# The Brothers Karamazov, The Evidences of the Witnesses. The Babe

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c8. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b9-c8.json.


Допрос свидетелей начался.  
The questioning of the witnesses began.
> Reflexive «-ся» for an intransitive 'began': «начаться» is the reflexive (middle) partner of transitive «начать»: «допрос начался» = 'the questioning began' — the inquiry starts of itself, with no agent named. The «-ся» here is the change-of-state middle, not a true reflexive, and the past form agrees in masculine singular with «допрос».
> «Допрос» — legal interrogation: «Допрос» is the formal questioning of a witness or suspect by the authorities, a sharper word than ordinary «вопросы». In s5 the verb «допрашивавших» ('of the interrogators') and in s8 «допрашивающими» build on the same root, framing the whole chapter as a judicial examination.

Но мы уже не станем продолжать наш рассказ в такой подробности, в какой вели его до сих пор.  
But we shall no longer carry on our account in the same detail in which we have conducted it up to now.
> «стать» + infinitive as a future of refusal: «не станем продолжать» is literally 'we shall not take to continuing'. Perfective «стать» with an imperfective infinitive is a common bookish way to form the future of an action — here negated, so it reads 'we will no longer go on'. The first-person plural is the narrator's editorial 'we'.
> Correlative «такой… какой» across cases: The correlative pair «в такой… в какой…» ('in such [detail]… in which…') links the two clauses, and both members sit in the prepositional after «в». «какой» is the relative here, agreeing with «подробность» in gender and number but taking the case its own clause demands.

А потому и опустим о том, как Николай Парфенович внушал каждому призываемому свидетелю, что тот должен показывать по правде и совести и что впоследствии должен будет повторить это показание свое под присягой.  
And so we shall pass over how Nikolai Parfenovich impressed upon each witness as he was summoned that he must testify truthfully and in good conscience, and that afterwards he would have to repeat this testimony of his under oath.
> Perfective present-form as future: «опустим»: «опустим» ('we shall pass over') is a perfective verb conjugated with present-tense endings, which in the perfective always yields a single completed future act. The narrator promises to omit something once and for all, not as ongoing practice.
> Present passive participle «призываемому»: «призываемому» is a present passive participle from «призывать» ('to summon'), the rare bookish type in -емый/-имый, here in the dative agreeing with «свидетелю»: 'to each witness as he was summoned'. It packs a whole subordinate clause into one declined modifier.
> Two «что»-clauses of reported content: Two parallel «что»-clauses report the substance of the warning: 'that he must testify… and that he would have to repeat'. «что» here introduces plain reported fact (contrast «чтобы», which would carry a willed or hypothetical sense). «должен будет» is the compound future of obligation.
> «по правде и совести» — the witness's oath-formula: A fixed phrase, 'in truth and conscience', the standard language of testifying honestly. «по» + dative governs both nouns. It belongs to the courtroom register Dostoevsky reproduces faithfully throughout the inquiry.

Как, наконец, от каждого свидетеля требовалось, чтоб он подписал протокол своих показаний, и проч., и проч.  
And how, finally, each witness was required to sign the record of his testimony, and so on, and so on.
> Impersonal «требовалось» + «чтоб»-clause: «требовалось» is an impersonal reflexive ('it was required'), with no nominative subject; what is required is spelled out in the «чтоб(ы)» clause whose verb stands in the irrealis past form «подписал». «чтоб» is the colloquially clipped «чтобы», governing the past-form subjunctive of demand.
> «и прочее» — 'and so forth': «проч.» abbreviates «прочее» ('the rest, et cetera'); doubled, 'and so on, and so on'. The narrator uses it to wave away the dull procedural machinery he has just declined to narrate.
> «Протокол» — the official record: A «протокол» is the formal written minute or record of a deposition, which the witness then signs. The word returns repeatedly (s25, s50, s53, s54): 'enter it in the протокол' becomes Mitya's running battle with the proceedings.

