# The Brothers Karamazov, Mitya's Great Secret Received with Hisses

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c7. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c7.json.


— Господа, — начал он всё в том же волнении, — эти деньги… я хочу признаться вполне… эти деньги были мои.  
"Gentlemen," he began, in the same agitation as before, "this money... I want to confess it fully... this money was mine."
> Zero copula in the past, nominative complement: «Деньги» is a plurale tantum (only-plural) noun, so «были» agrees in plural; the predicate «мои» stands in the nominative because it is a possessive pronoun left attributive. Contrast the instrumental Russian uses for a role-noun after «быть» — here the simple identity 'was mine' keeps the nominative.
> Perfective reflexive «-ся» of confession: «Признаться» (to confess, own up) carries the clitic «-ся», here a verb that exists chiefly in its reflexive form. The perfective views the confession as a single decisive act Mitya is bracing himself to complete «вполне» (fully).

У прокурора и следователя даже лица вытянулись, не того совсем они ожидали.  
The faces of both the prosecutor and the examining magistrate actually fell; this was not at all what they had been expecting.
> «У» + genitive of possession; topic-first word order: «У прокурора и следователя» literally 'at the prosecutor's and magistrate's' puts the possessors in the genitive after «у», framing whose faces these are. Russian fronts this given information, then delivers the new event «лица вытянулись» (their faces fell, lit. 'stretched out').
> Genitive of the negated object: «Ожидать» governs the genitive of its object here, and under negation the demonstrative «того» (that) appears as genitive «того», not accusative — the genitive of negation marking 'this was not at all what they expected'. The fronting of «не того» throws the contrast into relief.

— Как же ваши, — пролепетал Николай Парфенович, — тогда как еще в пять часов дня, по собственному признанию вашему…  
"How can it be yours," stammered Nikolai Parfenovich, "when only at five o'clock that afternoon, by your own admission..."
> The particle «же» of insistent astonishment: «Как же…» layers the modal particle «же» onto 'how', conveying baffled insistence — 'how on earth can it be yours?'. The particle has no lexical meaning; it carries the magistrate's incredulity, the kind of texture English supplies only with stress.
> «По» + dative; bookish post-posed possessive: «По собственному признанию вашему» (by your own admission) uses «по» governing the dative «признанию». Placing the possessive «вашему» after its noun, rather than before, is a formal, slightly archaic flourish suited to the magistrate's officialese.
> «пролепетать» — to stammer out: «Пролепетал» means he babbled or stammered the words, with a sense of childlike helplessness; the prefix «про-» marks the utterance as a single completed burst. Dostoevsky favours such expressive verbs of speech to choreograph the interrogation.

— Э, к черту пять часов того дня и собственное признание мое, не в том теперь дело!  
"Eh, to the devil with five o'clock that afternoon and with my own admission — that is not the point now!"
> «к чёрту» — to the devil with it: «К чёрту» (lit. 'to the devil') is a brusque dismissive idiom, governed by «к» + dative. Mitya sweeps aside the magistrate's careful timeline with the impatience that marks his whole confession.
> Idiomatic «дело в том» negated: «Дело в том, что…» ('the point is that…') is a fixed frame; here negated and inverted to «не в том теперь дело» — 'that is not the point now'. «В том» sits in the prepositional after «в», pointing forward to the real matter.

Эти деньги были мои, мои, то есть краденые мои… не мои то есть, а краденые, мною украденные, и их было полторы тысячи, и они были со мной, всё время со мной…  
"This money was mine, mine — that is, stolen money of mine... not mine, that is, but stolen, stolen by me, and there was fifteen hundred of it, and it was on me, on me the whole time..."
> Past passive participle with instrumental agent: «Украденные» is the past passive participle of «украсть» (to steal), and «мною» is the instrumental of «я» naming the agent — 'stolen by me'. This is the textbook passive pattern: patient as subject, doer in the instrumental.
> Numeral «полторы» governing the genitive; neuter «было»: «Полторы тысячи» (one and a half thousand) takes its noun in the genitive singular «тысячи», and the existential verb defaults to neuter singular «было». «Их» is the partitive genitive 'of it'. This quantified, subjectless framing is idiomatically Russian.
> Self-correction with «то есть» and contrastive «а»: The stammering correction is steered by «то есть» (that is) and the contrastive «а» (rather, but), which marks a replacement of one statement by another. Dostoevsky reproduces Mitya's halting thought through this grammar of restatement.

— Да откуда же вы их взяли?  
"But where did you get it?"
> Opening «да» + «же»: pressing demand: The clause opens with «да» (here not 'yes' but an intensifying 'but, now') and again the particle «же», pressing the question 'but where ever did you get it?'. «Взяли» is perfective past, asking after a single completed act of taking.

— С шеи, господа, взял, с шеи, вот с этой самой моей шеи… Здесь они были у меня на шее, зашиты в тряпку и висели на шее, уже давно, уже месяц, как я их на шее со стыдом и с позором носил!  
"From my neck, gentlemen, I took it from my neck, from this very neck of mine... It was here, on my neck, sewn up in a rag and hanging from my neck, and it had been there a long time, a whole month, that I carried it on my neck in shame and disgrace!"
> «С» + genitive of source; obsessive repetition: «С шеи» (from my neck) uses «с» governing the genitive to mark the place something is taken from. The threefold repetition of «с шеи… на шее… на шее» is rhetorical, hammering the bodily intimacy of the hidden money.
> Short-form past passive participle as predicate: «Зашиты» is the short (predicative) form of the passive participle «зашитый» (sewn up), agreeing in plural with «деньги» — 'they were sewn up'. The short form here states a resulting condition, the money's hidden state.
> «стыд» and «позор» — shame and disgrace: «Стыд» is inward shame felt; «позор» is outward, public disgrace. Pairing them, Mitya names both the private and the social weight of carrying the stolen money — a distinction the prosecutor will later pick at («зазорно» vs «позорно»).

— Но у кого же вы их… присвоили?  
"But from whom did you... appropriate it?"
> «У» + genitive marking the person deprived: «У кого» (from whom) uses «у» + genitive of «кто» to name the source from whom something was taken — the same construction as 'У него нет' for possession, here for dispossession. «Же» again presses the question.
> «присвоить» — to appropriate, take as one's own: «Присвоить» is a legalistic, decorous verb for taking what belongs to another — 'appropriate' rather than the blunt «украсть» (steal). The magistrate's choice of the polite word is precisely what Mitya seizes on in the next line.

— Вы хотели сказать: «украли»?  
"You meant to say 'steal'?"
> «хотели сказать» — past imperfective of intent: «Хотели сказать» (you meant / wanted to say) pairs the imperfective past of «хотеть» with a perfective infinitive «сказать». Mitya throws the euphemism back, insisting on the harsher «украли» (stole) the magistrate avoided.

Говорите теперь слова прямо.  
Speak the words plainly now.
> Imperative «говорите» (polite plural): «Говорите» is the imperfective imperative with the polite/plural ending «-те» — a demand for an ongoing manner of speaking, 'speak plainly'. The imperfective here fits a general injunction rather than a single act.

Да, я считаю, что я их всё равно что украл, а если хотите, действительно «присвоил».  
Yes, I consider that I as good as stole it, and, if you like, I really did 'appropriate' it.
> «всё равно что» — as good as, the same as: The idiom «всё равно что» means 'tantamount to, as good as' — Mitya concedes he 'as good as stole' the money. It softens nothing morally; he is refusing the magistrate's gentler «присвоил».
> Conversational «если хотите» — if you like: «Если хотите» (if you wish) is a parenthetical hedge introduced by the subordinator «если». It politely concedes the magistrate's preferred word «присвоил», even as Mitya insists on «украл».

Но по-моему, украл.  
But to my mind, I stole it.
> «по-моему» — to my mind: «По-моему» is an adverb formed with the «по-…-ему» pattern meaning 'in my opinion, my way'. Mitya plants his own moral verdict against the magistrate's softer legal term.

А вчера вечером так уж совсем украл.  
And last night I stole it altogether.
> Stacked particles «так уж совсем»: «Так уж совсем» piles intensifiers — «так» (so), «уж» (an emphatic 'really, indeed'), «совсем» (completely) — to escalate: 'I stole it altogether.' Such particle-clusters are the heartbeat of Dostoevsky's spoken Russian.

— Вчера вечером?  
"Last night?"

Но вы сейчас сказали, что уж месяц, как их… достали!  
But you said just now that it was a month ago that you... came by it!
> «как» + time = 'it has been (a month) since': «Уж месяц, как…» is the idiom 'it's a month since…', where «как» introduces the elapsed-time clause. The perfective «достали» (got hold of) marks the single past act of acquisition that started the month's count.

— Да, но не у отца, не у отца, не беспокойтесь, не у отца украл, а у ней.  
"Yes, but not from my father, not from my father, don't worry — it wasn't from my father that I stole it, but from her."
> Negation «не», contrastive «а», and «у» + genitive: The frantic «не у отца… а у ней» sets a negated source against the true one with «а» (but rather). «У ней» is a colloquial, period variant of «у неё» (from her) — the genitive of «она» after «у».
> Negated imperative of a «-ся» verb: «Не беспокойтесь» (don't worry) is the polite negated imperative of the reflexive «беспокоиться». With negation Russian normally uses the imperfective imperative, as here, for a general reassurance.

Дайте рассказать и не перебивайте.  
Let me tell it, and don't interrupt.
> Aspect contrast in paired imperatives: «Дайте рассказать» (let me tell it) is perfective — finish the one telling — while «не перебивайте» (don't interrupt) is imperfective, the aspect negation prefers for a standing prohibition. The pairing shows the two aspects doing opposite work side by side.

Это ведь тяжело.  
This is hard, after all.
> Particle «ведь» appealing to the listener: «Ведь» appeals to shared understanding — 'this is hard, after all / you must see'. It seeks the hearer's sympathy without adding any literal content, a hallmark of Dostoevsky's intimate dialogue.

Видите: месяц назад призывает меня Катерина Ивановна Верховцева, бывшая невеста моя… Знаете вы ее?  
You see: a month ago Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva, my former betrothed, summons me to her... Do you know her?
> Historical present in vivid narration: «Призывает» (summons) is present-tense though the event is a month past — the 'historical present' Russian uses to make narration immediate. Note too the verb-first order, throwing the reader straight into the action before the subject.
> «невеста» — betrothed, bride-to-be: «Невеста» means a fiancée or bride; «бывшая невеста» is 'former betrothed', signalling a broken engagement. The word carries the weight of a formal, near-marital bond now sundered.

— Как же-с, помилуйте.  
"Why, of course, for pity's sake."
> The deferential clitic «-с» and «помилуйте»: The «-с» tacked onto «как же-с» is the «словоерс», a clipped relic of «сударь» (sir) that adds servile politeness — pure 19th-century texture. «Помилуйте» (lit. 'have mercy') is here a polite exclamation, 'for pity's sake, of course'.

— Знаю, что знаете.  
"I know you know."
> Subordinating «что» and pro-drop: «Знаю, что знаете» — 'I know that you know' — drops both subject pronouns, since the verb endings «знаю»/«знаете» already mark person. «Что» introduces the reported-fact clause.

Благороднейшая душа, благороднейшая из благородных, но меня ненавидевшая давно уже, о, давно, давно… и заслуженно, заслуженно ненавидевшая!  
A most noble soul, the noblest of the noble, but one who has long hated me — oh, long, long ago... and hated me deservedly, deservedly!
> Superlative suffix «-ейш-» with partitive genitive: «Благороднейшая» is the bookish synthetic superlative ('most noble') in «-ейш-», and «из благородных» (of the noble) gives the genitive-plural set she stands above — 'the noblest of the noble'. This elevated suffix suits Mitya's exalted praise.
> Past active participle in «-вш-»: «Ненавидевшая» is the past active participle of «ненавидеть» (to hate), feminine, agreeing with the 'soul' — 'who had long hated me'. The participle compresses a whole который-clause into one bookish modifier, and the imperfective stem gives the hatred its enduring, ongoing quality.

— Катерина Ивановна? — с удивлением переспросил следователь.  
"Katerina Ivanovna?" the magistrate echoed in surprise.
> «С» + instrumental of manner: «С удивлением» (with surprise) uses «с» + instrumental to express the manner of the action. The verb «переспросил» ('asked again, echoed back') has the prefix «пере-» for repetition.

Прокурор тоже ужасно уставился.  
The prosecutor too stared in astonishment.
> Reflexive «уставиться» — to fix one's stare: «Уставился» is the perfective of the «-ся» verb «уставиться» (to stare fixedly), here intransitive/middle in sense. «Ужасно» (terribly) functions as a colloquial intensifier, 'stared intently'.

— О, не произносите имени ее всуе!  
"Oh, do not take her name in vain!"
> Negated imperfective imperative: «Не произносите» is the negated imperfective imperative — the aspect negation requires for a prohibition. The choice echoes the Slavonic command form «не произноси», lending the line its scriptural ring.

Я подлец, что ее вывожу.  
I am a scoundrel to drag her into this.
> «подлец» — scoundrel, base wretch: «Подлец» is a strong moral insult — a vile, base man; it belongs to the family of «подлость» (baseness) that runs through this whole chapter as Mitya's self-condemnation. He turns it on himself for dragging Katerina's name into the inquiry.
> «что» = 'in that', causal subordinator: Here «что» introduces not a fact-clause but a causal/explanatory one — 'a scoundrel in that I drag her in'. «Вывожу» (lit. 'I bring out, expose') is the imperfective present describing the ongoing action he condemns.

Да, я видел, что она меня ненавидела… давно… с самого первого раза, с самого того у меня на квартире еще там… Но довольно, довольно, это вы даже и знать недостойны, это не надо вовсе… А надо лишь то, что она призвала меня месяц назад, выдала мне три тысячи, чтоб отослать своей сестре и еще одной родственнице в Москву (и как будто сама не могла послать!), а я… это было именно в тот роковой час моей жизни, когда я… ну, одним словом, когда я только что полюбил другую, ее, теперешнюю, вон она у вас теперь там внизу сидит, Грушеньку… я схватил ее тогда сюда в Мокрое и прокутил здесь в два дня половину этих проклятых трех тысяч, то есть полторы тысячи, а другую половину удержал на себе.  
Yes, I saw that she hated me... long ago... from the very first time, from that very first time at my lodgings... But enough, enough, you are not even worthy to know it, there is no need for it at all... All that's needed is this: that a month ago she called me to her and handed me three thousand to send to her sister and to another relative in Moscow (as though she couldn't have sent it herself!), and I... it was at the very fateful hour of my life, when I... well, in a word, when I had just fallen in love with another woman, with her, my present one, the one sitting downstairs at your place now, Grushenka... I carried her off then to here, to Mokroe, and in two days squandered half of those accursed three thousand here — that is, fifteen hundred — and kept the other half on myself.
> Short adjective «недостойны» as predicate: «Недостойны» is the short-form (predicative) adjective 'unworthy', agreeing in plural with «вы» — 'you are not worthy'. The short form, more bookish and absolute, governs the infinitive «знать» (to know): 'unworthy even to know it'.
> Purpose «чтоб» + infinitive; reflexive «свой»: «Чтоб(ы)» with a bare infinitive expresses purpose — 'in order to send'. «Своей сестре» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» (her own), pointing back to Katerina the subject, plus the dative «сестре» as recipient.
> «как будто» — as if, parenthetical irony: «Как будто» ('as though') frames Mitya's bitter aside, with «сама» (herself) intensifying the subject — 'as if she couldn't have sent it herself!'. The imperfective «не могла послать» states a denied past ability.
> «прокутить» — to squander in carousing: «Прокутить» means to blow money on riotous revelry — drink, women, song. The prefix «про-» conveys 'spending right through' a sum; it recurs through the chapter as the verb for Mitya's two-day debauch.

Ну вот эти полторы тысячи, которые я удержал, я и носил с собой на шее, вместо ладонки, а вчера распечатал и прокутил.  
Well, that fifteen hundred I kept back, that is what I carried about with me on my neck, in place of an amulet, and yesterday I broke it open and drank it away.
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «Которые» agrees in number/gender with «полторы тысячи» but takes the accusative as object of «удержал» (held back) within its own clause — 'which I kept back'. A clean instance of который declining for its in-clause role.
> «распечатать» — to break/open a sealed thing: «Распечатал» (broke it open) literally 'un-sealed', with «рас-» for undoing; it casts the sewn-up packet as something sealed shut, now violated. The act of opening it is itself the 'theft' Mitya keeps confessing to.

Сдача в восемьсот рублей у вас теперь в руках, Николай Парфенович, это сдача со вчерашних полутора тысяч.  
The change of eight hundred roubles is in your hands now, Nikolai Parfenovich; that is the change from yesterday's fifteen hundred.
> «У вас в руках» — 'in your hands' via «у» + genitive: «У вас… в руках» combines «у» + genitive (possession, 'with you') and «в руках» (prepositional, 'in hands') to say the money is now in the magistrate's keeping. The two locative phrases stack idiomatically.

— Позвольте, как же это, ведь вы прокутили тогда здесь месяц назад три тысячи, а не полторы, все это знают?  
"Excuse me, how can that be — surely you squandered three thousand here a month ago, not fifteen hundred; everyone knows it?"
> «позвольте» — 'allow me / excuse me': «Позвольте» (lit. 'permit') is a polite formula for interrupting or objecting, 'excuse me, allow me'. It opens the magistrate's challenge with formal courtesy even as he presses hard.
> «ведь» appealing to common knowledge: «Ведь» here invokes what everyone supposedly knows — 'surely you squandered…, didn't you'. It reinforces «все это знают» (everyone knows it) at the clause's end, the particle and the verb together pressing the public version of events.

— Кто ж это знает?  
"Who knows it?"
> «ж» (reduced «же») in a rhetorical question: «Кто ж это знает?» uses the reduced «ж» for «же», sharpening the rhetorical 'who knows it, really?'. The shortened form is colloquial and emphatic, capturing Mitya's scornful pushback.

Кто считал?  
Who counted it?
> Imperfective past in a rhetorical challenge: «Считал» is imperfective past — 'who was counting / who counted', framing the act as a process nobody performed. The bare verb-only question (subject «кто», no object) is clipped and combative.

Кому я давал считать?  
Whom did I let count it?
> Dative «кому» + imperfective «давал»: «Кому» is the dative of «кто» — 'to whom did I give (leave) to count?'. «Давал» imperfective with the infinitive «считать» asks about a repeated/permitted action: 'whom did I ever let count it?'.

— Помилуйте, да вы сами говорили всем, что прокутили тогда ровно три тысячи.  
"For pity's sake, but you yourself told everyone that you squandered exactly three thousand at the time."
> Intensifier «сами» + dative «всем»: «Сами» (yourself) intensifies «вы», and «всем» is the dative of «все» (to everyone) as the indirect recipient of the telling. The imperfective «говорили» frames it as repeated, public speech.
> «ровно» — exactly, precisely: «Ровно» (exactly, lit. 'evenly') stresses the precise round figure — 'exactly three thousand'. The exactness is the crux: the discrepancy between three thousand and fifteen hundred is what the whole interrogation turns on.

— Правда, говорил, всему городу говорил, и весь город говорил, и все так считали, и здесь, в Мокром, так же все считали, что три тысячи.  
"True, I said so, I said it to the whole town, and the whole town said it, and everyone reckoned it so, and here at Mokroe too everyone reckoned it was three thousand."
> Anaphoric repetition with «весь город»: The drumbeat repetition of «говорил» around «всему городу» (dative, 'to the whole town') and «весь город» (nominative subject) turns the rumour into a chorus. «Весь город» as a collective subject takes singular agreement.

Только все-таки я прокутил не три, а полторы тысячи, а другие полторы зашил в ладонку; вот как дело было, господа, вот откуда эти вчерашние деньги…  
Only all the same I squandered not three but fifteen hundred, and the other fifteen hundred I sewed into an amulet; that is how it was, gentlemen, that is where yesterday's money came from...
> Corrective «не… а…»: «Не три, а полторы тысячи» is the corrective pair 'not three but fifteen hundred', where «а» (but rather) substitutes the true figure for the false. This 'не X, а Y' frame is the standard Russian way of replacing one term with another.
> Presentative «вот» summing up: «Вот как дело было» — 'that is how it was' — uses the deictic particle «вот» to present and conclude. Repeated «вот… вот откуда», it gestures Mitya's account to a close with rhetorical finality.

— Это почти чудесно… — пролепетал Николай Парфенович.  
"This is almost miraculous..." Nikolai Parfenovich stammered.
> «чудесно» — miraculous, wondrous: «Чудесно» (from «чудо», miracle) means 'miraculous, marvellous'. The magistrate's 'almost miraculous' reaction registers genuine astonishment at the unexpected half-of-the-money story, with a faint religious overtone in a novel saturated by talk of miracles.

