state of frenzied passion or near-madness, being beside oneself. «всё более и более в исступлении» — 'ever more and more frenzied' — is a key Dostoevskian register for a soul boiling over.
> A chain of present gerunds: Three imperfective adverbial participles in «-ясь» («повторяясь», «горячась», «ожесточаясь») describe simultaneous attendant action: Mitya exclaims while repeating himself, growing heated, and hardening. Such gerund-chains are a hallmark of literary narration, packing several co-occurring motions into one breath.
> Reflexive «-ся» across the chain: Each gerund carries the reflexive «-сь»: «повторяться» (to repeat oneself), «горячиться» (to get worked up), «ожесточаться» (to grow embittered) — all middle/change-of-state verbs that exist mainly in their «-ся» form. The clitic turns each verb inward on its subject.

— Поймите вы это и арестуйте его скорее, скорей… Он именно убил, когда я убежал и когда Григорий лежал без чувств, это теперь ясно… Он подал знаки, и отец ему отпер… Потому что только он один и знал знаки, а без знаков отец бы никому не отпер…  
"Understand this, and arrest him, quickly, quickly… He killed precisely then, when I had run off and Grigory lay senseless—that's clear now… He gave the signals, and my father opened to him… Because he alone knew the signals, and without the signals my father would have opened to no one…"
> Imperatives «поймите», «арестуйте»: Two perfective plural/polite imperatives in «-ите» / «-уйте»: 'understand this and arrest him'. The added «вы» («поймите вы») is emphatic, almost imploring. The doubled «скорее, скорей» ('quickly, quickly') redoubles the urgency.
> «без чувств» — senseless, unconscious: The fixed phrase «лежать без чувств» means to lie unconscious, 'out cold' (literally 'without senses/feelings'). Grigory, knocked down by Mitya in the garden, lay «без чувств» — the window through which Smerdyakov could have struck.
> Conditional «бы» — the counterfactual: «отпер бы… никому не» is the conditional: past-tense verb + the particle «бы» for an unreal situation — 'without the signals father would have opened to no one'. Negative concord («никому… не») runs through the hypothetical intact.

— Но опять вы забываете то обстоятельство, — всё так же сдержанно, но как бы уже торжествуя, заметил прокурор, — что знаков и подавать было не надо, если дверь уже стояла отпертою, еще при вас, еще когда вы находились в саду…  
"But again you forget one circumstance," the prosecutor observed, still just as restrained, yet as if already triumphant, "that there was no need to give any signals at all, if the door already stood open—open while you were there, while you were still in the garden…"
> «обстоятельство» — circumstance: A bookish abstract noun in «-ство», 'a circumstance, fact of the matter'. The prosecutor's measured «вы забываете то обстоятельство» ('you forget the circumstance that…') is the legalistic register against which Mitya's frenzy breaks.
> «как бы» + gerund «торжествуя»: «как бы» ('as if, as it were') softens the present gerund «торжествуя» ('triumphing') into a hedged observation by the narrator — the prosecutor 'as if already triumphant'. The gerund again names attendant manner: he remarks while inwardly exulting.
> Impersonal «было не надо» + genitive: An impersonal necessity construction: «не надо было» ('there was no need to'). The negated object «знаков» stands in the genitive (genitive of negation), and the emphatic «и» means 'there was no need to give signals at all'.
> Instrumental short(-ish) participle «отпертою»: «стояла отпертою» — 'stood open' — pairs the verb «стоять» with the past passive participle «отпертый» in the feminine instrumental «-ою» (the bookish/old variant of «-ой»). The instrumental marks the resultant state the door 'stood in', an archaic-flavoured turn typical of the period.

— Дверь, дверь, — бормотал Митя и безмолвно уставился на прокурора, он в бессилии опустился опять на стул.  
"The door, the door," Mitya muttered and stared speechless at the prosecutor; powerless, he sank back onto the chair.
> «уставиться» — to fix one's gaze: The perfective reflexive «уставиться» means to stare fixedly, to fasten one's eyes on. «безмолвно уставился» — 'stared speechlessly' — captures the moment the prosecutor's logic strikes Mitya dumb.
> «в бессилии» — prepositional of state: «в бессилии» ('in powerlessness') uses «в» + prepositional to name the state Mitya sinks back in. The reflexive perfective «опустился» ('sank down') frames the single collapse onto the chair — body following the defeat of his argument.