Отметим лишь одно, что главнейший пункт, на который обращалось всё внимание допрашивавших, преимущественно был всё тот же самый вопрос о трех тысячах, то есть было ли их три или полторы в первый раз, то есть в первый кутеж Дмитрия Федоровича здесь в Мокром, месяц назад, и было ли их три или полторы тысячи вчера, во второй кутеж Дмитрия Федоровича.  
We shall note only one thing: that the chief point, on which all the attention of the interrogators was fixed, was preeminently still that same question of the three thousand — that is, whether it had been three or fifteen hundred the first time, in Dmitri Fyodorovich's first spree here at Mokroe a month ago, and whether it had been three or fifteen hundred yesterday, in Dmitri Fyodorovich's second spree.
> Relative «который» + reflexive passive: The relative «который» ('on which') agrees with «пункт» but takes the accusative after «на»; the verb «обращалось» is a reflexive used passively ('all attention was directed'). «допрашивавших» is itself a past active participle, 'of the questioners', used as a noun.
> Embedded yes/no question with «ли»: The enclitic «ли» turns each clause into an indirect 'whether' question: «было ли их три» = 'whether there had been three of them'. The focused word «было» is fronted and «ли» leans on it — a markedly literary alternative to bare intonation.
> «Кутёж» — a wild spree: «кутёж» is a riotous drinking-and-spending binge, exactly the kind of money-flinging revel Mitya twice staged at Mokroe. The whole financial question — three thousand or fifteen hundred — turns on how much vanished in these sprees.

Увы, все свидетельства, все до единого, оказались против Мити, и ни одного в его пользу, а иные из свидетельств так даже внесли новые, почти ошеломляющие факты в опровержение показаний его.  
Alas, all the testimony, every last word of it, turned out to be against Mitya, and not a single piece of it in his favor, and some of the witnesses even introduced new, almost staggering facts in refutation of his account.
> Negation with «ни»: 'not a single one': «ни одного» intensifies the negation to 'not a single [piece]'; «одного» is genitive (the object of an implied negated 'there was'). It pairs with «все до единого» ('every last one') just before — the sentence swings from total against to total absence in favor.
> «Ошеломляющий» — stunning, stupefying: From «ошеломить», 'to stun/dumbfound' (originally of a blow to the helmeted head, «шелом»). As a present active participle it modifies «факты»: facts so staggering they leave one reeling — a strong, vivid word for the new evidence against Mitya.

Первым спрошенным был Трифон Борисыч.  
The first to be questioned was Trifon Borisych.
> Predicate instrumental «первым спрошенным»: After «был», the predicate complement stands in the instrumental: «первым спрошенным был…» = 'the first to be questioned was…'. «спрошенным» is a past passive participle used substantivally, and «первым» agrees with it — both instrumental, naming a temporary role.
> Contracted patronymic «Борисыч»: «Борисыч» is the colloquial contraction of «Борисович» (son of Boris); cf. «Митрий Федорыч» below for «Дмитрий Фёдорович». The clipped form marks the relaxed, peasant-inflected speech of the innkeeper Trifon and the muzhiks.

Он предстал пред допрашивающими без малейшего страха, напротив, с видом строгого и сурового негодования против обвиняемого и тем несомненно придал себе вид чрезвычайной правдивости и собственного достоинства.  
He came before his interrogators without the least fear; on the contrary, with an air of stern and severe indignation against the accused, and by this he undeniably lent himself the look of extraordinary truthfulness and personal dignity.
> Instrumental of manner after «с»: «с видом… негодования» ('with an air of indignation') uses «с» + instrumental «видом» to describe manner; the dependent genitives «строгого и сурового негодования» specify the air. Russian builds such manner adverbials from a noun-of-bearing plus its qualifiers.
> Reflexive pronoun «себе»: 'lent himself': «придал себе вид» = 'gave himself the look of'. «себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun «себя», pointing back to the clause subject (Trifon); it has no nominative and serves here as the indirect object — he confers the air on his own person.
> «Негодование» — righteous indignation: «негодование» is high-toned moral outrage, not mere anger. Trifon performs it «против обвиняемого» ('against the accused') to lend himself an air of truthfulness — the narrator gently exposes the pose as theatre.