— Позвольте спросить, — проговорил наконец прокурор, — не объявляли ли вы хоть кому-нибудь об этом обстоятельстве прежде… то есть что полторы эти тысячи оставили тогда же, месяц назад, при себе?  
"Allow me to ask," the prosecutor said at last, "did you not declare this circumstance to anyone at all beforehand... that is, that you had set this fifteen hundred aside at the time, a month ago, and kept it by you?"
> Interrogative «ли» with «не…ли» softening: «Не объявляли ли вы…» uses the enclitic «ли» to form a polite yes/no question, and the «не…ли» frame softens it into a tentative 'did you not perhaps…'. This is the prosecutor's careful, literary register.
> Indefinite «-нибудь»: anyone at all: «Кому-нибудь» (dative) marks a non-specific 'anyone at all', with «-нибудь» signalling 'no matter who'; «хоть» reinforces 'even a single person'. This contrasts with «-то» (a specific but unknown someone) used elsewhere.
> Reflexive «себя» after «при»: «При себе» (on one's person, by you) uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional after «при», pointing back to the subject 'you'. It is the standard way to say one keeps something on oneself.

— Никому не говорил.  
"I told no one."
> Negative concord: «никому… не»: «Никому не говорил» pairs the negative pronoun «никому» (dative, 'to no one') with the obligatory verbal «не» — Russian's double negation, where both negatives stand for a single meaning 'I told no one'.

— Это странно.  
"That is strange."

Неужели так-таки совсем никому?  
Did you really tell absolutely no one at all?
> «неужели» and the emphatic «так-таки»: «Неужели» expresses incredulous 'is it really possible?'; «так-таки» ('really and truly, after all') doubles down. With «совсем никому» (absolutely no one) the line is a cascade of intensifiers around an elided verb.

— Совсем никому.  
"No one at all."

Никому и никому.  
No one and no one.
> Doubled negative pronoun for emphasis: Repeating «никому и никому» ('no one and no one') is pure emphatic insistence — the negative pronoun stands alone, verb elided. The reduplication conveys Mitya's adamant, almost obsessive denial.

— Но почему же такое умолчание?  
"But why such silence?"
> «умолчание» — deliberate silence, suppression: «Умолчание» is a bookish noun in «-ние» meaning a passing-over in silence, a holding-back of what one might say. The «-ние» nominalization lends the prosecutor's question its formal, probing tone.
> «же» pressing a 'why': «Почему же…» adds «же» to 'why', pressing for an explanation — 'but why such silence?'. The verbless nominal question («такое умолчание») is terse and formal.

Что побудило вас сделать из этого такой секрет?  
What moved you to make such a secret of it?
> «сделать из X секрет» — to make a secret of X: «Сделать из этого секрет» is the idiom 'to make a secret of it', with «из» + genitive «этого» marking the source material. «Что побудило вас» (what moved you) takes the accusative «вас» as object of the impelling.

Я объяснюсь точнее: вы объявили нам наконец вашу тайну, по словам вашим столь «позорную», хотя в сущности — то есть, конечно, лишь относительно говоря — этот поступок, то есть именно присвоение чужих трех тысяч рублей, и, без сомнения, лишь временное, — поступок этот, на мой взгляд по крайней мере, есть лишь в высшей степени поступок легкомысленный, но не столь позорный, принимая, кроме того, во внимание и ваш характер… Ну, положим, даже и зазорный в высшей степени поступок, я согласен, но зазорный, всё же не позорный…  
Let me put it more precisely: you have at last declared to us your secret, one so 'shameful' by your own account, though in essence — that is, of course, only relatively speaking — this act, that is, precisely the appropriation of three thousand roubles belonging to another, and, without doubt, only a temporary one — this act, to my mind at least, is only in the highest degree a thoughtless act, but not so shameful, taking into account, besides, your character... Well, granted, even a most disreputable act, I agree, but disreputable all the same, not shameful...
> Reflexive «объясниться» + comparative «точнее»: «Объяснюсь» is the perfective future of the reflexive «объясниться» (to make oneself clear). «Точнее» is the comparative 'more precisely', the invariable predicative form in «-ее» — a single word doing the work of 'let me put it more exactly'.
> Nominalized act: «присвоение» + genitive chain: «Присвоение чужих трёх тысяч рублей» ('the appropriation of three thousand roubles belonging to another') stacks genitives: the «-ние» noun governs «трёх тысяч», which governs «рублей». «Чужих» (someone else's) underlines the theft. The dense nominal style is the prosecutor's lawyerly register.
> «зазорный» vs «позорный» — disreputable vs disgraceful: The prosecutor splits hairs between «зазорный» (unseemly, mildly disreputable) and «позорный» (shameful, disgraceful) — a finer gradation of shame. The near-rhyme and the legalistic distinction set up the moral argument Mitya rejects.
> «в высшей степени» — superlative phrase: «В высшей степени» ('in the highest degree') uses the superlative adjective «высший» in a fixed adverbial phrase to mean 'extremely'. It is bookish and emphatic, marking the prosecutor's measured rhetorical escalation.

То есть я веду, собственно, к тому, что про растраченные вами эти три тысячи от госпожи Верховцевой уже многие догадывались в этот месяц и без вашего признания, я слышал эту легенду сам… Михаил Макарович, например, тоже слышал.  
That is, what I am really driving at is this: that as to those three thousand you spent of Madame Verkhovtseva's, many people had already guessed it in the course of this month even without your confession; I heard the legend myself... Mikhail Makarovich, for instance, heard it too.
> Past passive participle «растраченные» + instrumental agent: «Растраченные вами» is the past passive participle of «растратить» (to spend/squander) with the instrumental «вами» as agent — 'the three thousand spent by you'. «Про» + accusative marks the topic, 'as regards'.
> «легенда» — here, a rumour/tale: «Легенда» here means not a legend in the heroic sense but a current story or rumour going around town — the prosecutor wryly calls the gossip about Mitya 'this legend' before downgrading it to «сплетня» (gossip) in the next line.

Так что, наконец, это почти уже не легенда, а сплетня всего города.  
So that, in the end, it is almost no longer a legend, but the gossip of the whole town.
> «сплетня» — gossip, idle tale-bearing: «Сплетня» is malicious town gossip; «сплетня всего города» (the gossip of the whole town) ranks it below even a «легенда». The genitive «всего города» pins it to the whole community's chatter.

К тому же есть следы, что и вы сами, если не ошибаюсь, кому-то признавались в этом, то есть именно что деньги эти от госпожи Верховцевой… А потому и удивляет меня слишком, что вы придавали до сих пор, то есть до самой настоящей минуты, такую необычайную тайну этим отложенным, по вашим словам, полутора тысячам, сопрягая с вашею тайной этою какой-то даже ужас…  
Besides, there are signs that you yourself, if I am not mistaken, confessed it to someone — that is, precisely that this money was Madame Verkhovtseva's... And that is why it surprises me all the more that until now, that is, until this very minute, you have attached such extraordinary secrecy to that fifteen hundred you set aside, by your own account, coupling with this secret of yours a kind of horror even...
> Reflexive «ошибаться» in a parenthetical hedge: «Если не ошибаюсь» (if I am not mistaken) is a polite parenthetical, with the reflexive «ошибаться» (to be mistaken) in the imperfective present. It hedges the prosecutor's claim with lawyerly caution.
> Imperfective gerund «сопрягая»; archaic «-ою» instrumental: «Сопрягая» is the present (imperfective) gerund — 'coupling, joining' — an attendant action sharing the subject 'you'. Note «вашею тайной»: «-ею» is the bookish/poetic 19th-century instrumental ending for «-ой», marking the elevated written register.
> Subjectless 'it surprises me' with accusative experiencer: «Удивляет меня» ('it surprises me') puts the experiencer «меня» in the accusative as object, the cause as subject. This experiencer-centred framing — the feeling happening to a person — is everywhere in the novel's psychology.

Невероятно, чтобы подобная тайна могла стоить вам стольких мучений к признанию… потому что вы кричали сейчас даже, что лучше на каторгу, чем признаться…  
It is incredible that such a secret could cost you such torments to confess... seeing that you were even shouting just now that you would rather go to the convict camps than confess it...
> «невероятно, чтобы» + irrealis past: An impersonal predicate «невероятно» ('it is incredible') governs a «чтобы»-clause whose verb must be in the irrealis past form «могла» — 'incredible that such a secret could…'. «Чтобы» after a clause of (un)likelihood demands this hypothetical past, not a plain «что».
> Comparative «лучше… чем» — 'rather… than': «Лучше… чем» is the comparative construction 'better/rather X than Y', with «лучше» the suppletive comparative of «хороший». It weighs going to penal servitude against confessing — the perfective infinitive «признаться» naming the act he dreads.

Прокурор замолк.  
The prosecutor fell silent.
> Inceptive «за-»: «замолчать/замолкнуть»: «Замолк» (fell silent) is perfective, its prefix «за-» marking the inception of a state — the moment of falling into silence rather than the silence itself. Russian uses «за-» often for such 'began-to / suddenly' verbs.

Он разгорячился.  
He had grown heated.
> Reflexive «разгорячиться» — to grow heated: «Разгорячился» is a perfective «-ся» verb of change-of-state, 'he grew heated/worked up'; the «-ся» here makes the verb intransitive and middle. The «раз-» prefix conveys the building-up of the heat.

Он не скрывал своей досады, почти злобы, и выложил всё накопившееся, даже не заботясь о красоте слога, то есть бессвязно и почти сбивчиво.  
He made no effort to hide his vexation, almost his spite, and poured out everything that had accumulated, not even troubling about elegance of style — that is, disjointedly and almost incoherently.
> Negated imperfective gerund «не заботясь»: «Не заботясь» is the present gerund of the reflexive «заботиться» (to care about), negated — 'not troubling about'. It governs «о красоте» in the prepositional after «о» (about). The gerund pins this attendant non-action to the main verb «выложил».
> «слог» — literary style, diction: «Слог» (here genitive «слога») means literary style or manner of expression — 'elegance of style'. «Красота слога» is a phrase from the world of rhetoric and belles-lettres; the narrator notes the prosecutor abandoning it in his vexation.

— Не в полутора тысячах заключался позор, а в том, что эти полторы тысячи я отделил от тех трех тысяч, — твердо произнес Митя.  
"The disgrace did not lie in the fifteen hundred, but in the fact that I set this fifteen hundred apart from those three thousand," Mitya pronounced firmly.
> Cleft contrast «не в X, а в том, что…»: Mitya recasts the matter with a cleft: 'the disgrace lay not in the fifteen hundred, but in the fact that…'. «В полутора тысячах» is prepositional after «в»; «а в том, что» introduces the real locus with the correlative «то» + «что»-clause. The fronted negation throws full weight on the correction.
> Oblique declension of «полторы»: «Полутора» is the oblique-case form of «полтора/полторы» (one and a half), here prepositional with «тысячах» — a reminder that even this 'half' numeral declines through the cases when a preposition governs the phrase.

— Но что же, — раздражительно усмехнулся прокурор, — что именно в том позорного, что уже от взятых зазорно, или, если сами желаете, то и позорно, трех тысяч вы отделили половину по своему усмотрению?  
"But what of it," the prosecutor smiled irritably, "what exactly is shameful in your having, at your own discretion, set apart half of three thousand already taken disreputably — or, if you like to say so yourself, shamefully?"
> Perfective «-ся» «усмехнуться» + adverb: «Усмехнулся» is the perfective of «усмехнуться» (to give a sardonic smile/smirk), a «-ся» verb naming a single momentary expression. «Раздражительно» (irritably) colours the smirk with the prosecutor's rising annoyance.
> Past passive participle «взятых» as adjective: «Взятых» is the past passive participle of «взять» (to take), declined in the genitive plural to modify «трёх тысяч» after «от» — 'of the three thousand taken disreputably'. The adverb «зазорно' sits inside the participial phrase.
> «по своему усмотрению» — at one's own discretion: The set phrase «по своему усмотрению» (at one's own discretion) uses «по» + dative «усмотрению» and the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the subject 'you'. It is a fixed, slightly formal idiom.

Важнее то, что вы три тысячи присвоили, а не то, как с ними распорядились.  
What matters is that you appropriated the three thousand, not how you disposed of it.
> Comparative «важнее» with correlative «то, что / то, как»: «Важнее» (more important) is the predicative comparative; it heads a contrast between «то, что вы… присвоили» (the fact that you appropriated) and «то, как… распорядились» (how you disposed of it). The correlative «то» + clause is a classic Russian way to nominalize a whole proposition.

Кстати, почему вы именно так распорядились, то есть отделили эту половину?  
By the way, why did you dispose of it precisely so — that is, set this half aside?
> «кстати» — by the way, incidentally: «Кстати» (lit. 'to the point / opportunely') functions as a discourse marker, 'by the way'. The prosecutor uses it to pivot to a fresh, pointed question about the motive for setting the money aside.
> «распорядиться» — to dispose of, give orders about: «Распорядиться» (here perfective past, reflexive in form) means to dispose of or deal with something, to make arrangements. The prosecutor's word casts Mitya's hiding of the money as a deliberate, managed decision.

Для чего, для какой цели так сделали, можете это нам объяснить?  
For what purpose, to what end did you do it — can you explain that to us?
> «для» + genitive of purpose: «Для чего» and «для какой цели» both use «для» + genitive to ask 'for what / to what purpose'. «Какой цели» shows the interrogative adjective «какой» agreeing with «цель» in the genitive, doubling the question for emphasis.

— О господа, да в цели-то и вся сила! — воскликнул Митя. — Отделил по подлости, то есть по расчету, ибо расчет в этом случае и есть подлость… И целый месяц продолжалась эта подлость!  
"Oh gentlemen, but it is in the purpose that the whole crux lies!" exclaimed Mitya. "I set it aside out of baseness — that is, out of calculation, for calculation in this case is itself baseness... And this baseness went on for a whole month!"
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and «вся сила»: The hyphenated «-то» on «в цели-то» emphasises the known topic — 'it's precisely in the purpose…'. «Вся сила» (lit. 'the whole force/strength') is idiomatic for 'the whole crux, the heart of it'. The added «и» reinforces the focus.
> «подлость» and «расчёт» — baseness and calculation: Mitya equates «подлость» (baseness, vileness) with «расчёт» (cold calculation, self-interest): «по подлости» / «по расчёту», both «по» + dative meaning 'out of'. For him the calculating prudence of keeping back half the money is itself the moral baseness.
> Archaic causal «ибо» and emphatic «и есть»: «Ибо» is the bookish, elevated 'for, because', far more literary than «потому что» — Scripture-flavoured in tone. «И есть» is an emphatic identifying copula: 'calculation is precisely baseness'. Together they give Mitya's outburst a sudden sermon-like gravity.

— Непонятно.  
"It is incomprehensible."
> One-word impersonal predicate: «Непонятно» ('it is incomprehensible') is a neuter predicative adverb standing as a complete subjectless sentence. Russian readily makes such impersonal one-word judgements, with no 'it' and no copula — the prosecutor's curt verdict on Mitya's logic.

— Удивляюсь вам.  
"You amaze me."
> «-ся» verb governing the dative: «Удивляться» is a reflexive («-ся») verb whose object stands in the dative, not the accusative: «удивляюсь вам» = 'I marvel at you'. The reflexive marks the middle, emotion-turned-inward sense, and the dative «вам» names the source of the wonder.

А впрочем, объяснюсь еще, действительно, может быть, непонятно.  
But there, I'll explain further — really, perhaps it is incomprehensible.
> Perfective present = future: «Объяснюсь» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present, which is why it reads as a future intention: 'I will explain myself.' The «-ся» here is the middle/reflexive 'explain on my own part'.
> «впрочем» — the self-interrupting hinge: «А впрочем» ('but then again', 'however') is a discourse word that breaks off one thought to start another, a verbal tic of Mitya's racing mind. It signals a self-correction rather than a real adversative.

Видите, следите за мной: я присвояю три тысячи, вверенные моей чести, кучу на них, прокутил все, наутро являюсь к ней и говорю: «Катя, виноват, я прокутил твои три тысячи», — ну что, хорошо?  
You see, follow me: I appropriate three thousand entrusted to my honour, I carouse them away, I squander it all, and the next morning I present myself to her and say: 'Katya, I am guilty, I have squandered your three thousand' — well, is that good?
> «присвоять» — to appropriate: «Присвоять/присвоить» means to take something as one's own that belongs to another — the precise legal-moral word for embezzlement that hovers over this whole scene. «Присвояю» is an older imperfective form of the more modern «присваиваю».
> Past passive participle + dative: «Вверенные» is the past passive participle of «вверить» ('to entrust'), declined to agree with «три тысячи», condensing a whole relative clause ('which had been entrusted') into one word. «Моей чести» is the dative of the person/thing entrusted to.
> «прокутить» — to carouse away: The prefix «про-» here means 'squander away through revelry'; «кутить» is to go on a spree, to carouse. «Прокутил» thus packs both the drinking and the financial ruin into a single perfective verb — the leitmotif of Mitya's confession.
> Short-form adjective as predicate: «Виноват» is the short (predicative) form of «виноватый» ('guilty, at fault'). Short adjectives can only predicate, never modify, and carry the bookish, absolute ring of a confession: 'I am guilty.'

Нет, нехорошо — бесчестно и малодушно, зверь и до зверства не умеющий сдержать себя человек, так ли, так ли?  
No, it isn't good — it is dishonourable and cowardly, a beast, a man who cannot restrain himself short of bestiality — isn't that so, isn't it?
> Neuter short forms as impersonal verdicts: «Нехорошо», «бесчестно», «малодушно» are neuter short-form adjectives used impersonally — 'it is not good, dishonourable, faint-hearted' — with no subject at all. This impersonal, evaluative neuter is Russian's natural way to pass moral judgement on a situation.
> «малодушие» — smallness of soul: Literally 'small-souled-ness' (мало + душа), «малодушный» means cowardly, faint-hearted, weak of will. The compound carries a moral weight English 'cowardly' barely touches — a failure of the soul itself, central to Mitya's self-reproach.
> Present active participle phrase: «Не умеющий сдержать себя» ('not able to restrain himself') is a present active participle in «-ющий» modifying «человек», a bookish substitute for a «который»-clause. «Себя» is the reflexive pronoun, object of «сдержать».
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Так ли?» = 'Is that so?' The enclitic «ли», following the focused word «так», turns a statement into a yes/no question — more insistent and literary than mere rising intonation. Its doubling marks Mitya's feverish pleading.

Но всё же не вор?  
But still not a thief?
> Zero copula + «же»: A verbless question: Russian needs no 'is' in the present, so «не вор?» alone means 'not a thief?'. «Всё же» ('still, all the same') is a concessive particle holding the line against the prior admissions.

Не прямой же ведь вор, не прямой, согласитесь!  
Not an outright thief, after all, not outright, you must admit!
> Stacked particles «же» and «ведь»: Two modal particles pile up: «же» insists, «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all, you know'). Together they wring agreement from the listener — the very texture of Dostoevskian pleading speech, which English can only approximate with 'after all... you must admit'.
> Polite imperative: «Согласитесь» is the perfective imperative with the polite/plural «-те»: 'agree (with me)', 'you must admit'. The «-ся» on «согласиться» makes it a middle verb of coming-to-agreement.

Прокутил, но не украл!  
He squandered it, but he didn't steal it!
> Perfective past contrast with «но»: Two perfective past verbs set against each other by «но» ('but'): the squandering is owned, the theft denied. Perfective aspect frames each as a single completed deed — the whole moral arithmetic of the chapter in four words.

Теперь второй, еще выгоднейший случай, следите за мной, а то я, пожалуй, опять собьюсь — как-то голова кружится — итак, второй случай: прокучиваю я здесь только полторы тысячи из трех, то есть половину.  
Now the second case, a still more advantageous one — follow me, or else I'll lose the thread again, my head is somehow spinning — so then, the second case: I squander away only fifteen hundred out of the three thousand here, that is, half.
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «Выгоднейший» ('most advantageous') uses the bookish superlative suffix «-ейш-» rather than periphrastic «самый выгодный». «Еще выгоднейший» ('still more advantageous') is loose, expressive usage — the superlative pressed into comparative service.
> «сбиться» — lose the thread: «Собьюсь» is the perfective future of «сбиться (с мысли)», 'to get knocked off / lose one's thread'. The «-ся» marks the involuntary, self-affecting sense; the perfective future flags a feared single lapse: 'I'll lose the thread.'
> «прокучивать» — the imperfective of squandering: Here Mitya switches to the imperfective «прокучиваю» (vs. perfective «прокутить»), narrating the second hypothetical as an unfolding process — 'I am squandering away'. The aspect shift makes the scene a live re-enactment.
> «полтора» governs the genitive singular: «Полторы» ('one and a half', feminine to agree with «тысячи») behaves like the low numerals 2-4 and takes the genitive singular «тысячи». «Из трех» ('out of three') is the genitive after «из».

На другой день прихожу к ней и приношу эту половину: «Катя, возьми от меня, мерзавца и легкомысленного подлеца, эту половину, потому что половину я прокутил, прокучу, стало быть, и эту, так чтобы от греха долой!»  
The next day I come to her and bring her this half: 'Katya, take from me, a villain and a thoughtless scoundrel, this half, because I squandered the one half, and I'll squander this one too, so better to keep it out of harm's way!'
> Imperative of «взять»: «Возьми» is the singular imperative of the perfective «взять» ('take'), addressed familiarly to Katya. Built on the irregular present stem «возьм-», it commands a single completed act of taking.
> «мерзавец», «подлец» — the vocabulary of self-loathing: «Мерзавец» (scoundrel, from «мерзкий», 'loathsome') and «подлец» (villain, base man) are the recurring terms of Mitya's self-condemnation. «Легкомысленный» ('light-minded', frivolous) softens the blow with the flavour of a man pleading his own thoughtlessness rather than malice.
> Same verb, past and perfective future: «Прокутил» (perfective past, 'I squandered') and «прокучу» (perfective future, 'I will squander') sit side by side — the same deed completed and the same deed inevitably to come. The matched aspect-forms dramatise his fatalism about himself.
> «от греха подальше / долой» — out of harm's way: A folk idiom: literally 'away from sin', meaning 'to keep out of temptation/trouble'. «Долой» ('away with, down with') is an emphatic adverb of removal. Mitya casts even his prudence in the language of sin.