Все замолчали.  
Everyone fell silent.
> Inceptive perfective «замолчать»: The prefix «за-» on «молчать» (to be silent) yields «замолчать» — 'to fall silent', the onset of silence. The perfective «замолчали» marks the single moment everyone stops speaking: a charged narrative beat after the door is invoked.

— Да, дверь!.. Это фантом! Бог против меня! — воскликнул он, совсем уже без мысли глядя пред собою.  
"Yes, the door!.. It's a phantom! God is against me!" he exclaimed, gazing before him now utterly without a thought.
> Present gerund «глядя» + archaic «пред»: «глядя» is the imperfective present gerund of «глядеть» (to gaze), naming the manner in which Mitya exclaims — 'gazing before him'. The preposition «пред» (instead of modern «перед») and «пред собою» are elevated, period forms of 'before himself'.

— Вот видите, — важно проговорил прокурор, — и посудите теперь сами, Дмитрий Федорович: с одной стороны, это показание об отворенной двери, из которой вы выбежали, подавляющее вас и нас.  
"There, you see," the prosecutor pronounced gravely, "and now judge for yourself, Dmitri Fyodorovich: on the one hand there is this testimony about the open door from which you fled, which crushes both you and us.
> Imperative «посудите» — 'judge for yourself': The perfective imperative «посудите» (from «судить», to judge) with «сами» invites Mitya to draw the conclusion himself. The prosecutor's rhetorical strategy is to make the accused weigh the evidence as if a neutral party.
> Participle + relative clause stacked: Two modifiers pile onto «дверь»: the past passive participle «отворённой» ('opened') as an attribute, then the relative «из которой вы выбежали» ('from which you ran out'). «который» takes the genitive after «из» for its own clause. Bookish density typical of legal narration.
> Present active participle «подавляющее»: «подавляющее» is the present active participle of «подавлять» (to crush, overwhelm), agreeing with neuter «показание» — 'the testimony… that crushes both you and us'. The participle condenses a «которое» clause into one weighty adjective.

С другой стороны — непонятное, упорное и почти ожесточенное умолчание ваше насчет происхождения денег, вдруг появившихся в ваших руках, тогда как еще за три часа до этой суммы вы, по собственному показанию, заложили пистолеты ваши, чтобы получить только десять рублей!  
On the other hand there is your inexplicable, stubborn, and almost embittered silence about the origin of the money that suddenly appeared in your hands, when only three hours before that sum you had, by your own testimony, pawned your pistols in order to get a mere ten rubles!
> «умолчание» — passing over in silence: A bookish noun: deliberate silence, the suppression of something one could say. The prosecutor brands Mitya's «упорное и почти ожесточённое умолчание» about the money's source — his stubborn, near-bitter refusal to explain — as itself damning.
> Past active participle «появившихся»: «появившихся» is the past active participle of the reflexive «появиться» (to appear), genitive plural agreeing with «денег» — 'the money that had suddenly appeared in your hands'. A perfective stem gives the completed sense; the participle replaces a «которые появились» clause.
> «тогда как» — 'whereas'; «за… до» framing: «тогда как» is the contrastive subordinator 'whereas, while'. «за три часа до этой суммы» means 'three hours before [coming by] this sum' — «за X до Y» frames an interval before an event, with «три часа» taking the genitive-singular «часа» after the numeral.
> «по» + dative — 'according to': «по собственному показанию» ('by your own testimony') uses «по» governing the dative «показанию» in its sense 'according to, on the basis of'. The reflexive-possessive flavour of «собственному» ('one's own') turns Mitya's words back on him.

Ввиду всего этого решите сами: чему же нам верить и на чем остановиться?  
In view of all this, decide for yourself: what are we to believe, and where are we to settle?
> «ввиду» — in view of: A bookish denominal preposition (from «в виду», 'in sight of') governing the genitive: «ввиду всего этого» — 'in view of all this'. Stiff, official phrasing fitting the prosecutor's summing-up.
> Dative «нам» + «же» in a deliberative question: «чему же нам верить» frames a deliberative question impersonally: dative «нам» ('for us') plus infinitive 'what are we to believe?', the «же» pressing the dilemma. «верить» governs the dative «чему» ('believe what'); «остановиться на чём» means 'to settle on what'.