Говорил мало, сдержанно, ждал вопросов, отвечал точно и обдуманно.  
He spoke little, with restraint, waited for the questions, and answered precisely and deliberately.
> Subject-drop and imperfective string: The subject (он = Trifon) is dropped entirely; the verb endings carry it. The chain «говорил… ждал… отвечал» is all imperfective past, painting habitual, characterizing behaviour rather than single events — how he conducted himself, not what happened once.

Твердо и не обинуясь показал, что месяц назад не могло быть истрачено менее трех тысяч, что здесь все мужики покажут, что слышали о трех тысячах от самого «Митрий Федорыча»: «Одним цыганкам сколько денег перебросали.  
Firmly and without hesitation he testified that a month ago no less than three thousand could have been spent, that all the peasants here would confirm it, that they had heard of the three thousand from "Mitri Fyodorych" himself: "To the gypsy girls alone how much money they flung away.
> Archaic gerund «не обинуясь» — 'without hesitating': «обинуясь» is the present gerund («деепричастие») of the now-archaic «обиноваться» ('to hesitate, equivocate'), negated: 'without hesitation'. As an adverbial participle it shares the main subject and colours the verb «показал». The fossilized phrase is bookish and period-flavoured; it recurs in s28.
> Impersonal passive + genitive of negation: «не могло быть истрачено» is an impersonal, neuter passive ('could not have been spent'), with «истрачено» a short passive participle; «менее трех тысяч» stands in the genitive both as the negated subject and as the quantity after «менее».
> «Мужики» — the peasant men: «мужик» is a peasant (male), the common country folk Trifon offers as corroborating witnesses. The word carries the social texture of post-emancipation rural Russia; here their collective testimony is what damns Mitya on the question of the money.

Им одним небось за тысячу перевалило».  
To them alone, I dare say, it came to more than a thousand."
> «Небось» — 'I dare say, no doubt': «небось» (originally «не бойся», 'fear not') is a colloquial modal word meaning 'probably, I'll be bound, no doubt'. It flavours Trifon's estimate with folksy, confident supposition — a marker of his peasant-innkeeper voice.
> «Перевалить за…» — 'to top, exceed': Impersonal «за тысячу перевалило» = 'it came to more than a thousand', literally 'it rolled over past a thousand'. The prefixed perfective «перевалить» (от «валить») vividly figures the sum cresting a threshold.

— И пятисот, может, не дал, — мрачно заметил на это Митя, — вот только не считал тогда, пьян был, а жаль…  
"I didn't give them five hundred, maybe," Mitya remarked gloomily at this, "only I wasn't counting then, I was drunk — a pity…"
> Genitive of negation: «пятисот не дал»: Under the negated verb «не дал», the object «пятисот» ('five hundred') stands in the genitive rather than accusative — the classic genitive of negation. Fronting it ('Even five hundred I didn't give') throws the emphasis onto the disputed sum.
> Short adjective «пьян» as predicate: «пьян» is the short (predicative) form of «пьяный»: 'I was drunk'. Short adjectives occur only as predicates and often mark a state at a particular moment — fitting here, where Mitya pleads the temporary condition that clouded his counting.
> «Мрачно» — gloomily: «мрачно» ('gloomily, darkly') and its adjective «мрачный» tag Mitya's mood through this scene (cf. «слушал мрачно» in s13). The repeated word builds the picture of a man sunk in fatalistic dejection.