Ну как в таком случае?  
Well, what about it in such a case?
> Elliptical question, prepositional «в случае»: A clipped, verbless question: 'Well, how about [it] in such a case?' «В таком случае» is the prepositional case after «в» marking situation, and «таком» agrees with «случае» in the prepositional.

Всё что угодно, и зверь и подлец, но уже не вор, не вор окончательно, ибо, если б вор, то наверно бы не принес назад половину сдачи, а присвоил бы и ее.  
Anything you like — both a beast and a scoundrel — but no longer a thief, decidedly not a thief, for if he were a thief he surely would not have brought back half the change, but would have appropriated that too.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A contrary-to-fact conditional: «если б (бы) вор [был]... то... не принес бы». The particle «бы», doubled in both clauses and attaching to «если» and to «наверно», plus the past-form verb «принес», builds the irrealis: 'if he were a thief, he surely would not have brought back.'
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «Ибо» is an archaic, elevated conjunction for 'for / because', steeped in Scripture and 19th-century prose. Its solemn weight here lifts Mitya's tavern logic to the pitch of a moral demonstration.
> «и» as 'too' + counterfactual: «Присвоил бы и ее» = 'would have appropriated that [half] too'. The «и» before «ее» is not 'and' but the focal particle 'even/too', and «бы» + past «присвоил» continues the counterfactual reasoning of the sentence.

Тут же она видит, что коль скоро принес половину, то донесет и остальные, то есть прокученные, всю жизнь искать будет, работать будет, но найдет и отдаст.  
And at once she sees that, since he brought back half, he will pay back the rest as well — that is, the squandered part — that he will hunt for it all his life, will work, but will find it and pay it back.
> «коль скоро» — archaic 'since, inasmuch as': «Коль скоро» is a bookish conditional-causal conjunction ('once', 'since', 'inasmuch as'), with «коль» an old contraction of «если». It belongs to the elevated 19th-century register and lends formality to her imagined reasoning.
> Future chain, perfective vs. compound imperfective: A run of futures shows the aspect logic: «искать будет», «работать будет» are imperfective compound futures (ongoing seeking, working), while «донесет», «найдет», «отдаст» are perfective simple futures naming the eventual completed results — he'll search and work, and finally find and return it.
> «прокученные» — the squandered (money): A past passive participle of «прокутить», used substantively as 'the squandered part'. The whole leitmotif verb of the chapter has now hardened into an adjective — the money is defined by the deed done to it.

Таким образом, подлец, но не вор, не вор, как хотите, не вор!  
In that way, he is a scoundrel, but not a thief, not a thief, say what you will, not a thief!
> «как хотите» — 'say what you will': Literally 'as you wish', this set phrase concedes nothing: 'whatever you say, [still] not a thief'. The triple «не вор» around it turns the denial into an incantation.

— Положим, что есть некоторая разница, — холодно усмехнулся прокурор. — Но странно все-таки, что вы видите в этом такую роковую уже разницу.  
"Let us grant there is a certain difference," the prosecutor smiled coldly. "But it is strange all the same that you should see in it so fatal a difference."
> «Положим» — concessive imperative: «Положим» ('let us suppose, let us grant') is a 1st-person-plural imperative used as a concessive discourse marker. The prosecutor grants a point only to undercut it — cold rhetorical fencing against Mitya's heat.
> Manner adverb + perfective «-ся»: «Холодно усмехнулся» — 'smiled coldly (once)'. «Усмехнуться» is a perfective «-ся» verb naming a single smirk; the adverb «холодно» pins its quality. Russian routinely folds an adverb of manner before the verb of speech-tagging.

— Да, вижу такую роковую разницу!  
"Yes, I see so fatal a difference!"
> Accusative agreement chain: «Такую роковую разницу» — determiner, adjective, and noun all in the feminine accusative singular, the object of «вижу». «Роковой» ('fateful, fatal') is the heightened word Mitya seizes on from the prosecutor and flings back.

Подлецом может быть всякий, да и есть, пожалуй, всякий, но вором может быть не всякий, а только архиподлец.  
Anyone may be a scoundrel, and is one, perhaps — anyone — but not anyone can be a thief; only an arch-scoundrel can.
> Predicate instrumental after «быть»: «Подлецом» is the instrumental predicate of «быть» ('to be a scoundrel'). After the infinitive «быть», the role-noun takes the instrumental, not the nominative — a hallmark of 'becoming/being' as a temporary or assumed state.
> «архи-» — the intensifying prefix: «Архиподлец» ('arch-scoundrel') prefixes Greek «архи-» ('chief, arch-') to «подлец» for a superlative of villainy. The bookish, almost ecclesiastical prefix (cf. «архиерей», bishop) lends mock-solemnity to Mitya's hierarchy of baseness.
> Contrastive «а» after negation: «Не всякий, а только...» — 'not just anyone, but only...'. After a negation, «а» introduces the corrective alternative (X not, but rather Y), a use distinct from 'and'. This не...а frame is the backbone of Mitya's distinctions.

Ну да я там этим тонкостям не умею… А только вор подлее подлеца, вот мое убеждение.  
Well, I'm no good at such fine distinctions there... But a thief is baser than a scoundrel — that is my conviction.
> Dative object after «не умею»: «Этим тонкостям» is dative ('I'm not good at these subtleties'), an unusual dative government left dangling as the sentence breaks off. The trailing «не умею» without an infinitive captures Mitya's self-deprecating shrug.
> Comparative + genitive of comparison: «Подлее» is the predicative comparative ('baser'), and «подлеца» is the genitive of the standard of comparison — 'baser than a scoundrel'. Russian forms the simple comparison either with «чем» or, more tersely, with this bare genitive.
> «убеждение» — conviction: «Убеждение» (from «убедить», to convince) is a firmly held conviction or belief. «Вот мое убеждение» — 'that is my conviction' — gives Mitya's tavern-philosophy the gravity of a creed.

Слушайте: я ношу деньги целый месяц на себе, завтра же я могу решиться их отдать, и я уже не подлец, но решиться-то я не могу, вот что, хотя и каждый день решаюсь, хотя и каждый день толкаю себя: «Решись, решись, подлец», и вот весь месяц не могу решиться, вот что!  
Listen: I carry the money on me a whole month; tomorrow I may resolve to give it back, and then I am no longer a scoundrel — but resolve I cannot, that's the thing, though every day I resolve, though every day I goad myself: 'Resolve, resolve, you scoundrel,' and for a whole month, you see, I cannot resolve, that's the thing!
> Imperfective for durative carrying: «Ношу» (imperfective present of «носить», the multidirectional carry-verb) with «целый месяц» ('a whole month') names habitual, ongoing action. «Носить» rather than «нести» because it is repeated daily carrying, not one trip.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «решиться» topicalizes and emphasizes the very verb at issue: 'as for resolving, I cannot' — distinct from indefinite «что-то». It throws Mitya's helplessness into relief.
> Concessive «хотя и»: «Хотя и...» ('although, even though') concedes a point: 'though every day I resolve'. The «и» reinforces the concession. The repeated «хотя и каждый день» frames his daily failure as endless, hopeless repetition.
> Reflexive «себя» + imperative to oneself: «Толкаю себя» ('I push/goad myself') uses the full reflexive pronoun «себя» as object, and the quoted «Решись!» is the «-ся» imperative he barks at himself. Mitya splits into goader and goaded — the self addressing the self.

Что, хорошо, по-вашему, хорошо?  
Well, is that good, in your view, is it good?
> «по-вашему» — 'in your view': The prefix «по-» + possessive «-ему» forms an adverb of opinion/manner: 'in your opinion, your way'. Cf. «по-моему», «по-русски». Mitya throws the judgement back onto his interrogators.

— Положим, не так хорошо, это я отлично могу понять и в этом я не спорю, — сдержанно ответил прокурор. — Да и вообще отложим всякое препирание об этих тонкостях и различиях, а вот опять-таки если бы вам угодно было перейти к делу.  
"Let us grant it is not so good — that I can perfectly well understand, and on that point I do not dispute," the prosecutor answered with restraint. "But in any case let us set aside all wrangling over these fine points and distinctions, and let us again, if you please, get back to the matter at hand."
> Exhortative «отложим»: «Отложим» ('let us set aside') is again the 1st-plural perfective used as a polite exhortation, parallel to «Положим». The prosecutor steers the talk with these cool 'let us' forms.
> «препирание» — wrangling: «Препирание» (from «препираться», to bicker/wrangle) is a bookish noun for petty disputation. Calling Mitya's anguished distinctions mere «препирание» is the prosecutor's dismissive, deflating move.
> Polite conditional with dative «вам угодно»: «Если бы вам угодно было...» is an elaborately polite irrealis: «бы» softens it to deference, and «вам угодно» is the dative-experiencer idiom ('if it would please you'). The dative «вам» is the one to whom the pleasing is, with no nominative subject.

А дело именно в том, что вы еще не изволили нам объяснить, хотя мы и спрашивали: для чего первоначально сделали такое разделение в этих трех тысячах, то есть одну половину прокутили, а другую припрятали?  
And the matter is precisely this, which you have not yet deigned to explain to us, though we asked: for what purpose did you originally make such a division in those three thousand — that is, squander the one half and hide away the other?
> «изволить» — the courtly 'deign': «Изволить» is an archaic, super-polite (and here faintly ironic) verb, 'to deign / be pleased to'. «Не изволили объяснить» = 'you have not deigned to explain'. Its old-regime courtesy needles Mitya even as it flatters.
> Purpose «для чего» + perfective deed: «Для чего» ('for what purpose') + «сделали разделение» (perfective past, 'made a division') asks after the single, deliberate act. The prosecutor's whole question turns on motive — the «для чего» that, for Mitya, hides the real shame.
> Contrastive «а» between the two halves: «Одну... а другую...» ('the one... and/while the other...') uses «а» as the balancing hinge between two contrasted acts — squandering one half against hiding the other. This is «а» at its most characteristic: topic-shift, not opposition.

Именно для чего, собственно, припрятали, на что хотели, собственно, эти отделенные полторы тысячи употребить?  
Precisely for what did you hide it away — what, precisely, did you mean to do with this fifteen hundred you had set apart?
> «припрятать» — to stash away: The prefix «при-» on «прятать» ('to hide') adds the nuance of squirreling something away for later, on the quiet. It is exactly the furtive, calculated hiding the prosecutor wants Mitya to account for.
> Past passive participle as modifier: «Отделенные» ('set apart, separated off') is the past passive participle of «отделить», agreeing with «полторы тысячи», compressing 'which had been set apart' into one adjective — the bookish economy of the magistrate's speech.

Я на этом вопросе настаиваю, Дмитрий Федорович.  
I insist upon this question, Dmitri Fyodorovich.
> «настаивать на» + prepositional: «Настаивать на чём-то» ('to insist on something') governs «на» + prepositional: «на этом вопросе». The fixed preposition-case pairing is part of the verb's meaning — a small point of government to internalize.

— Ах да, и в самом деле! — вскричал Митя, ударив себя по лбу, — простите, я вас мучаю, а главного и не объясняю, а то бы вы вмиг поняли, ибо в цели-то, в цели-то этой и позор!  
"Ah yes, indeed!" cried Mitya, striking himself on the forehead. "Forgive me, I'm tormenting you and not explaining the main thing, or else you would have understood in a flash, for it is in the purpose, in the purpose of it, that the shame lies!"
> Perfective gerund «ударив»: «Ударив» is the perfective past gerund (деепричастие) of «ударить» ('having struck'), naming an action just prior to and accompanying «вскричал». «Себя по лбу» — 'oneself on the forehead', with «себя» the reflexive object and «по лбу» the dative of the spot struck.
> «а то» + counterfactual: «А то бы вы... поняли» — 'or else you would have understood'. «А то» ('otherwise, or else') sets up a contrary-to-fact result, carried by «бы» + perfective past «поняли». «Вмиг» = 'in an instant'.
> Emphatic «-то» + word order for stress: Mitya repeats «в цели-то» ('in the purpose, of all things') with the emphatic clitic «-то», then lands on «и позор» — 'there lies the shame'. The doubling and fronting hurl the weight onto 'the purpose', the true seat of his disgrace.

Видите, тут всё этот старик, покойник, он всё Аграфену Александровну смущал, а я ревновал, думал тогда, что она колеблется между мною и им; вот и думаю каждый день: что, если вдруг с ее стороны решение, что, если она устанет меня мучить и вдруг скажет мне: «Тебя люблю, а не его, увози меня на край света».  
You see, it all comes back to that old man, the dead man — he was always troubling Agrafena Aleksandrovna, and I was jealous, I thought then that she was wavering between me and him; and so every day I think: what if a decision suddenly comes from her side, what if she tires of tormenting me and suddenly says to me, 'I love you, not him, carry me off to the ends of the earth.'
> «покойник» — the deceased: «Покойник» ('the dead man, the deceased', from «покой», rest/peace) refers to old Fyodor Pavlovich, the murdered father. The euphemism's calm root ('the one at rest') sits in chilling tension with the patricide hanging over the scene.
> Verbless «что, если» supposition: «Что, если...?» ('what if...?') frames a hypothetical, and the clause «с её стороны решение» has no verb — 'a decision [comes] from her side'. Russian freely omits the copula, leaving the bare noun «решение» to do the work.
> Imperfective imperative «увози»: «Увози» is the imperfective imperative of the prefixed motion verb «увозить» ('carry off'); the imperfective gives a sweeping, urging tone ('carry me off!'). «На край света» — 'to the edge of the world' — is a set hyperbole of total flight.

А у меня всего два двугривенных; с чем увезешь, что тогда делать, — вот и пропал.  
And I have only two twenty-copeck pieces to my name; with what could you carry her off, what would there be to do then — and so I'm done for.
> A twenty-copeck coin: A «двугривенный» is a coin worth two «гривенники» (a «гривенник» = ten copecks), so twenty copecks. «Два двугривенных» is therefore forty copecks — a tiny sum, which is exactly Mitya's point: he was nearly penniless. We render it 'two twenty-copeck pieces' to keep the coin he names rather than flattening it to the total.
> Possession by «у» + genitive; numeral government: «У меня» ('I have', lit. 'by me') is the standard Russian possession frame, «у» + genitive. «Два двугривенных» shows the numeral «два» taking the genitive — here the substantivized adjective «двугривенных» in genitive plural after the higher count of coins.
> Self-address in 2nd person + dative-less infinitive: Mitya slips into addressing himself as «ты»: «с чем увезёшь» ('with what will you carry her off'). «Что тогда делать» is the bare infinitive of deliberation ('what is one to do then'), an impersonal construction with no subject.
> «пропал» — 'I'm done for': «Пропасть» literally is 'to perish, be lost'; in the past «(вот и) пропал» it is an exclamation of doom — 'and so I'm finished / done for'. «Вот и» frames it as the foregone, fated outcome.

Я ведь ее тогда не знал и не понимал, я думал, что ей денег надо и что нищеты моей она мне не простит.  
For I did not know her then and did not understand her; I thought she needed money and that she would not forgive me my poverty.
> Genitive of negation + dative of person: Under negation «не простит», the object «нищету» shifts to genitive «нищеты» ('she would not forgive me my poverty'), and «мне» is the dative of the person forgiven. Two cases at once dramatize his dread of her judgement.
> «нищета» — destitution: «Нищета» is not mere poverty but beggary, destitution (cf. «нищий», a beggar). Mitya fears not that Grushenka finds him poor but that she sees him reduced to nothing — a sharper, more shaming word.

И вот я ехидно отсчитываю половину от трех тысяч и зашиваю иглой хладнокровно, зашиваю с расчетом, еще до пьянства зашиваю, а потом, как уж зашил, на остальную половину еду пьянствовать!  
And so I spitefully count off half of the three thousand and sew it up with a needle, cold-bloodedly, sew it up by calculation, sew it up even before the drinking, and then, once it was sewn up, off I go with the other half to carouse!
> «ехидно» — venomously, slyly: «Ехидный» (from «ехидна», a viper/echidna) means venomous, malicious, snide. Applied to himself — «ехидно отсчитываю» — it casts his careful counting as a serpent's cold spite, deepening the self-disgust.
> Instrumental of means «иглой»: «Иглой» ('with a needle') is the instrumental of instrument — the means of the sewing. The repeated imperfective «зашиваю» ('I sew up') makes the act vivid and ongoing, a present-tense re-enactment of the deliberate concealment.
> «хладнокровно» — cold-bloodedly: «Хладнокровно» joins the Church-Slavonic «хлад-» ('cold', cf. modern «холод») to «кровь» ('blood'): 'cold-bloodedly'. The elevated «хлад-» form (vs. everyday «холодно») gives the self-accusation a literary chill.
> Perfective «зашил» then narrative present «еду»: «Как уж зашил» (perfective past, 'once I'd sewn it up') sets the completed condition, then «еду пьянствовать» switches to a vivid narrative present of the motion verb «ехать» — 'off I go to carouse'. The aspect/tense shift propels the scene forward.

Нет-с, это подлость!  
No, sir, that is baseness!
> «подлость» — baseness: «Подлость» is the abstract noun of «подлый» (base, vile) — the quality of being a «подлец». The naked one-word verdict «это подлость!» distills the whole confession into its moral essence.

Поняли теперь?  
Do you understand now?
> Perfective past as completed grasp: «Поняли?» (perfective past, 2nd-plural) asks whether comprehension has now been achieved — a single completed act of understanding, not the process. The bare verb, subject dropped, is conversational and urgent.

Прокурор громко рассмеялся, следователь тоже.  
The prosecutor laughed aloud, and so did the magistrate.
> Perfective «-ся» of bursting into laughter: «Рассмеялся» — the prefix «рас-» + «смеяться» gives the perfective 'burst out laughing', a single onset of laughter. «Следователь тоже» ellipts the verb: 'the magistrate [laughed] too'.

— По-моему, даже благоразумно и нравственно, что удержались и не все прокутили, — прохихикал Николай Парфенович, — потому что что же тут такого-с?  
"To my mind it was even prudent and moral that you held back and did not squander it all," Nikolai Parfenovich tittered, "for what is there in that, sir?"
> Reflexive «удержаться» + genitive of negation: «Удержались» ('you held yourselves back', «-ся» middle of restraint) and «не всё прокутили» — under negation the object tilts toward 'not all'. The neuter short forms «благоразумно и нравственно» judge it impersonally as 'prudent and moral'.
> «прохихикать» — to titter out: «Хихикать» is to titter or giggle (onomatopoeic 'hee-hee'); the prefix «про-» turns it perfective, 'tittered out (his words)'. The belittling, undignified verb skewers the magistrate's manner.

— Да то, что украл, вот что!  
"The fact that I stole it, that's what!"
> Correlative «то, что» + framing «вот что»: «То, что украл» — the correlative «то» ('that') sets up the clause «что украл» ('that I stole'): 'the fact that [I] stole'. «Вот что!» ('that's what!') slams the point home. «Да» here is emphatic, not 'yes'.

О боже, вы меня ужасаете непониманием!  
Good God, you appall me with your failure to understand!
> Instrumental of cause/means: «Непониманием» ('with [your] failure to understand') is instrumental — the means by which 'you appall me'. «Непонимание» is itself a negated abstract noun ('non-understanding'). The case turns their obtuseness into the very instrument of his torment.

Всё время, пока я носил эти полторы тысячи, зашитые на груди, я каждый день и каждый час говорил себе: «Ты вор, ты вор!»  
All the while I carried that fifteen hundred sewn up on my breast, every day and every hour I said to myself: 'You are a thief, you are a thief!'
> Past passive participle + locative «на груди»: «Зашитые» ('sewn up') is the past passive participle agreeing with «полторы тысячи». «На груди» is the special stressed locative («грудь» → на груди́), the prepositional of location, 'on [my] breast'.
> Imperfective for daily repetition + «себе»: «Говорил» is imperfective past for habitual action ('I said to myself [again and again]'), reinforced by «каждый день и каждый час». «Себе» is the dative reflexive ('to myself'). The repeated inner accusation «Ты вор!» is staged as a daily ritual.

Да я оттого и свирепствовал в этот месяц, оттого и дрался в трактире, оттого и отца избил, что чувствовал себя вором!  
Indeed, it was for that I raged so this month, for that I brawled in the tavern, for that I beat my father — because I felt myself a thief!
> Anaphoric «оттого и» — 'that's why': Three clauses open with «оттого и» ('it was for that reason that...'), a hammering causal anaphora that traces every act of the month back to one cause. «Что чувствовал себя вором» supplies it: 'because I felt myself a thief'.
> «чувствовать себя» + instrumental predicate: «Чувствовать себя кем-то» ('to feel oneself [to be] something') takes the predicate in the instrumental: «вором», 'a thief'. The reflexive «себя» plus instrumental role-noun is the standard frame for 'feeling oneself X'.
> «свирепствовать» — to rage: From «свирепый» ('ferocious, savage'), «свирепствовать» is to rage, to behave with savage violence. The word casts Mitya's month of brawling as a kind of beastliness — tying back to the «зверь» (beast) of his earlier self-portrait.