И не претендуйте на нас, что мы «холодные циники и насмешливые люди», которые не в состоянии верить благородным порывам вашей души… Вникните, напротив, и в наше положение…  
And do not hold it against us that we are 'cold cynics and mocking men' incapable of believing in the noble impulses of your soul… On the contrary, enter into our position as well…
> «претендовать на» — to hold a grievance: Here «претендовать на (кого-то)» carries its older, colloquial sense 'to be aggrieved at, take offence at someone' — 'don't hold it against us'. The imperative «не претендуйте» softens the prosecutor's appeal to Mitya not to resent them.
> Imperative «вникните» — enter into: «вникнуть в (что-то)» means to enter deeply into, to grasp from within; the perfective imperative «вникните» asks Mitya to put himself in the officials' place. «напротив» ('on the contrary') pivots from his reproach to their plea for understanding.

Митя был в невообразимом волнении, он побледнел.  
Mitya was in unimaginable agitation; he had turned pale.
> «невообразимое волнение» — unimaginable agitation: «волнение» is emotional agitation, turmoil; «невообразимый» ('unimaginable') is a strong bookish intensifier. The «в» + prepositional construction names the state Mitya is engulfed in.
> Inceptive perfective «побледнеть»: «побледнел» (perfective of «бледнеть», to grow pale) marks the single change of state — he 'turned pale'. The prefix «по-» gives the onset of pallor, a completed event punctuating his agitation.

— Хорошо! — воскликнул он вдруг, — я открою вам мою тайну, открою, откуда взял деньги!.. Открою позор, чтобы не винить потом ни вас, ни себя…  
"Very well!" he suddenly exclaimed, "I will reveal my secret to you, I'll reveal where I got the money!.. I'll lay bare my disgrace, so as not to blame either you or myself afterward…"
> Perfective future «открою»: «открою» is the perfective «открыть» conjugated for future meaning — 'I will reveal (and be done with it)'. Repeated thrice («открою… открою… Открою»), the completed-future verb stakes Mitya's resolve to disclose everything at once.
> «позор» — shame, disgrace: «позор» is public shame, ignominy, a thing that dishonours one before others. Mitya vows to lay bare his «позор» — the humiliating truth about the money — making confession itself an act of self-exposure.
> «чтобы» + infinitive of purpose: «чтобы не винить» states the purpose ('so as not to blame'); with a shared subject «чтобы» takes the infinitive rather than a past-form clause. The correlated «ни вас, ни себя» ('neither you nor myself') is negative concord — and «себя» the reflexive object pointing back to Mitya.

— И поверьте, Дмитрий Федорович, — каким-то умиленно радостным голоском подхватил Николай Парфенович, — что всякое искреннее и полное сознание ваше, сделанное именно в теперешнюю минуту, может впоследствии повлиять к безмерному облегчению участи вашей и даже, кроме того…  
"And believe me, Dmitri Fyodorovich," Nikolai Parfenovich chimed in with a kind of tenderly joyful little voice, "that any sincere and full confession of yours, made precisely at this present moment, may afterward work toward an immeasurable easing of your lot, and even, besides that…"
> «голосок» + «умилённый» — saccharine tone: The diminutive «голосок» ('little voice') and «умилённо» ('with tender emotion, meltingly') paint Nikolai Parfenovich's voice as cloyingly sweet — eager, ingratiating. The narrator's irony toward the over-warm young magistrate is carried by the suffix.
> Past passive participle «сделанное»: «сделанное» is the past passive participle of «сделать», neuter agreeing with «сознание» — 'a confession made precisely at this present moment'. The participle compresses 'which is made…' into one attribute; «теперешнюю» is the colloquial adjective 'present, current'.

Но прокурор слегка толкнул его под столом, и тот успел вовремя остановиться.  
But the prosecutor gave him a slight nudge under the table, and he managed to stop himself in time.
> Perfective «толкнул» — a single nudge: «толкнул» (perfective of «толкать», to push) names one momentary shove — the prosecutor's warning kick under the table, captured as a single completed act. «слегка» ('slightly') keeps it covert.
> «тот» as anaphoric subject; «успеть» + infinitive: «тот» ('the latter, that one') points back to Nikolai Parfenovich, switching reference cleanly from the prosecutor — a typical use of «тот» to track the non-nearest participant. «успел остановиться» ('managed to stop in time') pairs «успеть» with a perfective infinitive.

Митя, правда, его и не слушал.  
Mitya, in truth, was not even listening to him.
> «правда» as concessive; «и» emphatic: Parenthetical «правда» here means 'in truth, admittedly' — a concession from the narrator. The «и» on «и не слушал» reinforces the negation — Mitya wasn't even listening — while the imperfective «слушал» describes the absent ongoing attention.
---

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.