Митя сидел на этот раз сбоку, спиной к занавескам, слушал мрачно, имел вид грустный и усталый, как бы говоривший: «Э, показывайте что хотите, теперь всё равно!»  
Mitya sat this time off to one side, with his back to the curtains, listening gloomily, with a sad and weary look, as though to say: "Eh, testify to whatever you like, it's all the same now!"
> Past active participle «говоривший» + «как бы»: «говоривший» is a past active participle ('who was saying'), agreeing with the implied «вид»; «как бы» ('as though') softens it to a feigned or apparent utterance: 'a look as though it said…'. The participle compresses a whole «который»-clause into a single modifier.
> Imperative «показывайте» + free-relative «что хотите»: «показывайте» is the plural/polite imperative of imperfective «показывать» ('testify, give evidence'); «что хотите» is a free relative, 'whatever you like'. Mitya's weary command waves the witnesses on to say anything they please.
> «Всё равно» — 'it makes no difference': The idiom «всё равно» means 'it's all the same, never mind, anyway'. Here it carries Mitya's resignation: 'it's all one now'. The phrase is a fixed adverbial, not a literal 'all equal'.

— Больше тысячи пошло на них, Митрий Федорович, — твердо опроверг Трифон Борисович, — бросали зря, а они подымали.  
"More than a thousand went on them, Mitri Fyodorovich," Trifon Borisovich firmly contradicted him, "you threw it away for nothing, and they picked it up.
> Genitive after «больше» + impersonal «пошло»: «больше тысячи» governs the genitive «тысячи» ('more than a thousand'); the verb is the impersonal neuter «пошло на них» ('went on them'), with no nominative subject — the sum is conceived as an amount, not a countable thing.
> «Зря» — 'for nothing, in vain': «зря» is a colloquial adverb, 'to no purpose, recklessly': «бросали зря» = 'you threw it away for nothing'. It sharpens Trifon's picture of Mitya scattering money while the gypsies scrambled to «подымали» ('pick it up').

Народ-то ведь этот вор и мошенник, конокрады они, угнали их отселева, а то они сами, может, показали бы, скольким от вас поживились.  
That lot, you know, they're thieves and swindlers, horse-stealers they are; we drove them off from here, or else they'd have told themselves, perhaps, how much they profited off you.
> Particles «-то» and «ведь» in peasant speech: Two modal particles pile up: the clitic «-то» on «народ» flags it as the known topic ('that lot, now'), and «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('you know, after all'). Together they give Trifon's line its buttonholing, confiding tone. Note the singular «вор и мошенник» predicated of collective «народ».
> Conditional «бы»: the unrealized 'would have': «показали бы» is the irrealis: past-tense verb + particle «бы», 'they would have told'. «а то» ('or else') sets up the counterfactual — had the gypsies not been driven off, they would themselves have revealed the takings.
> «Конокрады» and dialect «отселева»: «конокрад» is a horse-thief (от «конь» + «красть»), among the most despised criminals in peasant Russia. «отселева» is a dialectal/archaic «отсюда» ('from here') — both colour Trifon's earthy testimony with rural speech.

Сам я в руках у вас тогда сумму видел — считать не считал, вы мне не давали, это справедливо, а на глаз, помню, многим больше было, чем полторы тысячи… Куды полторы!  
I myself saw the sum in your hands then — count it I did not, you didn't let me, that's the truth — but by eye, I remember, it was a good deal more than fifteen hundred… Fifteen hundred, indeed!
> Tautological infinitive: «считать не считал»: A vivid colloquial pattern: the bare infinitive «считать» is fronted before its own negated finite verb, 'count it I did not'. This infinitive-plus-verb echo concedes a point emphatically — yes, as for counting, no, I didn't.
> Instrumental of measure «многим» with a comparative: «многим больше» = 'much more', where «многим» is the instrumental of measure used to quantify a comparative («больше»). Russian regularly marks the extent of difference with the instrumental (cf. «годом раньше', 'a year earlier').
> Dialect «куды» + dismissive exclamation: «куды» is the substandard/dialectal form of «куда»; the exclamation «Куды полторы!» means roughly 'Fifteen hundred, my foot!' — «куда» in such scornful retorts dismisses an underestimate. Pure peasant idiom from Trifon.