Я даже Алеше, брату моему, не решился и не посмел открыть про эти полторы тысячи: до того чувствовал, что подлец и мазурик!  
I could not even bring myself, did not dare, to reveal this fifteen hundred to Alyosha, my own brother — that was how strongly I felt I was a scoundrel and a swindler!
> Doubled negation of resolve: «Не решился и не посмел» — 'I did not bring myself to, nor did I dare' — pairs two perfective negated verbs governing the infinitive «открыть» ('to reveal'). The doubling intensifies the impossibility of the confession even to his brother.
> «мазурик» — a petty crook: «Мазурик» is slangy, derisive cant for a swindler, pickpocket, or petty thief. Paired with «подлец», it drags Mitya's self-image down into the gutter argot of the criminal world — sharper and lower than the literary «вор».

Но знайте, что пока я носил, я в то же время каждый день и каждый час мой говорил себе: «Нет, Дмитрий Федорович, ты, может быть, еще и не вор».  
But know this: that while I carried it, at the very same time, every day and every hour of mine, I said to myself: 'No, Dmitri Fyodorovich, perhaps you are not a thief yet.'
> Imperative «знайте» + temporal «пока»: «Знайте» is the polite imperative 'know!'. «Пока я носил» ('while I carried'), with imperfective «носил» under the conjunction «пока» ('while'), frames the ongoing background against which the daily inner speech recurred.
> «еще не» — 'not yet': «Ещё... не вор» = 'not yet a thief', the «ещё» turning the negation temporal — the theft is still avertable. The «и» is the focal 'even/quite'. Verbless («не вор», zero copula), the line hangs his fate on a single still-open day.

Почему?  
Why?

А именно потому, что ты можешь завтра пойти и отдать эти полторы тысячи Кате.  
For this very reason — that tomorrow you can go and give that fifteen hundred back to Katya.
> Perfective infinitives of the still-open deed: «Пойти и отдать» — two perfective infinitives ('go and give back') name the single redeeming act that remains possible 'tomorrow'. «Завтра» plus the perfectives keeps the future hypothetically clean — the loophole through which he is 'not yet a thief'.
> Dative recipient «Кате»: «Кате» is the dative of «Катя» — the recipient of «отдать» ('give back to Katya'). The dative of the indirect object is the natural case of the person to whom something is restored.

И вот вчера только я решился сорвать мою ладонку с шеи, идя от Фени к Перхотину, а до той минуты не решался, и только что сорвал, в ту же минуту стал уже окончательный и бесспорный вор, вор и бесчестный человек на всю жизнь.  
And it was only yesterday that I resolved to tear my amulet from my neck, on my way from Fenya's to Perkhotin's, and until that moment I had not resolved; and the instant I tore it off, that very minute I became at last a settled and indisputable thief, a thief and a dishonourable man for life.
> «ладанка» — an amulet pouch: A «ладанка» (here spelled «ладонка») is a small cloth pouch worn on a cord round the neck, originally holding incense («ладан») or a relic, amulet, or scrap of prayer. Mitya has profaned this near-sacred object by sewing his money into it — the consecrated reliquary turned into a hiding-place for stolen cash.
> Imperfective gerund «идя»: «Идя» is the present (imperfective) gerund of «идти» ('while walking, on my way'), naming the simultaneous motion during which he resolved. «От Фени... к Перхотину» pairs «от» + genitive (from) with «к» + dative (toward) — the grammar of a journey between two people.
> Perfective sequence of the irreversible moment: «Только что сорвал» ('the instant I tore it off', perfective) triggers «стал... вор» ('I became a thief', perfective) — two completed acts in instantaneous sequence. Perfective aspect makes the transformation point-like and irrevocable: one motion, and he is changed for life.

Почему?  
Why?

Потому что вместе с ладонкой и мечту мою пойти к Кате и сказать: «Я подлец, а не вор» — разорвал!  
Because along with the amulet I tore up my dream as well — the dream of going to Katya and saying: 'I am a scoundrel, but not a thief'!
> Wrenched word order for emphasis: The object «мечту мою» ('my dream') is hurled to the front, far from its verb «разорвал» ('I tore up') at the very end — a violent inversion that mimics the rending. The «и» ('also/along with') yokes the dream to the amulet: tearing one tore the other.
> «мечта» — a cherished dream: «Мечта» is not a sleeping dream («сон») but a waking dream, a longing or cherished fantasy. Mitya's «мечта» — to face Katya as 'a scoundrel but not a thief' — was the one self-respecting hope he clung to; tearing the amulet destroyed it.

Понимаете теперь, понимаете!  
Do you understand now, do you understand!

— Почему же вы именно вчера вечером на это решились? — прервал было Николай Парфенович.  
"Why was it precisely last night that you resolved on it?" Nikolai Parfenovich tried to put in.
> The particle «было» — an abandoned action: «Прервал было» uses the special particle «было», which marks an action begun but cut short or undone: 'started to interrupt (but didn't get to finish)'. It is a uniquely Russian way to flag a move that misfires — the magistrate's question is overrun by Mitya.

— Почему?  
"Why?"

Смешно спрашивать: потому что осудил себя на смерть, в пять часов утра, здесь на рассвете: «Ведь всё равно, подумал, умирать, подлецом или благородным!»  
It's absurd to ask: because I condemned myself to death, at five o'clock in the morning, here, at daybreak: 'After all,' I thought, 'it makes no difference whether one dies a scoundrel or a man of honour!'
> «осудить на» + accusative + reflexive «себя»: «Осудить кого на что» ('to condemn someone to') governs «на» + accusative «на смерть» ('to death'); «себя» is the reflexive object — 'I condemned myself to death'. Perfective «осудил» fixes it as the decisive verdict he passed on himself.
> «всё равно» + instrumental predicate: «Всё равно» ('it makes no difference, all the same') frames the impersonal thought. «Умирать подлецом или благородным» puts the predicate role-nouns in the instrumental after the infinitive «умирать» — 'to die a scoundrel or a man of honour'.

Так вот нет же, не всё равно оказалось!  
Well, and there it is — no, it turned out it did make a difference!
> Insistent «нет же» + «оказалось»: «Нет же» — «нет» reinforced by the insistent particle «же» — sharply reverses the prior thought: 'but no!'. «Оказалось» (impersonal perfective, 'it turned out') reports the discovery: «не всё равно», 'it did make a difference after all'.

Верите ли, господа, не то, не то меня мучило больше всего в эту ночь, что я старика слугу убил и что грозила Сибирь, и еще когда? — когда увенчалась любовь моя и небо открылось мне снова!  
Would you believe it, gentlemen, that was not what tormented me most that night — not that I had killed the old servant and that Siberia threatened me, and that too just when? — just when my love was crowned and heaven opened to me again!
> Interrogative «ли» in an appeal: «Верите ли...?» ('would you believe...?') uses the particle «ли» to form the rhetorical question, fronting the verb «верите». It is an oratorical appeal to the listeners («господа», gentlemen) rather than a real request for an answer.
> Fronted «не то» for contrastive focus: «Не то... меня мучило» — 'it was not that which tormented me'. «То» ('that') is fronted and doubled for emphasis, setting up the contrast resolved only in the next sentence. Negation here targets the focused element, not the verb itself.
> Inceptive «-ся» verbs of completion: «Увенчалась» ('was crowned', from «увенчать», to crown) and «открылось» ('opened') are perfective «-ся» verbs marking completed change of state. The exalted, almost liturgical imagery — love crowned, heaven opening — soars against the squalor of the money.

О, это мучило, но не так: всё же не так, как это проклятое сознание, что я сорвал наконец с груди эти проклятые деньги и их растратил, а стало быть, теперь уже вор окончательный!  
Oh, that tormented me, but not in the same way: still not in the way that accursed awareness did — that I had at last torn that accursed money from my breast and spent it, and so was now an utter thief for good!
> Comparative «не так, как» frame: «Не так, как...» ('not in the way that...') sets up a comparison of degree of torment: nothing tormented him «так, как это проклятое сознание» — 'as much as that accursed awareness'. «Сознание» here is the consciousness/awareness of his act.
> «проклятый» — accursed: «Проклятый» (from «проклясть», to curse) means accursed, damned. Mitya brands both the «сознание» and the «деньги» with it twice over — the money and the very knowledge of it are cursed objects, charged with a near-religious malediction.
> «стало быть» — inferential 'and so': «Стало быть» ('therefore, consequently, and so') is a colloquial inferential marker drawing the conclusion. The verbless «теперь уже вор окончательный» ('now an utter thief for good') lands the verdict with no copula, just the bare nominative.

О господа, повторяю вам с кровью сердца: много я узнал в эту ночь!  
Oh gentlemen, I repeat it to you with the blood of my heart: I learned a great deal that night!
> «с кровью сердца» — with the heart's blood: A heightened, almost biblical idiom: 'with the blood of [my] heart', i.e. with utmost anguish and sincerity. The phrase pitches Mitya's confession at the register of martyrdom — speaking as if bleeding.
> Fronted «много» for emphasis: «Много я узнал» front-loads the object «много» ('much') before subject and verb, throwing the weight onto the quantity of what was learned. «Узнал» is perfective: a sum of insight gained, complete, in one night.

Узнал я, что не только жить подлецом невозможно, но и умирать подлецом невозможно… Нет, господа, умирать надо честно!..  
I learned that it is not only impossible to live as a scoundrel, but impossible to die as one too... No, gentlemen, one must die honourably!..
> «не только... но и» + impersonal «невозможно»: The correlative «не только... но и» ('not only... but also') balances two impersonal predications with «невозможно» ('it is impossible'). «Жить/умирать подлецом» take the instrumental predicate «подлецом» after the infinitives — to live, and to die, as a scoundrel.
> Impersonal «надо» of moral necessity: «Надо» ('one must, it is necessary') is the impersonal modal of necessity — no nominative subject, the duty falling on no one and everyone. «Честно» ('honourably') is the adverb. This dative-less obligation gives the line the force of a universal law.

Митя был бледен.  
Mitya was pale.
> Short adjective «бледен» in the past: «Бледен» is the short (predicative) masculine form of «бледный» ('pale'). With past «был» it states the temporary condition — 'Mitya was pale'. The short form is the bookish, predicative norm for such a passing physical state.

Лицо его имело изможденный и измученный вид, несмотря на то, что он был до крайности разгорячен.  
His face had a worn and exhausted look, in spite of the fact that he was heated in the extreme.
> Past passive participles as attributes: «Изможденный» ('worn out, emaciated') and «измученный» ('exhausted, tormented') are past passive participles of «изможить» and «измучить», used attributively before «вид» ('look, appearance'). They agree with «вид» in the accusative, condensing whole histories of suffering into two adjectives.
> Concessive «несмотря на то, что»: «Несмотря на то, что...» ('in spite of the fact that...') is the standard concessive frame. «Разгорячен» is a short passive participle ('heated up, inflamed') predicated of him — the feverish heat that, despite his exhaustion, drives his speech.

— Я начинаю вас понимать, Дмитрий Федорович, — мягко и даже как бы сострадательно протянул прокурор, — но всё это, воля ваша, по-моему, лишь нервы… болезненные нервы ваши, вот что-с.  
"I am beginning to understand you, Dmitri Fyodorovich," the prosecutor drawled gently, almost sympathetically, "but all this, as you please, is to my mind merely nerves... your diseased nerves, that's what, sir."
> Hedging «как бы» + manner adverb: «Как бы» ('as it were, almost') hedges the adverb «сострадательно» ('sympathetically') — the prosecutor's compassion is performed, only seemingly felt. «Протянул» ('drawled') is the perfective speech verb, naming the slow, drawn-out delivery.
> Postposed possessive «ваши»: «Нервы ваши» places the possessive «ваши» after the noun rather than before, a marked, emphatic order ('your nerves — yours'). The diagnosis «болезненные нервы» ('diseased nerves') reduces Mitya's moral agony to mere pathology — the law's cool deflation.

И почему бы, например, вам, чтоб избавить себя от стольких мук, почти целого месяца, не пойти и не отдать эти полторы тысячи той особе, которая вам их доверила, и, уже объяснившись с нею, почему бы вам, ввиду вашего тогдашнего положения, столь ужасного, как вы его рисуете, не испробовать комбинацию, столь естественно представляющуюся уму, то есть после благородного признания ей в ваших ошибках, почему бы вам у ней же и не попросить потребную на ваши расходы сумму, в которой она, при великодушном сердце своем и видя ваше расстройство, уж конечно бы вам не отказала, особенно если бы под документ, или, наконец, хотя бы под такое же обеспечение, которое вы предлагали купцу Самсонову и госпоже Хохлаковой?  
And why, for example, in order to spare yourself such torments, almost a whole month of them, did you not go and give that fifteen hundred back to the person who had entrusted it to you, and then, having had it out with her, why — in view of your situation at the time, so terrible, as you depict it — did you not try the combination that so naturally presents itself to the mind, that is, after a noble confession to her of your errors, why not ask her for the very sum you needed for your expenses, which she, with her magnanimous heart and seeing your distress, would surely not have refused you — especially against a document, or, finally, against the very same security you offered to the merchant Samsonov and to Madame Khokhlakova?
> «почему бы не» — softened reproachful suggestion: «Почему бы вам не пойти?» ('why not go?') is the polite irrealis suggestion: «бы» softens it, dative «вам» names the one addressed, and the negated infinitives «не пойти и не отдать» carry the proposed action. The prosecutor wields this courteous frame across the whole vast sentence.
> Perfective gerund «объяснившись»: «Объяснившись с нею» ('having had it out with her', «-ся» reciprocal of «объясниться») is a perfective past gerund naming the prior step before the next move. Such gerund chains are the engine of this single, breath-defying periodic sentence.
> Present active participle + dative «уму»: «Представляющуюся» is a present active «-ся» participle agreeing with «комбинацию» ('the combination presenting itself'), with «уму» the dative of the mind to which it presents. «Столь» ('so') is the bookish equivalent of «так» — period-elevated diction throughout.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + counterfactual: «При великодушном сердце своём» uses the reflexive possessive «своём» ('her own [heart]'), referring back to Katerina, the clause's logical subject. «Не отказала бы» (negated past + «бы») is the counterfactual: 'she surely would not have refused'.

Ведь считаете же вы даже до сих пор это обеспечение ценным?  
For surely you reckon even now that this security is of value?
> Doubled particles «ведь... же»: «Ведь... же» again stacks two modal particles — «ведь» appealing to what they both know, «же» insisting — to corner Mitya into agreement: 'for surely you do reckon...'. The prosecutor borrows Mitya's own pleading idiom against him.

Митя вдруг покраснел:  
Mitya suddenly flushed crimson:
> Inceptive perfective «покраснел»: «Покраснел» (perfective, prefix «по-» on «краснеть») marks the sudden onset of blushing — 'flushed red'. With «вдруг» ('suddenly'), the perfective pins the abrupt single change of colour, a wordless flash of wounded pride.

— Неужто же вы меня считаете даже до такой уж степени подлецом?  
"Surely you don't take me for such a scoundrel as all that?"
> «неужто» — incredulous 'surely not?': «Неужто» (a folksier variant of «неужели») is the particle of astonished disbelief — 'is it really possible that...?', 'surely not?'. Reinforced by «же», it conveys Mitya's wounded incredulity that the prosecutor could think so low of him.
> «считать» + instrumental predicate: «Считать кого подлецом» ('to consider someone a scoundrel') takes the predicate in the instrumental: «подлецом». «До такой степени» ('to such a degree') with the intensifying «уж» measures just how base he fears they think him.

Не может быть, чтобы вы это серьезно!.. — проговорил он с негодованием, смотря в глаза прокурору и как бы не веря, что от него слышал.  
"It cannot be that you mean this seriously!.." he said with indignation, looking the prosecutor in the eye and as though not believing what he had heard from him.
> «чтобы» after «не может быть»: «Не может быть, чтобы...» ('it can't be that...') governs a «чтобы»-clause in the irrealis — denying as impossible the very supposition. The clause «вы это серьёзно» is verbless ('that you [mean] this seriously'), the meaning carried by ellipsis.
> Imperfective gerunds of attendant action: Two present (imperfective) gerunds, «смотря» ('looking') and «(не) веря» ('not believing'), describe what Mitya does as he speaks — simultaneous attendant circumstances sharing the main subject. «В глаза прокурору»: «в глаза» (accusative, into the eyes) + dative «прокурору» (of the person looked at).

— Уверяю вас, что серьезно… Почему вы думаете, что несерьезно? — удивился в свою очередь и прокурор.  
"I assure you that I mean it seriously… Why do you suppose it isn't serious?" the prosecutor said, surprised in his turn.
> «в свою очередь» — 'in his turn': A set adverbial phrase, literally 'in one's own turn', with «свою» the reflexive possessive «свой» agreeing with feminine «очередь» in the accusative. It signals reciprocity: the prosecutor is now the one surprised, having just surprised Mitya.
> «что» introducing a reported clause: The subordinating conjunction «что» ('that') opens the embedded statement after «думаете». Note the comma before it, obligatory in Russian, and the dropped subject in «несерьезно» — a bare neuter predicative ('[it is] not serious').

— О, как это было бы подло!  
"Oh, how vile that would have been!"
> Conditional «было бы» — 'how vile that would have been': The past-tense «было» plus the particle «бы» forms the irrealis: not a fact but a hypothetical, 'would have been'. «подло» is a short-form neuter adjective serving as the predicate of impersonal «это».
> «подло» — base, vile: From «подлый», a strong moral word for 'base, mean, contemptible'. It and its noun «подлость» recur obsessively in Mitya's self-accusation through this passage; he is measuring the depth of his own potential baseness.

Господа, знаете ли вы, что вы меня мучаете!  
Gentlemen, do you realize that you are torturing me!
> Interrogative particle «ли»: The enclitic «ли» turns the verb into a pointed yes/no question by fronting the focused word: «знаете ли вы…» — 'do you (even) realize…'. It is more emphatic and literary than question intonation alone, here charged with reproach.
> «мучить» — to torment: From «мучить» ('to torture, torment'), imperfective, here in its ongoing present sense — 'you are tormenting me'. The verb carries both physical and spiritual torture and runs through Dostoevsky as a key term for the suffering soul.

Извольте, я вам всё скажу, так и быть, я вам теперь уже во всей моей инфернальности признаюсь, но чтобы вас же устыдить, и вы сами удивитесь, до какой подлости может дойти комбинация чувств человеческих.  
Very well, I'll tell you everything, so be it — I'll confess to you now in all my infernal nature, but only to put you to shame, and you yourselves will be astonished at the depth of baseness to which a combination of human feelings can sink.
> «извольте» — 'be so good as to / very well': An old polite imperative from «изволить» ('to be pleased to'). Used absolutely it means 'as you wish / very well, then', with a faintly ceremonious, deferential ring — Mitya yielding to the demand to confess.
> «так и быть» — 'so be it': A fixed idiom of grudging consent, 'so be it, all right then'. Literally 'thus [let it] even be', it concedes a point reluctantly — fitting Mitya's reluctant surrender to a humiliating confession.
> Purpose «чтобы» + perfective infinitive: «чтобы» ('in order to') governs the perfective infinitive «устыдить» ('to put to shame') to express purpose. The particle «же» reinforces «вас» — 'precisely you', turning the confession back on the questioners.
> Bookish inversion and genitive chains: «до какой подлости… дойти» ('to what baseness… can sink') uses «до» + genitive for a limit reached. «чувств человеческих» inverts noun and adjective ('feelings human') for rhetorical weight, and «чувств» is a bare genitive plural after «комбинация».
> "Infernal" as a Karamazov keyword: «Инфернальный» (from Latin infernus, 'of the underworld') is a bookish borrowing meaning hellish/demonic. It is a recurring word in the novel, especially around Grushenka, used to describe a destructive, hell-bent intensity of passion. Mitya applies it both to his own scheme and to Katerina Ivanovna's nature.

Знайте же, что я уже имел эту комбинацию сам, вот эту самую, про которую вы сейчас говорили, прокурор!  
Know, then, that I myself once had that very combination, the exact one you were just describing, prosecutor!
> Imperative «знайте» + insistent «же»: «Знайте» is the polite/plural imperative of «знать» ('know!'), built with -й after the vowel stem and -те for plurality. The particle «же» adds urgent insistence — 'Know, then!', a solemn demand for attention.
> Relative «которую» in the accusative: «которую» agrees with feminine «комбинацию» in gender and number but takes the case its own clause needs — here accusative after «про» ('about'). The comma sets off the relative clause.

Да, господа, и у меня была эта мысль в этот проклятый месяц, так что почти уже решался идти к Кате, до того был подл!  
Yes, gentlemen, I too harbored that thought during this accursed month, so that I had almost resolved to go to Katya — that is how base I was!
> Imperfective «решался» — wavering on the brink: «решался» is the imperfective past of «решаться» ('to resolve, bring oneself to'), its «-ся» reflexive. The imperfective frames this not as a settled decision but as a recurring near-impulse — he 'kept almost resolving', never quite acting.
> «до того… подл» — 'so base was I': «до того» means 'to such a degree', and «подл» is the short-form predicative adjective of «подлый», agreeing masculine singular with the implied 'I'. Short forms like this carry an absolute, bookish weight typical of 19th-century prose.
> «Катя» — the intimate for Katerina: «Катя» is the affectionate diminutive of Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva, here in the dative «к Кате» ('to Katya'). Mitya's slide from the formal «госпожа Верховцева» to bare «Катя» tracks his emotional intimacy and torment over her.
> «проклятый» — accursed: «проклятый» ('cursed, damned'), originally the past passive participle of «проклясть' ('to curse'), here functions as an ordinary adjective. It colors the whole month of his crisis with a sense of doom.

Но идти к ней, объявить ей мою измену и на эту же измену, для исполнения же этой измены, для предстоящих расходов на эту измену, у ней же, у Кати же, просить денег (просить, слышите, просить!) и тотчас от нее же убежать с другою, с ее соперницей, с ее ненавистницей и обидчицей, — помилуйте, да вы с ума сошли, прокурор!  
But to go to her, to announce my betrayal to her, and for that very betrayal, to carry out that betrayal, to cover the coming expenses of that betrayal, to ask her — Katya herself — for money (to ask, do you hear, to ask!) and then instantly to run off with another woman, her rival, the woman who hates and wrongs her — have mercy, why, you must be out of your mind, prosecutor!
> Anaphoric «же» hammering on «измена»: Mitya repeats «измена» ('betrayal') four times across stacked prepositional phrases, each pinned by the insistent particle «же» ('that very'). The piling of «на эту же… для исполнения же… для расходов…» enacts his obsessive, self-lacerating logic through sheer grammatical repetition.
> Genitive «денег» as object of «просить»: «просить» ('to ask for') governs the genitive of the thing requested: «денег» (gen. pl. of «деньги»). «у ней… у Кати» (the person from whom) takes «у» + genitive. The doubled «у ней же, у Кати же» renames the same person for outraged emphasis.
> Feminine agent-nouns in «-ница»: «ненавистница» (one who hates) and «обидчица» (one who wrongs/offends) are feminine agent-nouns, here in the instrumental after «с» ('with'). The matched -ница endings give a rhetorical, almost incantatory parallel as Mitya heaps up Grushenka's offenses against Katya.
> «с ума сойти» — to go out of one's mind: «сошли» is the perfective past of «сойти» ('to go down/off'); the idiom «сойти с ума» ('to go off one's mind') means to go mad. «помилуйте» is a polite imperative used as an exclamation of protest ('have mercy!, come now!'), and «да» here is an emphatic particle, not 'yes'.

— С ума не с ума, но, конечно, я сгоряча не сообразил… насчет этой самой вот женской ревности… если тут действительно могла быть ревность, как вы утверждаете… да, пожалуй, тут есть нечто в этом роде, — усмехнулся прокурор.  
"Out of my mind or not, I confess that in the heat of the moment I didn't take into account… that very feminine jealousy of yours… if there really could be jealousy here, as you maintain… yes, perhaps there is something of the sort in it," the prosecutor said with a faint smile.
> «сгоряча» — in the heat of the moment: An adverb (literally 'from the hot', from «горячий») meaning 'in a fit of temper, hastily, on the spur of the moment'. The prosecutor concedes he 'didn't think it through' in the heat of his own argument.
> Conditional «если… могла бы» softened: «если» opens a real-condition clause; «могла быть» is the imperfective past 'could be'. The prosecutor's hedged concession — «да, пожалуй, тут есть нечто в этом роде» — shows the diplomatic, non-committal register of his speech.
> «усмехнуться» — to smile faintly / smirk: Perfective «усмехнуться» (with «-ся») denotes a small, often ironic or knowing smile — a smirk, not a warm one. Dostoevsky uses it to flag the prosecutor's faintly superior, skeptical amusement.

— Но это была бы уж такая мерзость, — свирепо ударил Митя кулаком по столу, — это так бы воняло, что уж я и не знаю!  
"But that would have been such an abomination," Mitya brought his fist down savagely on the table, "it would have stunk so badly that I just don't know!
> Doubled conditional «была бы… бы воняло»: Two hypotheticals: «была бы» ('would have been') and «так бы воняло» ('it would have stunk so'). Note how «бы» floats away from its verb in «так бы воняло», leaning on the stressed «так» — the mobile particle attaching to the focal word.
> «вонять» — to stink (coarse register): «вонять» means literally 'to stink, reek'. Mitya's lurch from the abstract «мерзость» ('abomination') to the crude, physical «воняло» ('it would have stunk') is pure Karamazov — moral horror voiced in gut, bodily terms.
> «свирепо» + instrumental «кулаком»: «свирепо» ('savagely, ferociously') describes the blow; «кулаком» is the instrumental of «кулак» ('fist') — the means of striking. «по столу» ('on/along the table') takes «по» + dative.

Да знаете ли вы, что она могла бы мне дать эти деньги, да и дала бы, наверно дала бы, из отмщения мне дала бы, из наслаждения мщением, из презрения ко мне дала бы, потому что это тоже инфернальная душа и великого гнева женщина!  
Do you know that she could have given me that money — and would have given it, would certainly have given it, given it out of revenge against me, out of the delight of revenge, out of contempt for me she would have given it, because she too is an infernal soul, a woman of mighty wrath!
> Conditional «дала бы» repeated like a refrain: The perfective past «дала» + «бы» ('she would have given') recurs four times, two of them preceded by a motive in «из» + genitive ('out of revenge… out of contempt'). The incantatory repetition of «дала бы» drives home Mitya's certainty about Katya's vengeful generosity.
> «из» + genitive of motive: The preposition «из» ('out of, from') governs the genitive to express cause or motive: «из отмщения» (out of revenge), «из наслаждения» (out of delight), «из презрения» (out of contempt). «мщением» within is instrumental — 'delight in revenge'.
> «отмщение» / «мщение» — vengeance (elevated): Both are bookish, somewhat archaic words for revenge, more solemn than the everyday «месть». «мщение» especially carries a Biblical, almost liturgical gravity ('Vengeance is mine'), heightening Mitya's vision of Katya as a figure of wrath.
> Genitive of quality: 'a woman of mighty wrath': «великого гнева» (genitive of «великий гнев») modifies «женщина' to express an attribute — 'a woman of great wrath'. Placing the heavy genitive phrase before the noun is a deliberately elevated, almost epic word order.

Я-то бы деньги взял, о, взял бы, взял, и тогда всю жизнь… о боже!  
And I — I would have taken the money, oh, I would have taken it, taken it, and then my whole life… oh God!
> Emphatic clitic «-то» and stuttering conditional: The hyphenated «-то» on «Я-то» singles out the topic — 'I, for my part'. Then «взял бы… взял бы… взял» oscillates between the conditional «взял бы» ('would have taken') and the bare past «взял», as if the hypothetical keeps collapsing into a confessed fact.
> «боже» — the Church-Slavonic vocative: «боже» is the old vocative of «Бог» ('God'), surviving in exclamation and prayer where modern Russian otherwise uses the nominative. Mitya's recurring «о боже!» throughout this scene gives his anguish a half-prayerful, sacred coloring.

Простите, господа, я потому так кричу, что у меня была эта мысль еще так недавно, еще всего только третьего дня, именно когда я ночью с Лягавым возился, и потом вчера, да, и вчера, весь день вчера, я помню это, до самого этого случая…  
Forgive me, gentlemen, I'm shouting like this because I held that thought so very recently — only the day before yesterday, in fact, the very night I was wrestling with Lyagavy, and then yesterday, yes, yesterday too, all day yesterday, I remember it, right up until this whole business…
> «третьего дня» — 'the day before yesterday': A frozen genitive-of-time idiom meaning 'the day before yesterday' (literally 'of the third day'). It belongs to a slightly old-fashioned register, the natural speech of Dostoevsky's period.
> Imperfective «возился» + instrumental «ночью»: «возился» is the imperfective past of «возиться» ('to busy/struggle/fuss with', here 'to wrestle with'), its «-ся» middle. «ночью» is the instrumental of «ночь» used adverbially ('at night, by night'), a common time-expression use of the instrumental.

— До какого случая? — ввернул было Николай Парфенович с любопытством, но Митя не расслышал.  
"Up until what business?" Nikolai Parfenovich put in with curiosity, but Mitya did not catch it.
> The particle «было» — an interrupted action: «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun or attempted but checked or undone: Nikolai Parfenovich 'started to put in' the question — and it went nowhere, since Mitya didn't hear. This «было» (distinct from the verb 'was') is a hallmark of literary Russian.
> «ввернуть» — to slip in (a word): Literally 'to screw in', «ввернуть» idiomatically means to insert a remark or question deftly into a conversation. It captures the magistrate quietly slipping his query into Mitya's flood of speech.

— Я сделал вам страшное признание, — мрачно заключил он. — Оцените же его, господа.  
"I have made you a terrible confession," he concluded gloomily. "So appreciate it, gentlemen.
> Adverb «мрачно» + inverted subject: «мрачно» ('gloomily, darkly') modifies «заключил» ('concluded'). The verb-before-subject order «заключил он» is the standard pattern for speech attributions in narration — the said-word leads, the speaker follows.
> Imperative «оцените» + appealing «же»: «Оцените» is the perfective polite imperative of «оценить» ('to appreciate, value'). The particle «же» turns the command into an urgent appeal — 'do appreciate it, then!' — setting up the wordplay with «цените» in the next segment.

Да мало того, мало оценить, не оцените, а цените его, а если нет, если и это пройдет мимо ваших душ, то тогда уже вы прямо не уважаете меня, господа, вот что я вам говорю, и я умру от стыда, что признался таким, как вы!  
And that's not enough — it is not enough to appreciate it, you must not merely appreciate it but prize it, and if you don't, if this too passes your souls by, then you simply have no respect for me, gentlemen, that is what I'm telling you, and I shall die of shame at having confessed to men like you!
> Aspect play: «оценить» vs «ценить»: Mitya draws a fine aspectual distinction the translation renders as 'appreciate' vs 'prize'. «оценить» (perfective) is to appraise/assess once; «ценить» (imperfective) is to value continuously. He demands not a single act of appraisal but ongoing esteem.
> Perfective future «пройдет» in a condition: «пройдет» is the perfective (simple) future of «пройти' — 'will pass by'. «мимо ваших душ» ('past your souls') uses «мимо» + genitive. The future-in-condition projects the feared outcome that his confession will leave them unmoved.
> Dative addressee of «признаться»: «признался» (perfective of «признаться», to confess) governs the dative of the one confessed to — here implied 'to men «таким, как вы»'. «таким» is the dative of «такой» ('such [men]'), agreeing with the dropped «людям».

О, я застрелюсь!  
Oh, I'll shoot myself!
> Reflexive perfective future «застрелюсь»: «застрелюсь» is the perfective future of «застрелиться» ('to shoot oneself'), 1st person singular. The «-сь» (post-vowel «-ся») here is genuinely reflexive — the action turns back on the speaker. A conjugated perfective form like this expresses a single future act.

Да я уже вижу, вижу, что вы мне не верите!  
Why, I can see it already, I can see that you don't believe me!
> «верить» + dative object: «верить» ('to believe, trust') governs the dative of the person trusted: «мне не верите» — 'you don't believe me (lit. to me)'. The doubled «вижу, вижу» ('I see, I see') is emphatic repetition of the imperfective present.

Как, так вы и это хотите записывать? — вскричал он уже в испуге.  
What, so you mean to write this down too?" he cried out, now in alarm.
> Imperfective «записывать» after «хотеть»: «хотите записывать» pairs 'want' with the imperfective infinitive 'to be writing down', stressing the ongoing, repeated act of recording. The particle «и» before «это» means 'even this' — alarm that they would set down even his self-incrimination.
> «в испуге» — in fright: «испуг» is sudden fright or alarm; «в испуге» ('in [a state of] fright') is a common «в» + prepositional phrase of emotional state. «вскричал» ('cried out', perfective) marks the abrupt outburst.

— Да вот что вы сейчас сказали, — в удивлении смотрел на него Николай Парфенович, — то есть что вы до самого последнего часа всё еще располагали идти к госпоже Верховцевой просить у нее эту сумму… Уверяю вас, что это очень важное для нас показание, Дмитрий Федорович, то есть про весь этот случай… и особенно для вас, особенно для вас важное.  
"Why, what you've just said," Nikolai Parfenovich looked at him in astonishment, "namely that right up to the very last hour you still meant to go to Madame Verkhovtseva to ask her for that sum… I assure you that this is very important testimony for us, Dmitri Fyodorovich — that is, the whole business — and especially important for you, especially for you."
> Imperfective «располагали» + chain of infinitives: «располагали» (imperfective past of «располагать», here 'to intend, mean to') is followed by a chain of infinitives «идти… просить» ('to go… to ask'). The imperfective frames a standing intention held 'right up to the very last hour'.
> «показание» — testimony, deposition: A legal term (from «показать», 'to show/state') for a witness's or suspect's formal statement on the record. The magistrate's repetition that this is «важное показание» — important and 'especially for you' — quietly signals how the confession could exonerate Mitya.

— Помилосердуйте, господа, — всплеснул руками Митя, — хоть этого-то не пишите, постыдитесь!  
"Have pity, gentlemen," Mitya threw up his hands, "at least don't write that down, for shame!
> «помилосердуйте» — 'have mercy / for pity's sake': An emphatic, somewhat old-fashioned imperative from «милосердствовать» ('to show mercy', rooted in «милосердие», compassion). Stronger and more pleading than the plainer «помилуйте», it casts Mitya's protest in near-religious terms of mercy.
> Genitive of negation «этого» + clitic «-то»: Under negation the object «это» shifts to genitive «этого» after «не пишите». «хоть» means 'at least', and the clitic «-то» singles it out — 'at least don't write this part'. «постыдитесь» is the imperative 'have some shame!'.

Ведь я, так сказать, душу мою разорвал пополам пред вами, а вы воспользовались и роетесь пальцами по разорванному месту в обеих половинах… О боже!  
Why, I have, so to speak, torn my soul in two before you, and you take advantage of it and go rummaging with your fingers through the torn place in both halves… Oh God!"
> Appealing particle «ведь» + archaic «пред»: «Ведь» opens the sentence as an appeal to shared knowledge — 'why, after all'. «пред» is the bookish, elevated form of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «вами». Together they raise the register of Mitya's anguished image.
> «рыться» — to rummage, dig: «роетесь» (imperfective, with «-ся») is 'you are rummaging/digging'. «пальцами» is the instrumental ('with your fingers') and «по разорванному месту» ('over the torn place') uses «по» + dative. The image — fingers groping in the torn halves of a soul — is grotesquely physical, vintage Dostoevsky.
> Past passive participle «разорванному»: «разорванный» ('torn apart') is the past passive participle of perfective «разорвать», declined here as a dative adjective agreeing with «месту». Such participles in «-нный» turn a completed action into a modifier — 'the torn place'.

Он закрылся в отчаянии руками.  
He covered his face with his hands in despair.
> Reflexive «закрылся» + instrumental «руками»: «закрылся» (perfective, «-ся») is 'he covered himself / shielded himself'; «руками» is the instrumental plural ('with his hands') naming the means. «в отчаянии» ('in despair') is «в» + prepositional, a state-phrase.

— Не беспокойтесь так, Дмитрий Федорович, — заключил прокурор, — всё теперь записанное вы потом прослушаете сами и с чем не согласитесь, мы по вашим словам изменим, а теперь я вам один вопросик еще в третий раз повторю: неужто в самом деле никто, так-таки вовсе никто, не слыхал от вас об этих зашитых вами в ладонку деньгах?  
"Don't distress yourself so, Dmitri Fyodorovich," the prosecutor concluded, "everything taken down now you will hear read back to you afterward, and whatever you disagree with we'll alter according to your words; but for now let me put one little question to you for the third time: is it really true that no one — absolutely no one at all — heard from you about the money you had sewn into that little amulet?
> Substantivized participle «записанное»: «записанное» is the past passive participle of «записать», here used as a neuter noun — 'everything [that has been] written down'. The intensifier «сами» ('yourselves') underlines that Mitya will hear his own words read back.
> Relative «с чем» + perfective futures: «с чем не согласитесь» ('whatever you won't agree with') uses «что» as a relative after an implied «то», with «с» governing instrumental «чем». Both «не согласитесь» and «изменим» are perfective futures — promised single acts.
> Negative concord with «никто… не»: The negative pronoun «никто' ('no one') still requires «не» on the verb — Russian's obligatory negative concord. «неужто» (a folksy variant of «неужели») expresses incredulous 'is it really…?', and «так-таки вовсе никто» piles on 'absolutely no one at all'.
> «слыхать» — colloquial 'to hear': «слыхал» is the past of «слыхать», a colloquial/iterative variant of «слышать» ('to hear'). It lends a slightly folksy, conversational coloring to the prosecutor's otherwise official speech.

Это, я вам скажу, почти невозможно представить.  
That, I tell you, is almost impossible to imagine."
> Impersonal predicative «невозможно»: «невозможно» ('it is impossible') is an impersonal neuter predicative, here governing the infinitive «представить» ('to imagine'). There is no nominative subject — a characteristically Russian subjectless construction stating a general impossibility.

— Никто, никто, я сказал, иначе вы ничего не поняли!  
"No one, no one, I've told you, otherwise you've understood nothing!
> Negative concord «ничего… не»: «ничего» (genitive of «ничто», 'nothing') co-occurs with «не понял» — again the double-negative concord, one logical negation. «ничего» sits in the genitive both as a negative pronoun and as the genitive-of-negation object of «понять».

Оставьте меня в покое.  
Leave me in peace."
> Imperative idiom «оставить в покое»: «Оставьте» is the perfective polite imperative of «оставить» ('to leave'). The fixed phrase «оставить в покое» ('to leave in peace') uses «в покое», the prepositional of «покой' ('peace, rest') — 'leave me alone'.

— Извольте-с, это дело должно объясниться и еще много к тому времени впереди, но пока рассудите: у нас, может быть, десятки свидетельств о том, что вы именно сами распространяли и даже кричали везде о трех тысячах, истраченных вами, о трех, а не о полутора, да и теперь, при появлении вчерашних денег, тоже многим успели дать знать, что денег опять привезли с собою три тысячи…  
"As you wish, sir; this matter will have to be cleared up, and there is much time ahead for that, but in the meantime consider this: we have, perhaps, dozens of testimonies that you yourself were the one spreading the word and even shouting everywhere about three thousand you had squandered — three, not fifteen hundred — and now, too, when yesterday's money turned up, you managed to let many people know that you had once again brought three thousand with you…"
> The deferential particle «-с»: The clitic «-с» (a contraction of «сударь», 'sir') tacked onto «Извольте» adds servile or ironic deference — the obsequious 'sir' of clerks and tradesmen. The prosecutor and others sprinkle it through this scene; it perfectly suits an official's smooth, faintly mocking courtesy.
> Reflexive «объясниться» — middle/passive: «объясниться» here is the middle/passive use of «-ся»: 'this matter must get cleared up / explain itself', with no named agent. «должно» is the impersonal neuter 'must, ought', agreeing with neuter «дело».
> Participle «истраченных» + agent in instrumental: «истраченных» is the past passive participle of «истратить» ('to spend'), genitive plural agreeing with «тысячах», with its agent «вами» in the instrumental ('squandered by you'). «о трех, а не о полутора» contrasts 'three [thousand], not fifteen hundred' — the key discrepancy of the case.
> Numeral «три» governing case: «три тысячи» normally takes the genitive singular «тысячи»; here, after the preposition «о» ('about'), the whole numeral phrase re-declines into the prepositional, «о трех тысячах». Russian numerals control — and are in turn controlled by — the surrounding case.

— Не десятки, а сотни свидетельств у вас в руках, две сотни свидетельств, две сотни человек слышали, тысяча слышала! — воскликнул Митя.  
"Not dozens but hundreds of testimonies you have in your hands, two hundred testimonies, two hundred people heard it, a thousand heard it!" Mitya exclaimed.
> Counting form «человек» after a numeral: After numerals «человек» ('person') uses a special genitive-plural-like counting form identical to the nominative singular: «две сотни человек» ('two hundred people'), never «людей». «сотни» (gen. sg. after «две») itself follows the 2–4 rule.
> Contrastive «а» and hyperbolic escalation: «а» here is the contrastive coordinator 'not X but Y' («не десятки, а сотни»). Mitya seizes the prosecutor's «десятки» and inflates it through «сотни» to «тысяча» — a rhetorical crescendo voiced in cascading numerals.

— Ну вот видите-с, все, все свидетельствуют.  
"Well, there you see, sir — they all bear witness to it.
> «видите-с» — the obsequious «-с» again: Once more the deferential clitic «-с» (from «сударь», 'sir') colors the prosecutor's 'well, you see, sir'. Repeated through his lines, it builds a tone of smooth, ingratiating officialdom around Mitya's raw outbursts.
> Imperfective present «свидетельствуют»: «свидетельствуют» (imperfective present, 3rd plural) — 'they all bear witness'. The doubled «все, все» ('everyone, everyone') is emphatic repetition; the imperfective frames the testifying as a general, collective fact.