Видывали и мы деньги, могим судить…  
We too have seen money in our day; we can judge…"
> Iterative «видывали» — 'we've seen in our time': «видывать» is the iterative (frequentative) of «видеть», an old form meaning 'to have seen repeatedly, in one's day'. «Видывали и мы деньги» = 'we too have seen money in our time' — Trifon's worldly boast that he knows a large sum when he sees one.
> Dialect «могим» for «можем»: «могим» is a nonstandard, dialectal form of «можем» ('we can'). The deformed verb caps Trifon's peasant register: «могим судить» — 'we can judge [the amount]', spoken with rough self-assurance.

Насчет вчерашней же суммы Трифон Борисович прямо показал, что Дмитрий Федорович сам ему, только что встал с лошадей, объявил, что привез три тысячи.  
As for yesterday's sum, Trifon Borisovich testified outright that Dmitri Fyodorovich himself, the moment he had gotten down off his horses, had announced to him that he had brought three thousand.
> «только что» + perfective: 'the moment he had…': «только что встал» pairs the adverb «только что' ('just now, the moment') with a perfective past «встал», fixing a single completed point in time: 'the instant he had got down'. «с лошадей» — from the horses — is genitive after «с».
> Reported speech with «что»: «объявил, что привёз три тысячи» = 'announced that he had brought three thousand'. The «что»-clause reports content as fact; Russian keeps the original tense («привёз», past) where English shifts to a pluperfect 'had brought'.

— Полно, так ли, Трифон Борисыч, — возразил было Митя, — неужто так-таки положительно объявил, что привез три тысячи?  
"Come now, is that so, Trifon Borisych," Mitya tried to object, "did I really declare so positively that I'd brought three thousand?"
> The particle «было» — an action begun but checked: Set beside a past-tense verb, «было» signals that an action was started or attempted but then interrupted or undone: «возразил было» = 'began to object (but…)'. It recurs several times in this chapter («стал было заявлять» s49, «заметил было» s56, «легли было» s42). English has no single word for it; we render it with context — here 'tried to object' — or simply let it fall away.
> Incredulous particles «неужто» and «так-таки»: «неужто» (colloquial «неужели») is the particle of astonished disbelief, 'can it really be that…?'; «так-таки» reinforces it, 'so very, really and truly'. Stacked, they voice Mitya's incredulity that he could have declared the sum so flatly.
> «Полно!» — 'Come now, enough of that': «полно» (literally 'full / enough') is an interjection used to check or remonstrate: 'come now, stop, surely not'. Mitya opens his objection with it, half-protesting, half-coaxing the innkeeper to reconsider.

— Говорили, Митрий Федорович.  
"You said it, Mitri Fyodorovich.
> Bare imperfective «говорили» as a flat assertion: A one-word reply, subject dropped: 'You said it.' The imperfective «говорили» states the bare fact that the saying occurred, with no interest in completion — Trifon simply affirms that the words were spoken. The plural is the respectful 'you' addressing Mitya.

При Андрее говорили.  
You said it in front of Andrei.
> «при» + prepositional: 'in the presence of': «при Андрее» = 'in front of / in the presence of Andrei'. The preposition «при» governs the prepositional case and here means 'in the presence of, witnessed by' — Trifon names a witness to clinch the point.

Вот он тут сам Андрей, еще не уехал, призовите его.  
There he is, Andrei himself, he hasn't left yet — summon him.
> Deictic «вот» and intensive «сам»: «вот… тут» points him out on the spot ('there he is, right here'), and «сам» intensifies, 'Andrei himself, in person'. The piled deictics give the line its triumphant, gesturing immediacy.
> Imperative «призовите» — 'summon him': «призовите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «призвать» ('to call in, summon'). The perfective imperative urges a single, decisive act: call Andrei in and settle it now.