Так ведь значит же что-нибудь слово все?  
So that word 'all' must mean something, mustn't it?"
> Stacked particles «ведь… же» and indefinite «что-нибудь»: The prosecutor piles up particles for insinuating effect: «так» (so), «ведь» (after all), «же» (surely). «что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite 'something or other'. The verb «значит» fronts before its subject «слово все» for emphasis.

— Ничего не значит, я соврал, а за мной и все стали врать.  
"It means nothing — I lied, and after me everyone else took to lying too."
> Negative concord «ничего не значит»: «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») with «не значит» — 'it means nothing'. The negative pronoun and the verbal «не» work together as one negation, the standard Russian double-negative.
> Aspect contrast «соврал» / «стали врать»: «соврал» (perfective) is the single completed act 'I lied'; «стали врать» pairs the perfective «стать» with the imperfective infinitive 'to lie', i.e. 'began [habitually] lying'. «а за мной» ('and after me') uses contrastive «а» plus «за» + instrumental.

— Да зачем же вам-то так надо было «врать», как вы изъясняетесь?  
"But why did you have such a need to 'lie,' as you put it?"
> Dative-of-necessity «вам надо» + particles: «вам… надо было» is the impersonal necessity construction: the experiencer «вам» in the dative, no nominative subject, predicate «надо» ('need to'). The particle «же» and clitic «-то» on «вам-то» sharpen the challenge — 'why did YOU, of all people, so need to…'.
> «изъясняться» — to express oneself (bookish): «изъясняться» ('to express/explain oneself') is more elevated and formal than the everyday «выражаться». Quoting Mitya's coarse «врать» ('to lie') inside this lofty verb gives the prosecutor's question a faint, ironic fastidiousness.

— А черт знает.  
"The devil knows.
> «черт знает» — 'the devil knows': A common exclamation of exasperated ignorance, 'the devil knows / who the hell knows'. The «черт» ('devil') recurs all through Mitya's speech here — a casual oath that, in this God-and-devil-haunted novel, never feels wholly trivial.

Из похвальбы, может быть… так… что вот так много денег прокутил… Из того, может, чтоб об этих зашитых деньгах забыть… да, это именно оттого… черт… который раз вы задаете этот вопрос?  
Out of bragging, perhaps… just so… that I'd blown such a lot of money… Or maybe so as to forget about that money sewn away… yes, that's exactly why… damn it… how many times are you going to put me that question?
> «похвальба» — bragging, boastfulness: «похвальба» ('boasting, bragging', from «хвалить», to praise) in the genitive after «из» gives the motive — 'out of bragging'. The word itself is somewhat colloquial and faintly self-deprecating, as Mitya gropes for why he lied.
> Purpose «чтоб» + participle «зашитых»: «чтоб» (a clipped «чтобы», 'so as to') governs the infinitive «забыть» ('to forget'). «зашитых» is the past passive participle of «зашить» ('to sew up'), prepositional plural agreeing with «деньгах» — 'the sewn-away money'.
> «который раз» + imperfective «задаете»: «который раз» literally 'which time', i.e. 'how many times now / for the umpteenth time'. «задаете» is the imperfective present of «задавать» ('to put/pose [a question]'), stressing the repeated, wearing asking.

Ну, соврал, и кончено, раз соврал и уж не хотел переправлять.  
Well, I lied, and that's that — once I'd lied I wasn't about to set it straight.
> «раз» as 'once' + aspect contrast: «раз» here means 'once / since' (a conversational causal-temporal connector). «соврал» (perfective, the single lie) contrasts with «не хотел переправлять» — 'didn't want to keep correcting it', the imperfective infinitive for an ongoing fix-up.

Из-за чего иной раз врет человек?  
What does a man lie for, now and then?"
> Gnomic present «врет» — the general truth: «врет» is the imperfective present of «врать» ('to lie'), used here for a timeless generalization — 'what does a man lie for, now and then?'. «из-за чего» ('on account of what, why') takes «из-за» + genitive. The aphoristic question opens onto Dostoevsky's larger theme of self-deception.

— Это очень трудно решить, Дмитрий Федорович, из-за чего врет человек, — внушительно проговорил прокурор. — Скажите, однако, велика ли была эта, как вы называете ее, ладонка, на вашей шее?  
"That is very hard to decide, Dmitri Fyodorovich — what a man lies for," the prosecutor pronounced weightily. "Tell me, though, was it large, this — what do you call it — amulet on your neck?"
> «внушительно» — weightily, imposingly: «внушительно' (from «внушать», to instill/impress upon) means 'impressively, weightily'. The narrator marks the prosecutor's deliberate gravitas. «проговорил» (perfective) frames the whole utterance as one measured pronouncement.
> Short adjective «велика» + «ли» question: «велика» is the short-form feminine predicative of «великий/большой' ('large'), agreeing with «ладонка'. Fronted before «ли», it forms a neat yes/no question — 'was it large, the amulet?'. The short form is the natural predicate of size.

— Нет, не велика.  
"No, not large."
> Short adjective «велика» in the negative: Mitya answers with the same short-form predicative «велика» ('large'), now negated — 'not large'. Short adjectives like this are the standard way to predicate a quality with «не», typical of crisp dialogue.

— А какой, например, величины?  
"And what size, for instance?"
> Genitive of measure «величины»: «какой… величины» ('of what size') uses the genitive of «величина» ('size, magnitude') with interrogative «какой» agreeing in case — the genitive of measure/quality. «например» ('for instance') softens the magistrate's probing.

— Бумажку сторублевую пополам сложить — вот и величина.  
"Fold a hundred-rouble note in half — there's the size."
> Infinitive «сложить» as a vivid command-image: Mitya answers not with a measurement but with a bare perfective infinitive «сложить» ('to fold') functioning almost as an instruction — 'fold a hundred-rouble note in half — there's your size'. The accusative «бумажку… сторублевую» fronts before its verb, a lively colloquial order.
> «бумажка» — diminutive for a banknote: «бумажка» is the diminutive of «бумага» ('paper'), colloquially 'a banknote, a [paper] bill'. The little -ка suffix gives it an offhand, everyday tone fitting Mitya's brusque reply.

— А лучше бы вы нам показали лоскутки?  
"Hadn't you better show us the scraps?
> Conditional «лучше бы… показали» — a soft suggestion: «лучше бы» + past-tense «показали» forms a gentle, hypothetical suggestion — 'hadn't you better show us…'. This is the conditional «бы» used for polite softening rather than a strict counterfactual.
> «лоскутки» — little scraps, rags: «лоскутки» is the diminutive plural of «лоскут» ('scrap, shred of cloth'), the remnants of the torn amulet. The diminutive suits both the small physical objects and the magistrate's coaxing tone.

Ведь они где-нибудь при вас.  
Surely they're on you somewhere."
> Particle «ведь» + indefinite «где-нибудь»: «Ведь» appeals to assumed shared knowledge ('surely, after all'). «где-нибудь» ('somewhere or other') is the non-specific indefinite adverb. «при вас» ('on your person') uses «при» + prepositional.

— Э, черт… какие глупости… я не знаю, где они.  
"Eh, the devil… what nonsense… I don't know where they are."
> Embedded indirect question «где они»: «где они» is an indirect (embedded) question after «не знаю» — 'I don't know where they are', with the zero copula (no 'are') in the present. The comma before «где» marks the subordinate clause.
> «какие глупости» — 'what nonsense': «глупости» (plural of «глупость», 'foolishness, a silly thing') with exclamatory «какие» means 'what nonsense / what rubbish'. Mitya's irritable «Э, черт… какие глупости» captures his contempt for the line of questioning.

— Но позвольте, однако: где же и когда вы ее сняли с шеи?  
"But allow me, all the same: where and when did you take it off your neck?
> Insistent «же» + perfective «сняли»: «же» pins the question words 'where and when, exactly'. «сняли» is the perfective past of «снять» ('to take off'), a single completed act; «с шеи» ('from the neck') uses «с» + genitive of removal.
> «позвольте» — 'allow me / wait a moment': A polite imperative from «позволить» ('to permit'), used conversationally to interject — 'allow me, but…'. Here «но позвольте, однако» combines hesitation markers as the magistrate presses a sticking point in Mitya's account.

Ведь вы, как сами показываете, домой не заходили?  
After all, by your own account you didn't go home?"
> Negated «заходили» + directional «домой»: «заходили» (imperfective past of «заходить», 'to drop in') is negated — 'you didn't drop in home'. «домой» is the special directional 'homeward'. «как сами показываете» ('as you yourself testify') folds his own deposition back on him, «показываете» a legal 'to state on record'.

— А вот как от Фени вышел и шел к Перхотину, дорогой и сорвал с шеи и вынул деньги.  
"Why, just as I came out from Fenya's and was walking to Perkhotin's, on the way I tore it off my neck and took out the money."
> Prefixed motion verbs «вышел» / «шел»: «вышел» (perfective of «выйти», 'came out') and «шел» (imperfective of «идти', 'was walking') show motion-verb aspect at work: the single completed exit against the ongoing walk toward Perkhotin's. «от Фени» ('from Fenya's') takes «от» + genitive, «к Перхотину» ('to Perkhotin's') «к» + dative.

— В темноте?  
"In the dark?"
> «в темноте» — locative «в» + prepositional: «в темноте» ('in the dark[ness]') is «в» + the prepositional of «темнота», expressing location/circumstance. The magistrate's one-word question presses the implausibility of unpicking the amulet in darkness.

— Для чего тут свечка?  
"What do you need a candle for?
> «для чего» — 'what for' + genitive: «для чего» ('for what, why') uses «для» + the genitive «чего» (of «что»). «свечка» is the diminutive of «свеча» ('candle'). Mitya's brusque retort — 'what's a candle for here?' — dismisses the need for light.
> «свечка» — little candle (diminutive): The -ка diminutive of «свеча» gives a homely, offhand 'candle'. Russians reach for such diminutives constantly in everyday speech, with no real sense of smallness — here just Mitya's colloquial register.

Я это пальцем в один миг сделал.  
I did it with my finger in a single instant."
> Perfective «сделал» + instrumental «пальцем»: «сделал» (perfective of «сделать') frames the act as instant and complete — reinforced by «в один миг» ('in a single instant'). «пальцем» is the instrumental of «палец» ('finger'), the means: 'I did it with my finger'.

— Без ножниц, на улице?  
"Without scissors, in the street?"
> «без» + genitive «ножниц»: «без» ('without') governs the genitive: «ножниц» is the genitive plural of the plurale tantum «ножницы» ('scissors'), which exists only in the plural. «на улице» ('in the street') is «на» + prepositional. The clipped question keeps pressing the physical detail.

— На площади, кажется; зачем ножницы?  
"In the square, I think; why scissors?
> Locative «на площади» + dismissive question: «на площади» ('in the square') is «на» + prepositional. «кажется» ('it seems') is an impersonal parenthetical hedging his memory. «зачем ножницы?» ('why scissors?') is a verbless rhetorical brush-off.

Ветхая тряпка, сейчас разодралась.  
A worn-out rag — it tore apart at once."
> «ветхая» — worn, decrepit (and Biblical): «ветхий» means 'old, worn out, decrepit'. It is the very word of the «Ветхий Завет» (the Old Testament), so describing the sacred amulet-cloth as a «ветхая тряпка» ('a worn-out rag') quietly underlines its degradation from holy object to disposable scrap.
> Reflexive «разодралась» — intransitive 'tore': «разодралась» (perfective past, «-ся») is the middle/intransitive 'tore apart, came apart' — the rag itself, with no agent, splitting. «сейчас» here means 'at once, in a moment' rather than 'now'.

— Куда же вы ее потом дели?  
"Where did you put it afterward?"
> «куда» (whither) + colloquial «деть»: «куда» asks 'to where, whither' (motion-toward), distinct from locative «где». «дели» is the past of «деть» ('to put/stick [away]'), a colloquial verb. The particle «же» presses: 'where ever did you put it then?'.

— Там же и бросил.  
"I threw it down right there."
> Emphatic «там же» + dropped subject: «там же» means 'right there, in that very place', the «же» pinning the location. «и» here is 'just/even', and the subject «я» is dropped — the perfective «бросил» ('threw [down]') already shows it. Terse, the line mirrors Mitya's impatience.

— Где именно?  
"Where exactly?"
> «именно» — exactly, precisely: «именно» ('exactly, precisely, namely') sharpens the question to demand a pinpoint answer — 'where exactly?'. It is a favorite intensifier in this interrogation, the magistrate pressing for specifics Mitya cannot give.

— Да на площади же, вообще на площади!  
"Why, in the square, somewhere in the square!
> Exasperated «да… же» framing: Sentence-initial «да» is not 'yes' but an emphatic, impatient particle, and «же» adds insistence — 'why, in the square, I tell you!'. «вообще» ('in general, just anywhere') waves off the demand for precision.

Черт ее знает где на площади.  
The devil knows where in the square.
> «черт ее знает» — 'the devil knows where': A coarse idiom of dismissal, 'the devil knows where'. The «ее» ('it', the rag) is the object of «знает». As elsewhere in Mitya's speech, the throwaway «черт» recurs, peppering his replies with helpless oaths.

Да для чего вам это?  
And what do you want it for?"
> Impatient «да» + «для чего вам»: Again «да» is an emphatic particle ('but, why'), not 'yes'. «для чего вам это» ('what do you want this for?') leaves the verb unstated, with «вам» a quasi-dative of interest — 'what's it to you?'.

— Это чрезвычайно важно, Дмитрий Федорович: вещественные доказательства в вашу же пользу, и как это вы не хотите понять?  
"It is extraordinarily important, Dmitri Fyodorovich: material evidence in your own favor — how can you fail to understand that?
> Exclamatory «как это» + negation: «как это…» introduces an exclamation of disbelief — 'how is it that you won't understand!'. «не хотите понять» pairs negated 'want' with the perfective infinitive «понять» ('to grasp'). The magistrate's tone shifts from probing to urging.

Кто же вам помогал зашивать месяц назад?  
Who helped you sew it up a month ago?"
> «помогать» + dative + imperfective infinitive: «помогал» ('helped') governs the dative «вам» ('you') and the imperfective infinitive «зашивать» ('to sew up') — the process of sewing. The interrogative «кто» with insistent «же» drives the new line of questioning: who was the accomplice?
> «месяц назад» — accusative of time + «назад»: «месяц» here is the accusative of duration, and «назад» ('ago') points back from now — 'a month ago'. This bare accusative-of-time, with no preposition, is the normal way Russian marks 'ago' and extents of time.

— Никто не помогал, сам зашил.  
"No one helped me, I sewed it myself."
> Emphatic «сам» + perfective: «сам» (myself, of my own doing) intensifies the subject, and the perfective «зашил» (sewed it up, completed) presents the act as a single accomplished deed — Mitya stresses both the solitude and the finality of his sewing.
> Negative concord «никто… не»: Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even when a negative pronoun like «никто» is present: literally "nobody didn't help." The imperfective «помогал» here denies that any helping went on at all.

— Вы умеете шить?  
"You know how to sew?"
> «уметь» + infinitive: «уметь» (to know how, have the skill) governs a bare imperfective infinitive «шить» (to sew). The imperfective names the general ability rather than a single act.

— Солдат должен уметь шить, а тут и уменья никакого не надо.  
"A soldier has to know how to sew, and here no skill at all was needed."
> Genitive of negation + «не надо»: «уменья» is genitive (of «уменье», skill) under the negated impersonal «не надо» — "no skill at all is needed." The negative «никакого» reinforces the «не», and the whole frame is subjectless and impersonal.
> «должен» as a short predicate adjective: «должен» (must, obliged) is a short-form predicate agreeing with «солдат» in masculine singular, governing the infinitive «уметь». Short adjectives like this carry the predicative "is bound to" sense typical of bookish 19th-c. prose.

— Где же вы взяли материал, то есть эту тряпку, в которую зашили?  
"Where did you get the material — that is, the rag you sewed it into?"
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «которую» agrees with feminine «тряпку» (rag) but takes the accusative its own clause demands after «в» expressing motion-into — "the rag into which you sewed it." The relative carries the case of its role, not its antecedent's.
> «тряпка» — rag, scrap of cloth: «тряпка» is a worn-out cloth or rag; the investigator's halting "the material — that is, the rag" tracks Mitya's own dismissive word for what concealed his 1,500 roubles.

— Неужто вы не смеетесь?  
"Surely you aren't laughing at me?"
> «неужто» — "surely not?": «неужто» is a colloquial, slightly archaic variant of «неужели», a particle of incredulous questioning: "is it really possible that…?" Its folksy flavour suits Mitya's wounded, suspicious tone.
> Reflexive «смеяться»: «смеяться» (to laugh) exists only in the reflexive «-ся» form; here «не смеетесь» means "you aren't laughing [at me]." The «-ся» is fused to the verb, not a separate object.

— Отнюдь нет, и нам вовсе не до смеха, Дмитрий Федорович.  
"By no means, and we are in no mood whatever for laughter, Dmitri Fyodorovich."
> «отнюдь нет» — "by no means": «отнюдь» is an emphatic, somewhat formal negator ("not in the least, by no means"). Paired with «нет» it gives the prosecutor's flat, courteous denial a slightly stiff officialdom.
> Idiom «не до + genitive»: «не до смеха» (literally "not up to laughter") is the idiom «не до + genitive» meaning one has no time, mood, or room for something: "we are in no mood for laughter."

— Не помню, где взял тряпку, где-нибудь взял.  
"I don't remember where I got the rag, I got it somewhere."
> Indefinite «-нибудь»: «где-нибудь» (somewhere or other, anywhere) marks a non-specific place — Mitya cannot or will not pin it down. The «-нибудь» series signals "any at all," unlike the specific-but-unknown «-то».

— Как бы, кажется, этого-то уж не запомнить?  
"Surely, one would think, that at least is something you couldn't forget?"
> Conditional particle «бы» softening a reproach: The mobile particle «бы» here lends a hypothetical, insinuating tone — "how could one not remember this, one would think?" «бы» leans on the first phrase rather than on the infinitive «запомнить».
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «этого» foregrounds a known topic for contrast: "this, of all things." Distinct from indefinite «-то», this emphatic clitic spotlights what is already in view.

— Да ей-богу же не помню, может, что-нибудь разодрал из белья.  
"But by God I don't remember, maybe I tore a piece off some linen."
> «ей-богу» — "by God": «ей-богу» (an old oath, "by God") is a colloquial asseveration of sincerity. Combined with the insistent particle «же», it gives Mitya's protest its exasperated, pleading force.
> Perfective «разодрал» + partitive «из белья»: The perfective «разодрал» (tore off, completed) names a single past act, while «из белья» (from [the] linen) is the genitive after «из», marking the material the scrap came from.

— Это очень интересно: в вашей квартире могла бы завтра отыскаться эта вещь, рубашка, может быть, от которой вы оторвали кусок.  
"That is very interesting: tomorrow this item might turn up at your lodgings — a shirt, perhaps, that you tore a piece from.
> Conditional «могла бы» + reflexive «отыскаться»: «могла бы… отыскаться» is the conditional «бы» on past «могла» plus the reflexive infinitive «отыскаться» (turn up, be found) — "might turn up." The «-ся» gives the verb its intransitive, middle sense.
> Relative «который» with «от» + genitive: «от которой» — "from which" — has «которой» in the genitive demanded by «от», while it agrees in feminine gender with «рубашка» (shirt). The clause specifies the shirt as the source of the torn-off piece.

Из чего эта тряпка была: из холста, из полотна?  
What was the rag made of: of coarse cloth, of linen?"
> «холст» vs «полотно»: «холст» is coarse, rough homespun cloth; «полотно» is finer, smoother linen. The investigator's paired question probes the exact fabric to test whether the amulet ever existed.
> «из чего» — material with «из» + genitive: «из чего» (out of what) uses the interrogative «что» in the genitive after «из» to ask what something is made of. Russian routinely names material with «из + genitive».

— Черт ее знает из чего.  
"The devil knows what it was made of.
> Idiom «чёрт его знает»: «чёрт её знает» (the devil knows it) is a crude, dismissive set phrase for "who the hell knows." The pronoun «её» agrees with feminine «тряпка»; the oath marks Mitya's mounting irritation.

Постойте… Я, кажется, ни от чего не отрывал.  
Wait… I don't think I tore it off anything.
> Negative concord «ни от чего… не»: «ни от чего… не отрывал» — "I didn't tear it off anything" — splits the negative pronoun «ничего» around the preposition «от» (a hallmark of Russian: «ни + preposition + чего») and still keeps «не» on the verb.
> Perfective imperative «постойте»: «постойте» (wait a moment!) is the perfective imperative of «постоять», with polite plural «-те». The perfective frames a brief, bounded pause — Mitya halting himself to think.

Она была коленкоровая… Я, кажется, в хозяйкин чепчик зашил.  
It was of calico… I think I sewed it into my landlady's cap."
> «коленкор» — calico/glazed cotton: «коленкор» is calico, a cheap glazed cotton cloth; the adjective «коленкоровая» describes the worthless scrap. The word recurs below as Mitya insists the rag was old, washed-out trash.
> «чепчик» — woman's cap (diminutive): «чепчик» is a soft woman's nightcap or house-cap, a diminutive of «чепец». The homely domestic detail — sewing his secret money into the landlady's cap — is vintage Dostoevsky.
> Possessive adjective «хозяйкин»: «хозяйкин» is a possessive adjective formed from «хозяйка» (landlady) with the suffix «-ин» — "the landlady's," agreeing with «чепчик». Russian forms such familiar possessives from people's names and roles.

— В хозяйкин чепчик?  
"Into your landlady's cap?"
> Accusative of motion-into: «в хозяйкин чепчик» takes the accusative because «в» here expresses motion-into (sewing the money into the cap), not location. Inanimate «чепчик» shows the accusative identical to the nominative.

— Да, я у ней утащил.  
"Yes, I filched it from her."
> «утащить» — to filch, swipe: «утащить» (perfective of «утаскивать») literally "drag off," colloquially "swipe, pinch, make off with." Lighter and more sheepish than «украсть» (steal), it fits Mitya's half-joking confession of a petty theft.
> Colloquial «у ней» for «у неё»: «у ней» is a colloquial/19th-c. variant of «у неё» (from her), genitive of «она» after «у». Dostoevsky's dialogue keeps such spoken forms to voice his characters.

— Как это утащили?  
"How do you mean, filched it?"
> Echo question with «как это»: «Как это утащили?» echoes Mitya's verb back at him — "how do you mean, filched it?" The phrase «как это» registers surprise or demands elaboration; the subject pronoun is dropped, recoverable from the verb ending.

— Видите, я действительно, помнится, как-то утащил один чепчик на тряпки, а может, перо обтирать.  
"You see, I really did, as I recall, somehow filch a cap for rags, or maybe to wipe a pen with.
> Indefinite adverb «как-то»: «как-то» (somehow, at some point) is the «-то» indefinite of «как», vaguely gesturing at a real but unremembered occasion — "I did somehow filch one."
> «перо» — a writing quill/pen-nib: Here «перо» means a pen (nib), and «обтирать перо» is to wipe the pen clean of ink. A scrap of cloth kept on the desk to wipe the nib — an everyday detail of mid-19th-c. writing.

Взял тихонько, потому никуда не годная тряпка, лоскутки у меня валялись, а тут эти полторы тысячи, я взял и зашил… Кажется, именно в эти тряпки зашил.  
I took it on the quiet, since the rag was good for nothing, and I had scraps lying about, and then there was this fifteen hundred, and I took it and sewed it up… I think it was into those very rags that I sewed it.
> «тихонько» — quietly, on the sly: «тихонько» is the diminutive-adverb of «тихо» (quietly), softened by «-оньк-» to mean "ever so quietly, on the quiet." The expressive suffix conveys the furtive, almost playful manner of the theft.
> Idiom «никуда не годный»: «никуда не годная» — "good for nothing, useless" (literally "fit for nowhere") — is a fixed expression with negative concord («никуда… не»). Mitya keeps insisting the rag was worthless.
> «полторы» governs genitive singular: «полтора/полторы» (one and a half) governs the genitive singular like 2–4, so «тысячи» is genitive singular; «полторы» takes the feminine form to agree with «тысяча».

Старая коленкоровая дрянь, тысячу раз мытая.  
An old bit of calico trash, washed a thousand times over."
> «дрянь» — trash, rubbish: «дрянь» is contemptuous "trash, rubbish, worthless stuff" (and, of a person, "scum"). Here it dismisses the calico scrap as nothing — Mitya piling on words for its worthlessness.
> Past passive participle «мытая»: «мытая» is the past passive participle of «мыть» (to wash) used attributively — "washed [a thousand times]." «тысячу раз» is an accusative time-phrase, "a thousand times over."

— И вы это твердо уже помните?  
"And you remember that for certain now?"
> Adverb «твёрдо» — "for certain": «твёрдо» (firmly, for certain) modifies «помните» — "do you firmly remember this now?" Coupled with «уже» (now, by this point) it presses whether Mitya has at last settled on a stable account.

— Не знаю, твердо ли.  
"I don't know whether it's for certain.
> Embedded «ли» — "whether": «Не знаю, твёрдо ли» uses the enclitic «ли» to mean "whether": "I don't know whether [it's] for certain." «ли» follows the focused word «твёрдо», forming an indirect yes/no question.

Кажется, в чепчик.  
Into the cap, I think.
> Topic-comment ellipsis: An elliptical reply: only the new information «в чепчик» (into the cap) survives, the verb «зашил» understood from context. Russian freely drops given material, leaving just the comment.

Ну да наплевать!  
Well, never mind, who cares!"
> «наплевать!» — "who cares!": «наплевать» (literally "to spit on [it]") is a coarse, dismissive idiom: "to hell with it, never mind, who cares." Mitya throws up his hands at the whole line of questioning.
> Particles «ну да»: «ну да» strings two particles — «ну» (well) and «да» (here "yes, anyway") — into a resigned, brushing-aside opener. Such particle clusters are the connective tissue of spoken Russian.

— В таком случае ваша хозяйка могла бы по крайней мере припомнить, что у нее пропала эта вещь?  
"In that case your landlady could at least recall that this item had gone missing from her?"
> Conditional «могла бы припомнить»: «могла бы… припомнить» — "could at least recall" — is again the conditional «бы» on past «могла» plus a perfective infinitive, framing a hypothetical: if the cap were really hers, surely she would notice its loss.
> «у + genitive» of the affected possessor: «у неё пропала эта вещь» — "this thing went missing from her" — uses «у + genitive» to mark the person who suffers the loss, with «вещь» as the nominative subject of «пропала».

— Вовсе нет, она и не хватилась.  
"Not at all, she never even missed it.
> «хватиться» — to notice missing: «хватиться» (reflexive, perfective) means "to suddenly notice that something/someone is gone, to miss it." «она и не хватилась» — "she never even missed it," the «и» adding "not even."

Старая тряпка, говорю вам, старая тряпка, гроша не стоит.  
An old rag, I tell you, an old rag, not worth a penny."
> Genitive of negation with «стоить»: Under negation «стоить» takes the genitive «гроша» rather than accusative — "is not worth a grosh." The genitive of negation is obligatory in such fixed measure-of-worth phrases.

— А иголку откуда взяли, нитки?  
"And where did you get the needle, the thread?"
> Fronting for focus + contrastive «а»: The object «иголку» (needle, accusative) is fronted before «откуда взяли» to spotlight the new line of attack, and opening «а» marks the gentle shift to a fresh question. Free word order lets the stressed item lead.

— Я прекращаю, больше не хочу. Довольно! — рассердился наконец Митя.  
"I'm done, I won't go on. Enough!" Mitya flared up at last.
> Imperfective present «прекращаю»: «прекращаю» (I'm stopping, breaking off) is imperfective present, naming an action unfolding right now — Mitya cutting off the interrogation mid-stream.
> «рассердиться» — to grow angry: «рассердился» (perfective, reflexive) marks the inceptive moment of anger — "flew into a temper." The «рас-» prefix and perfective aspect capture the flare-up as a sudden completed shift.

— И странно опять-таки, что вы так совсем уж забыли, в каком именно месте бросили на площади эту… ладонку.  
"And it's odd again that you've so completely forgotten just which spot in the square you threw that… amulet."
> «ладанка» — an amulet/relic pouch: A «ладанка» (here spelled «ладонка») is a small cloth or metal pouch worn round the neck, originally holding incense («ладан»), a relic, or a written prayer. Mitya's makeshift money-pouch is ironically named for this devotional object.
> Stacked intensifying adverbs: «так совсем уж забыли» piles up «так» (so), «совсем» (completely), and «уж» (the emphatic «уже») to dramatise the investigator's incredulity at Mitya's total forgetfulness.

— Да велите завтра площадь выместь, может, найдете, — усмехнулся Митя.  
"Order the square swept tomorrow, maybe you'll find it," Mitya said with a sneer.
> Imperative «велите» + infinitive: «велите» (order!, polite plural imperative of «велеть») governs the infinitive «выместь» (sweep) — "order the square swept." «выместь» is an old/colloquial variant of «вымести».
> «усмехнуться» — to smirk/sneer: «усмехнулся» (perfective, reflexive) is a single, sour half-smile — a smirk or sneer, not open laughter. It marks Mitya's bitter, defiant turn against his questioners.

— Довольно, господа, довольно, — измученным голосом порешил он. — Вижу ясно: вы мне не поверили!  
"Enough, gentlemen, enough," he brought it to an end in an exhausted voice. "I see clearly: you have not believed me!
> Instrumental of manner «измученным голосом»: «измученным голосом» (in an exhausted voice) is the instrumental of manner — the case used for the means or manner of an action. «измученным» is a past passive participle of «измучить» (to wear out) declined as an adjective.
> «порешить» — to decide/conclude: «порешил» (perfective) is a folksy, emphatic "decided, settled, brought to an end." Here it means Mitya resolved to break things off — "he concluded, in an exhausted voice."
> «поверить» + dative: «поверить» (to believe [someone]) governs the dative «мне» — "you did not believe me." The person believed stands in the dative, not the accusative.

Ни в чем и ни на грош!  
Not in anything, not by a hair!
> Doubled «ни» without a verb: Two «ни»-phrases — «ни в чём» (in nothing) and «ни на грош» (not by a penny's worth) — hammer the negation from the previous clause's «не поверили». «ни» intensifies an existing negation rather than negating on its own.
> Idiom «ни на грош»: «ни на грош» (not by a single grosh) is a fixed idiom for "not in the slightest, not one bit" — measuring belief in the smallest of coins, as in s207's «гроша не стоит».

Вина моя, а не ваша, не надо было соваться.  
The fault is mine, not yours — I should never have got mixed up in it.
> Zero copula + contrastive «а»: «Вина моя, а не ваша» — "the fault is mine, not yours" — has no verb "is" (zero copula in the present), and «а» draws the contrast between «моя» and «ваша». Possessives stand in the nominative as predicate.
> «соваться» — to butt in, meddle: «соваться» (reflexive, imperfective) means "to poke one's nose in, butt in, get mixed up in." «не надо было соваться» — "I shouldn't have got involved" — Mitya rebukes himself for confessing.

Зачем, зачем я омерзил себя признанием в тайне моей!  
Why, why did I defile myself by confessing my secret!
> «омерзить» — to make loathsome, defile: «омерзить» (rare, bookish, from «мерзкий» — vile) means "to make loathsome, to befoul." «омерзил себя признанием» — "I defiled myself by my confession" — high-pitched self-disgust in Mitya's mouth.
> Instrumental of means «признанием»: «признанием» (by confession) is the instrumental naming the means by which Mitya defiled himself; «в тайне моей» (in my secret) specifies the confession's object with «в» + prepositional.

А вам это смех, я по глазам вашим вижу.  
And to you it's a laughing matter — I can see it by your eyes.
> Dative experiencer «вам это смех»: «вам это смех» — "to you this is a laughing matter" — sets the experiencers in the dative «вам» with a zero copula. The dative-experiencer frame, so common in Dostoevsky, makes the laughter happen *to* them.
> «по + dative» — judging by: «по глазам вашим» (by your eyes) uses «по + dative» in its "judging by, going by" sense — "I can tell by your eyes." The possessive «вашим» follows the noun, a slightly elevated/emphatic order.

Это вы меня, прокурор, довели!  
It was you who drove me to it, prosecutor!
> Cleft emphasis with «это»: «Это вы меня… довели!» fronts «это вы» to single out the culprit — "it was *you* who drove me to it." «довести» (perfective) here means "to drive [someone] to a state," governing the accusative «меня».

Пойте себе гимн, если можете… Будьте вы прокляты, истязатели!  
Sing yourselves a hymn of triumph, if you can… Be damned, you tormentors!"
> Imperative + ethical dative «себе»: «Пойте себе» pairs the imperative «пойте» (sing!) with the "ethical dative" «себе» — "go ahead and sing [to your hearts' content]." This «себе» adds a dismissive "by all means, suit yourselves" colouring.
> «проклятый» / «истязатель»: «Будьте вы прокляты» — "be damned, be accursed" — uses the short past passive participle «прокляты» as a curse-formula. «истязатели» (tormentors, torturers, from «истязать») is Mitya's recurring epithet for his interrogators, picked up again at s236.

Он склонился головой и закрыл лицо руками.  
He bowed his head and hid his face in his hands.
> Reflexive «склониться» + instrumental: «склонился» (perfective, reflexive — bowed, drooped) takes «головой» in the instrumental of the body-part doing the action: "bowed with his head." Russian regularly puts the relevant body-part in the instrumental.

Прокурор и следователь молчали.  
The prosecutor and the investigator kept silent.
> Imperfective «молчали» — durative silence: «молчали» (imperfective past, plural) renders the silence as an ongoing state — "they kept silent," not a single act. The imperfective holds the scene's stillness open.

Через минуту он поднял голову и как-то без мысли поглядел на них.  
A minute later he raised his head and looked at them somehow vacantly.
> «через + accusative» of elapsed time: «через минуту» (a minute later) uses «через + accusative» to mean "after the lapse of [a minute]." The same preposition with motion means "across/through," its case fixed by «через».
> Indefinite «как-то» of manner: «как-то» (somehow, in some indefinable way) softens «без мысли поглядел» — "looked at them somehow vacantly." Dostoevsky uses «как-то» repeatedly in this passage (s222, s236) to blur Mitya's blank, dissociated state.

Лицо его выражало уже совершившееся, уже безвозвратное отчаяние, и он как-то тихо замолк, сидел и как будто себя не помнил.  
His face expressed a despair already accomplished, already beyond recall, and he fell somehow quietly silent, sat there, and seemed scarcely aware of himself.
> Past active participle «совершившееся»: «совершившееся» is the past active participle of reflexive «совершиться» (to come to pass), declined as an adjective modifying «отчаяние» — "a despair [that had] already accomplished [itself]." The participle compresses a whole который-clause into one word.
> «безвозвратный» — irrevocable: «безвозвратное» (from «без» + «возврат», return) means "beyond recall, irretrievable, point of no return." Applied to «отчаяние» it marks Mitya's despair as final and unrecoverable.
> «как будто» + reflexive «не помнил себя»: «как будто» (as if) frames a semblance; «себя не помнил» — "was not himself, beside himself" — is an idiom using the reflexive pronoun «себя» (no nominative form) for losing self-possession.

Между тем надо было оканчивать дело: следовало неотложно перейти к допросу свидетелей.  
Meanwhile the business had to be brought to a close: there was no putting off the move to the questioning of the witnesses.
> Impersonal «надо было» + imperfective: «надо было оканчивать» is a subjectless necessity construction — "it was necessary to wind up the matter." The imperfective infinitive «оканчивать» frames the closing as an ongoing process to be undertaken.
> Impersonal «следовало»: «следовало» (it was fitting/incumbent) is another impersonal predicate of obligation, governing the perfective infinitive «перейти» (to move on). «неотложно» (without delay) stresses the urgency of turning to the witnesses.
> «между тем» — meanwhile: «между тем» is a fixed adverbial "meanwhile, in the meantime," pivoting the narration from Mitya's collapse back to the procedural business that must go on.

Было уже часов восемь утра.  
It was already about eight o'clock in the morning.
> Approximation by inversion «часов восемь»: Putting the noun before the numeral — «часов восемь» instead of «восемь часов» — signals approximation: "about eight o'clock." «часов» is genitive plural after the numeral; «утра» (in the morning) is the genitive of time-of-day.

Свечи давно уже как потушили.  
The candles had long since been put out.
> Subjectless 3rd-pl. + dialectal «как»: «потушили» is an indefinite 3rd-person-plural "they put out / the candles had been put out," with no named subject. The colloquial «давно уже как» ("a good while ago now") adds a folksy temporal flavour.

Михаил Макарович и Калганов, всё время допроса входившие и уходившие из комнаты, на этот раз оба опять вышли.  
Mikhail Makarovich and Kalganov, who throughout the interrogation had been coming in and going out of the room, this time both went out again.
> Past active participles «входившие и уходившие»: Two imperfective past active participles in -ивш- modify the names — "who had been coming in and going out" throughout the interrogation. Stacked participial modifiers like this are the signature of Dostoevsky's dense narrative syntax.
> Prefixed motion: в- / у-: The pair contrasts prefixed motion verbs: «входить» (в- = into, enter) and «уходить» (у- = away, leave). The directional prefixes convert the base motion verb «ходить» into ordinary imperfectives of arriving and departing.

Прокурор и следователь имели тоже чрезвычайно усталый вид.  
The prosecutor and the investigator also had an extremely weary look about them.
> «иметь вид» — to have an appearance: «имели… усталый вид» — "had a weary look" — uses «иметь вид» (to look, appear) with the manner adjective «усталый» agreeing with «вид» in the accusative. «чрезвычайно» (extremely) intensifies it.

Наставшее утро было ненастное, всё небо затянулось облаками, и дождь лил как из ведра.  
The morning that had dawned was foul, the whole sky was overcast with clouds, and the rain came down in buckets.
> Past active participle «наставшее»: «наставшее» is the past active participle of «настать» (to set in, arrive — of time) modifying «утро» — "the morning that had set in." The participle quietly packs a prior event into a single adjective.
> «ненастный» — foul (of weather): «ненастный» means "foul, inclement, rainy," said of weather (noun «ненастье» — bad weather). The bleak morning mirrors Mitya's irrevocable despair — pathetic fallacy at the chapter's close.
> Idiom «как из ведра»: «лил как из ведра» (poured as if from a bucket) is the standard Russian idiom for torrential rain — English "raining buckets / cats and dogs." «лил» is imperfective, the rain pouring on and on.

Митя без мысли смотрел на окна.  
Mitya gazed vacantly at the windows.
> Imperfective «смотрел» of blank gazing: «смотрел» (imperfective past) holds Mitya's vacant gazing as a continuous state — "gazed without a thought." The phrase «без мысли» recurs (s221) as a leitmotif of his numbed mind.

— А можно мне в окно поглядеть? — спросил он вдруг Николая Парфеновича.  
"May I look out the window?" he suddenly asked Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Impersonal «можно» + dative «мне»: «можно мне… поглядеть?» — "may I look?" — is the impersonal permission word «можно» with the dative experiencer «мне» and a perfective infinitive. There is no nominative subject; the dative names the one asking leave.

— О, сколько вам угодно, — ответил тот.  
"Oh, as much as you like," the other replied.
> Idiom «сколько угодно» + dative: «сколько вам угодно» — "as much as you please" — pairs «угодно» (pleasing) with the dative «вам» in a polite impersonal frame: whatever is agreeable to you.
> Anaphoric «тот» — "the other": «тот» (literally "that one") here picks out the previously mentioned person — "the other [man] replied," i.e. Nikolai Parfenovich. The far demonstrative serves to track referents in narration.

Митя встал и подошел к окну.  
Mitya got up and went over to the window.
> Chained perfectives + prefixed «подойти»: Two perfectives «встал… подошёл» advance the action step by step: rose, then went up. «подошёл» (от «подойти», pod- = up to) is a prefixed motion verb governing «к окну» (to the window) in the dative after «к».

Дождь так и сек в маленькие зеленоватые стекла окошек.  
The rain lashed away at the little greenish panes of the small windows.
> Intensifying «так и» + imperfective: «так и сек» — "just lashed away" — uses the emphatic «так и» before the verb to convey vigorous, unrelenting action. «сёк» is imperfective past of «сечь» (to lash, whip), the rain beating on without let-up.
> «окошко» — little window (diminutive): «окошек» is the genitive plural of «окошко», a diminutive of «окно» (window). The «-ошк-» suffix paints the panes as small and humble, matching the «маленькие зеленоватые стёкла» (little greenish glass) of a poor village house.

Виднелась прямо под окном грязная дорога, а там дальше, в дождливой мгле, черные, бедные, неприглядные ряды изб, еще более, казалось, почерневших и победневших от дождя.  
Directly below the window a muddy road could be seen, and beyond it, farther off in the rainy murk, the black, poor, dismal rows of peasant huts, seeming to have turned even blacker and poorer in the rain.
> Reflexive «виднеться» + verb-first order: «виднелась» (от «виднеться», -ся) means "could be seen, showed itself" — a middle/intransitive use of «-ся». Beginning with the verb before its subject «дорога» throws weight onto the unfolding scene revealed below the window.
> «изба» — peasant log hut: An «изба» is a traditional peasant wooden hut; «изб» is its genitive plural. The «ряды изб» (rows of huts) sketch the poor village outside, blackened and shabby in the rain.
> Past active participles + «от» of cause: «почерневших и победневших» are past active participles of «почернеть» (turn black) and «победнеть» (grow poor), in genitive plural agreeing with «изб». «от дождя» ("from the rain") gives the cause, «от» governing the genitive.

Митя вспомнил про «Феба златокудрого» и как он хотел застрелиться с первым лучом его.  
Mitya remembered "golden-haired Phoebus" and how he had meant to shoot himself with the god's first ray.
> «злато-» — Slavonic "gold": «злато-» is the Church-Slavonic, elevated doublet of native «золото» (gold); «златокудрый» = "golden-haired." The lofty Slavonic compound marks the phrase as poetic quotation, clashing with the squalid scene before him.
> Reflexive «застрелиться» + instrumental «с… лучом»: «застрелиться» (-ся) is "to shoot oneself," the reflexive turning the act on the subject. «с первым лучом» — "with the first ray" — pairs «с» with the instrumental to mean "at the moment of, together with."

«Пожалуй, в такое утро было бы и лучше», — усмехнулся он и вдруг, махнув сверху вниз рукой, повернулся к «истязателям»:  
"On a morning like this it might even be better," he said with a wry smile, and suddenly, with a downward sweep of his hand, he turned to the "tormentors":
> Conditional «было бы» + comparative «лучше»: «было бы… лучше» is the conditional «бы» on neuter «было» plus the suppletive comparative «лучше» (better, from «хороший») — "it might even be better." «пожалуй» ("perhaps, I daresay") and «и» ("even") soften and intensify the grim musing.
> Perfective gerund «махнув»: «махнув» is the perfective past gerund («деепричастие») of «махнуть» — "having waved / with a wave." It expresses an action accompanying the main «повернулся», sharing its subject, and condenses the gesture into one adverbial word.
> Reflexive «повернуться» + «к» + dative: «повернулся» (-ся, perfective — turned [himself]) governs «к истязателям» (toward the tormentors) in the dative after «к». «истязатели» — his bitter epithet from s218 — returns, now in quotation marks as the narrator borrows Mitya's word.

— Господа! — воскликнул он, — я ведь вижу, что я пропал.  
"Gentlemen!" he exclaimed, "I do see that I am done for.
> Particle «ведь» — "after all": «ведь» appeals to shared, undeniable knowledge — "I do see, after all / you see." This tiny modal particle, untranslatable except by stress, gives Mitya's outburst its note of insistent self-evidence.
> «пропасть» — to be lost/done for: «пропал» (perfective of «пропасть») literally "perished, was lost," idiomatically "I'm done for, it's all over for me." The same verb recurs at s239 («пропадёт») of Grushenka — Mitya fears she will be "lost" along with him.

Но она?  
But what of her?
> Topic-only elliptical question: «Но она?» — "But she?" — is a bare topic with the comment left to be supplied ("what of her?"). Russian readily leaves such elliptical questions, the «она» pointing unmistakably to Grushenka.

Скажите мне про нее, умоляю вас, неужели и она пропадет со мной?  
Tell me about her, I implore you — is she really to perish along with me?
> «умолять» + accusative — to implore: «умоляю вас» (I implore you) is imperfective present, the verb governing the accusative «вас». The present tense renders the pleading as live and ongoing.
> Particle «неужели» + «и» (even): «неужели» is the particle of anxious incredulity — "is it really possible that…?" Here «и она» means "she too / even she," Mitya dreading that Grushenka will perish alongside him. «пропадёт» is perfective future.

Ведь она невинна, ведь она вчера кричала не в уме, что «во всем виновата».  
She is innocent, after all — when she cried out yesterday that she was 'guilty of everything,' she was out of her mind.
> «ведь» + short adjective «невинна»: «невинна» is the short (predicative) form of «невинный» (innocent), feminine singular — bookish and absolute, "she is innocent." The particle «ведь» again presses the point as self-evident: "she is innocent, after all."
> Imperfective «кричала» of the cry: «кричала» (imperfective past) presents the crying out as the ongoing manner of her speech yesterday; «не в уме» (out of her mind) is the fixed phrase excusing her self-accusation as madness, not truth.

Она ни в чем, ни в чем не виновата!  
She is guilty of nothing, of nothing at all!
> Doubled «ни» and negative concord: «ни в чём» («in nothing») reinforces the negated predicate «не виновата», and Mitya repeats it for emotional weight. Russian requires the verb to keep «не» even alongside an «ни»-word, so the literal shape is a double negative meaning a single, absolute 'guilty of nothing at all'.
> Short adjective as predicate: «виновата» is the short feminine form of «виноватый» (guilty), used predicatively of «она». The short form here states an absolute condition — 'she is [not] guilty' — in the bookish, categorical register the long form would soften.

Я всю ночь скорбел, с вами сидя… Нельзя ли, не можете ли мне сказать: что вы с нею теперь сделаете?  
I have grieved the whole night through, sitting here with you... Could you not — can you not tell me: what will you do with her now?
> Imperfective gerund «сидя»: «сидя» («sitting») is the imperfective adverbial participle («деепричастие») of «сидеть», naming an action going on at the same time as the main verb «скорбел». It must share the main subject (Mitya), and folds 'as I sat with you' into one compact, literary phrase.
> Interrogative «ли» softening a request: The enclitic «ли» follows the fronted focus word to form a tentative yes/no question: «Нельзя ли…?» ('Might it not be possible…?'), «не можете ли…?» ('can you not…?'). Paired with «не», it makes the request gentler and more pleading than a bare question would.
> Perfective future «сделаете»: «сделаете» is the perfective «сделать» conjugated with present-tense endings, which yields a completed future: 'what will you do (and have done) with her'. Mitya asks about a single resolved outcome, not an ongoing process.
> «скорбеть» — to grieve, to sorrow: «скорбеть» is an elevated, bookish verb for deep grief or affliction, weightier than ordinary «грустить» or «горевать». It carries a near-liturgical solemnity fitting to Mitya's anguished night-long vigil.
> Archaic instrumental «нею»: «нею» is the older, fuller variant of the instrumental «ней» ('with her'), common in 19th-century prose. It is purely stylistic — the same case and meaning, with a more literary ring.

— Решительно успокойтесь на этот счет, Дмитрий Федорович, — тотчас же и с видимою поспешностью ответил прокурор, — мы не имеем пока никаких значительных мотивов хоть в чем-нибудь обеспокоить особу, которою вы так интересуетесь.  
"Set your mind entirely at rest on that score, Dmitri Fyodorovich," the prosecutor answered at once, and with evident haste, "so far we have no significant grounds for troubling, in any respect whatever, the person in whom you take such an interest."
> Reflexive imperative «успокойтесь»: «успокойтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of the reflexive «успокоиться» ('to calm down'), the clitic «-ся» (here «-сь» after the vowel) giving the verb its middle, change-of-state sense. «Решительно» ('decidedly, utterly') intensifies the reassurance.
> Genitive of negation: After negated «не имеем» ('we do not have') the object stands in the genitive: «никаких значительных мотивов» (gen. pl.), not the accusative. The «ни»-word «никаких» also triggers negative concord with «не».
> Relative «которою» in the instrumental: «который» agrees with its antecedent «особу» in gender and number but takes whatever case its own clause demands — here the instrumental «которою» (an archaic variant of «которой») governed by «интересоваться» ('to take an interest in', which requires the instrumental).
> Idiom «на этот счёт» — on that score: A fixed expression meaning 'in that regard, concerning that'. The prosecutor's bureaucratic poise shows in such set phrases beside «решительно» and «в этом смысле».

В дальнейшем ходе дела, надеюсь, окажется то же… Напротив, сделаем в этом смысле всё, что только можно с нашей стороны.  
In the further course of the case, I trust, the same will prove true... On the contrary, in this regard we shall do everything that can possibly be done on our part.
> Reflexive «окажется» as future: «окажется» is the perfective reflexive «оказаться» ('to turn out, prove to be') conjugated with present endings for a completed future: 'the same will prove true'. The «-ся» gives the intransitive 'turn out' sense.
> Perfective future «сделаем»: «сделаем» (perfective «сделать», 1st pl.) promises a single, accomplished future act: 'we shall do everything'. The emphatic «что только можно» ('all that is at all possible') leans on «только» for force.
> «в этом смысле» — in this regard: Literally 'in this sense', but idiomatically 'in this respect, to this end'. Another piece of the prosecutor's measured officialese.

Будьте совершенно спокойны.  
Be perfectly easy.
> Imperative «будьте» + short adjective: «Будьте» is the polite imperative of «быть» ('be'), and «спокойны» the short plural form of «спокойный», used predicatively. The short adjective gives the reassurance a crisp, formulaic finality: 'be perfectly easy'.

— Господа, благодарю вас, я ведь так и знал, что вы все-таки же честные и справедливые люди, несмотря ни на что.  
"Gentlemen, I thank you — for I knew all along that you were, after all, honorable and just men, in spite of everything.
> Particle «ведь» appealing to shared sense: «ведь» ('after all, you see') invokes a truth Mitya feels self-evident — that these are honest men. Combined with «так и знал» ('I knew it all along'), it gives his outburst its warm, confiding tone.
> Stacked particles «всё-таки же»: Mitya piles up emphatic particles: «всё-таки» ('all the same, after all') plus insistent «же». Such clustering is pure spoken texture, conveying his fervent relief — almost untranslatable except by stress in English.
> Concessive «несмотря ни на что»: A fixed concessive phrase, 'in spite of everything / no matter what'. The «ни на что» again shows negative concord — «ни» splitting around the preposition «на» to mean 'on nothing whatever'.
> «справедливый» — just, fair: «справедливый» means 'just, righteous, fair-dealing', paired here with «честные» ('honest'). Together they name the moral qualities Mitya, in his exalted gratitude, wants to believe his interrogators possess.

Вы сняли бремя с души… Ну, что же мы теперь будем делать?  
You have lifted a weight from my soul... Well then, what are we to do now?
> Perfective past «сняли»: «сняли» (perfective «снять», 'to take off, remove') reports a single completed result: the weight is now lifted. The genitive «с души» ('from the soul') follows the preposition «с» in its 'off/from' sense.
> Compound future «будем делать»: «будем делать» is the imperfective compound future — «быть» (будем) plus the imperfective infinitive «делать» — naming an open, ongoing 'what are we to be doing now'. The particle «же» lends the question urgency.
> «бремя» — burden (a rare neuter): «бремя» ('burden, weight') is one of a small class of neuter nouns in «-мя» (like «время», «имя») that decline irregularly. It is elevated and slightly archaic, fitting the spiritual register of 'a weight off my soul'.

Я готов.  
I am ready."
> Short adjective «готов»: «готов» is the short masculine form of «готовый» ('ready'), the predicative form Russian prefers for such momentary states. Stripped to two words, the line gives Mitya's resolve a stark, final force.

— Да вот-с, поспешить бы надо. Нужно неотложно перейти к допросу свидетелей.  
"Why yes, sir, we ought to be quick about it. We must proceed without delay to the examination of the witnesses.
> The deferential clitic «-с»: The «-с» tacked onto «вот» is the «словоерс», an abbreviation of «сударь» ('sir') once added for politeness or servility. In Dostoevsky it flavours speech as deferential, ingratiating, or self-deprecating — here the official's clerkly courtesy.
> Conditional «бы» softening necessity: «бы» attached to the infinitive construction «поспешить надо» ('one ought to hurry') turns a flat necessity into a tactful suggestion: 'we ought really to be quick'. The mobile particle softens the prompt to act.
> Impersonal «нужно» + infinitive: «Нужно… перейти» is an impersonal necessity construction with no nominative subject, the predicate word «нужно» plus a perfective infinitive. «Перейти к» ('to proceed to') governs the dative «к допросу».
> «неотложно» — without delay: A formal adverb, 'urgently, without postponement' (from «отложить», to put off). It belongs to the bureaucratic-legal lexicon governing the interrogation procedure.

Всё это должно произойти непременно в вашем присутствии, а потому…  
All of this must take place strictly in your presence, and therefore..."
> Modal «должно» + perfective infinitive: «должно произойти» ('must take place') pairs the modal «должно» with the perfective «произойти» ('to occur, come to pass'), viewing the event as a single whole. «Непременно» ('without fail') stiffens it into a legal requirement.
> Prepositional after «в»: «в вашем присутствии» ('in your presence') uses «в» with the prepositional case to mark a static circumstance rather than motion. The adjective «вашем» and noun «присутствии» both carry the prepositional ending.
> Causal «а потому»: «а потому» ('and therefore') chains a consequence onto the preceding statement, with the contrastive «а» giving a slight pivot of thought. The trailing dash leaves the official's conclusion unspoken, cut off by the next speaker.

— А не выпить ли сперва чайку? — перебил Николай Парфенович, — ведь уж, кажется, заслужили!  
"But shouldn't we have some tea first?" Nikolai Parfenovich broke in. "Surely we've earned it by now!"
> «не… ли» as a tentative proposal: The frame «не выпить ли…?» ('shouldn't we have…?') uses interrogative «ли» with «не» plus an infinitive to float a gentle suggestion. It is the idiomatic Russian way to propose doing something together.
> Partitive diminutive «чайку»: «чайку» is a partitive-genitive diminutive of «чай» ('a little tea, some tea'), the cosy «-к-» suffix adding warmth rather than smallness. It instantly signals a friendly, informal break from the proceedings.
> Particles «ведь» and «уж»: «ведь» ('after all') and «уж» ('surely, by now') together make the remark coaxing and collegial — 'we've earned it, haven't we?'. Such particle clusters are the very texture of Dostoevsky's casual dialogue.

Порешили, что если есть готовый чай внизу (ввиду того, что Михаил Макарович наверно ушел «почаевать»), то выпить по стаканчику и затем «продолжать и продолжать».  
They resolved that if there was tea ready downstairs (since Mikhail Makarovich had most likely gone off "to take his tea"), they would each drink a glass and then "go on and on."
> Subject-less «порешили» (they resolved): «Порешили» (perfective, 3rd pl. with no pronoun) uses the indefinite 'they' to report a collective decision without naming who. The «по-» prefix gives «решить» a colloquial, settled-on-it flavour.
> Conditional «если… то» with infinitive resolution: The «если… то…» frame ('if there is…, then…') sets up a condition, but the consequence is given by bare infinitives «выпить… продолжать» reporting what was resolved to do — a compressed, indirect rendering of their plan.
> «почаевать» — to take tea: A colloquial, slightly folksy verb meaning 'to drink tea, have a tea-break', set in quotation marks as Mikhail Makarovich's own idiom. The narrator wryly borrows his homely word for slipping off for a cup.
> Diminutive «стаканчик» + distributive «по»: «по стаканчику» means 'a (little) glass each', the preposition «по» distributing one apiece and the diminutive «-чик» softening it to a friendly small glass. Russians traditionally drank tea from glasses in metal holders («подстаканники»), not cups.

Настоящий же чай и «закусочку» отложить до более свободного часа.  
Tea in earnest, and "a little something to eat," they would put off until a freer hour.
> Infinitive of resolved intent + «же»: The bare perfective infinitive «отложить» ('to put off') continues the report of what was decided. The particle «же» here contrasts this 'proper tea' with the hasty glass just mentioned, marking the topic shift.
> Diminutive «закусочка» — a little something to eat: From «закуска» ('snack, hors d'oeuvre, things eaten with drink'), the affectionate diminutive «закусочка» means 'a nice little bite'. The quotation marks frame it as the genial, anticipatory word of the men promising themselves a proper spread later.
> Analytic comparative «более свободного»: «более свободного» ('a freer') forms the attributive comparative with «более» ('more') plus the declined adjective, the bookish alternative to a one-word comparative. The genitive «часа» follows the preposition «до» ('until').

Чай действительно нашелся внизу, и его вскорости доставили наверх.  
Tea was indeed found downstairs, and it was shortly brought up.
> Reflexive «нашёлся» — turned up: «нашёлся» is the perfective reflexive «найтись» ('to be found, to turn up'), the «-ся» making it intransitive: the tea 'found itself', i.e. was there to be had. It frames the discovery as happening of itself rather than by anyone's effort.
> Indefinite-subject «доставили»: «доставили» (perfective, 3rd pl., no subject) again uses the indefinite 'they' for an action whose agent is unimportant — 'it was brought up'. The accusative «его» refers back to the tea.
> «вскорости» — shortly, before long: A colloquial, slightly old-fashioned adverb for 'soon, shortly afterward', warmer and more folksy than the neutral «вскоре». It suits the homely register of the tea-fetching interlude.

Митя сначала отказался от стакана, который ему любезно предложил Николай Парфенович, но потом сам попросил и выпил с жадностью.  
At first Mitya refused the glass that Nikolai Parfenovich courteously offered him, but then he asked for it himself and drank it greedily.
> Chain of perfectives narrating events: Three perfectives in sequence — «отказался» (refused), «попросил» (asked), «выпил» (drank up) — move the story forward as discrete completed acts. This event-by-event perfective chain is how Russian narrates a quick run of actions.
> Relative «который» as object: «который» agrees with «стакана» (masc. sg.) but takes the accusative as direct object of «предложил» within its clause. «Ему» is the dative recipient — 'the glass which [he] offered him'.
> Intensifier «сам» — of his own accord: «сам» ('himself, on his own') stresses that the second move was Mitya's own initiative, contrasting with his initial refusal. It points up the swing in his state — pride giving way to thirst.
> «с жадностью» — greedily, avidly: Literally 'with greed', the phrase «с жадностью» renders the manner adverbially. After a sleepless, harrowing night, Mitya's avid gulping of the tea quietly registers his physical exhaustion.

Вообще же имел какой-то даже удивительно измученный вид.  
On the whole he had, indeed, a look that was even astonishingly worn out.
> Particle «же» resuming the narration: Here «же» is not contrastive but a soft connective resuming the thread — 'and on the whole…'. «Вообще же» turns from the single tea-drinking to a general observation about Mitya's appearance.
> Past passive participle «измученный»: «измученный» ('worn out, tortured') is the past passive participle of perfective «измучить», used attributively before «вид» like an adjective. It describes Mitya as one acted upon — drained by the ordeal.
> Indefinite «какой-то» softening a description: «какой-то» ('some sort of, a kind of') with the «-то» particle marks a specific but hard-to-pin-down quality, hedging the narrator's impression. Stacked with «даже» ('even') and «удивительно» ('astonishingly'), it conveys a worn look stronger than the speaker quite expected.

Казалось бы, при его богатырских силах, что могла значить одна ночь кутежа и хотя бы самых сильных притом ощущений?  
One would have thought that, given his heroic strength, what could a single night of carousing mean — and even one charged with the most violent sensations besides?
> «Казалось бы» — one would have thought: «Казалось бы» fuses the past «казалось» ('it seemed') with the irrealis particle «бы» into a fixed phrase, 'one would have thought / you might suppose'. It sets up an expectation the next clause will overturn.
> Imperfective «могла значить»: «могла значить» pairs the imperfective past «могла» with the imperfective infinitive «значить» ('to mean, signify'), posing an open rhetorical question about ongoing significance: 'what could a single night possibly mean?'.
> Concessive «хотя бы»: «хотя бы» ('even, if only') concedes an extreme case — 'even one charged with the most violent sensations'. The «бы» here is part of the fixed concessive, not a conditional verb form.
> «богатырский» — of heroic, epic strength: «богатырь» is the warrior-hero of Russian folk epic («былина»), and «богатырский» evokes that legendary physical might. Applied to Mitya, it casts his constitution as larger-than-life, sharpening the irony that one night has felled him.
> «кутёж» — a wild carouse: «кутёж» (gen. «кутежа») is a riotous spree of drinking and revelry, exactly the kind of dissipation Mitya has just thrown at Mokroye. The word carries a whiff of reckless Russian abandon.

Но он сам чувствовал, что едва сидит, а по временам так все предметы начинали как бы ходить и вертеться у него пред глазами.  
Yet he himself felt that he could scarcely sit upright, and at times every object before his eyes began, as it were, to drift and spin.
> «что»-clause reporting a state: The subordinator «что» ('that') introduces the content of «чувствовал» ('he felt'). Within it the imperfective present «сидит» ('can barely sit/stay upright') reports an ongoing condition — note the present tense kept after a past main verb, as Russian does.
> Imperfective «начинали» + multidirectional «ходить»: The imperfective past «начинали» ('would begin') marks a recurring, on-and-off experience («по временам», from time to time). «ходить» is the multidirectional motion verb, here vivid for objects 'wandering' about, paired with reflexive «вертеться» ('to spin').
> Reflexive «вертеться» — to spin, whirl: «вертеться» is the «-ся» (middle) form of «вертеть», describing an intransitive spinning of its own — the objects whirl before his eyes. The clitic turns the transitive 'to turn something' into 'to be turning'.
> Hedging «как бы» — as it were: «как бы» ('as if, as it were') softens the description, marking the swimming of objects as a felt impression rather than literal fact. Dostoevsky's narrator uses it constantly to render the blur between perception and reality.

«Еще немного, и, пожалуй, бредить начну», — подумал он про себя.  
"A little more, and I'll likely start raving," he thought to himself.
> Perfective future «начну»: «начну» (perfective «начать», 1st sg.) gives a completed future: 'I'll [soon] start'. The elliptical «Ещё немного, и…» ('a little more, and…') is a vivid colloquial way to say 'any moment now'.
> Modal word «пожалуй» — likely, I daresay: «пожалуй» expresses tentative likelihood or grudging assent — 'probably, I dare say, like as not'. It colours Mitya's inward forecast of delirium with rueful resignation.
> Reflexive «про себя» — to himself: «про себя» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» (no nominative form) after «про» to mean 'inwardly, to oneself'. It frames the line as Mitya's private thought, not spoken aloud.
> «бредить» — to be delirious, rave: «бредить» means to talk wildly in fever or delirium, to rave. Mitya, swaying and exhausted, fears he is on the edge of feverish raving — a foreshadowing of his fraying grip on himself.
---

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.