А там в зале, когда хор потчевали, так прямо закричали, что шестую тысячу здесь оставляете, — с прежними то есть, оно так понимать надо.  
And there in the hall, when you were treating the chorus, you shouted right out that you were leaving your sixth thousand here — with the earlier ones, that is, that's how it's to be understood.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «так понимать надо» is an impersonal construction of necessity: «надо» plus the infinitive «понимать», 'that's how it must be understood'. There is no nominative subject; «оно» here is a vague filler 'it', not a true subject.
> «Потчевать» — to treat, regale: «потчевать» is to ply guests with food and drink, to regale or treat them — slightly old-fashioned and hospitable in tone. «когда хор потчевали» = 'when you were treating the chorus', i.e. standing the gypsy singers drinks.

Степан да Семен слышали, да Петр Фомич Калганов с вами тогда рядом стоял, может, и они тоже запомнили…  
Stepan and Semyon heard it, and Pyotr Fomich Kalganov was standing right beside you then; maybe they remember it too…"
> Folksy connective «да» for «и»: «да» here is the colloquial, additive coordinating conjunction, equivalent to «и» ('and'): 'Stepan and Semyon… and Pyotr Fomich'. This «да» belongs to peasant and folk speech, lending Trifon's roll-call of witnesses a homely cadence.
> «Запомнить» — to fix in memory: «запомнить» (perfective, от «помнить») means 'to commit to memory, to retain', not merely 'remember' as a state: 'maybe they too caught and kept it'. The «за-» prefix marks the completed act of registering something.

Показание о шестой тысяче принято было с необыкновенным впечатлением допрашивающими.  
The testimony about the sixth thousand was received by the interrogators with extraordinary effect.
> Periphrastic passive with instrumental agent: «принято было… допрашивающими» is the classic passive: short past participle «принято» + «было» (here inverted), with the agent in the instrumental, «допрашивающими» ('by the interrogators', itself a present active participle used as a noun). 'The testimony was received by the interrogators.'

Понравилась новая редакция: три да три, значит, шесть, стало быть, три тысячи тогда да три тысячи теперь, вот они и все шесть, выходило ясно.  
The new version pleased them: three and three makes six, which meant three thousand then and three thousand now — there were all six, it came out plainly.
> Dative-experiencer verb «понравиться» with inverted order: «нравиться/понравиться» works dative-first: the thing that pleases is the grammatical subject («редакция»), the one pleased stands in the dative (here unexpressed but understood, 'them'). Fronting the verb — «Понравилась новая редакция» — foregrounds the reaction before naming what caused it.
> «Редакция» and the connective «стало быть»: «редакция» here means a 'version, wording' of the story (not an editorial office). «стало быть» is a discourse marker, 'consequently, therefore, that is to say', stitching the eager arithmetic together — 'three and three makes six, ergo…'.

Опросили всех указанных Трифоном Борисовичем мужиков, Степана и Семена, ямщика Андрея и Петра Фомича Калганова.  
They questioned all the peasants named by Trifon Borisovich — Stepan and Semyon, Andrei the coachman, and Pyotr Fomich Kalganov.
> Past passive participle phrase «указанных… Трифоном»: «указанных» is a past passive participle ('pointed out, named'), modifying «мужиков» in the accusative plural, with its agent «Трифоном Борисовичем» in the instrumental: 'all the peasants named by Trifon'. A whole relative clause is folded into one declined participle.
> «Ямщик» — the coachman/post-driver: «ямщик» is a driver of a hired or post carriage, the old Russian institution of the «ям» (post-relay). Andrei the ямщик drove Mitya through the night to Mokroe, which is why his memory of their roadside talk (s29) carries such weight.

Мужики и ямщик не обинуясь подтвердили показание Трифона Борисыча.  
The peasants and the coachman confirmed Trifon Borisych's testimony without hesitation.
> Gerund «не обинуясь» again, with a perfective main verb: The archaic gerund «обинуясь» ('hesitating') returns, negated: 'without hesitation they confirmed'. The adverbial participle modifies the perfective «подтвердили», whose single completed act it accompanies — the muzhiks back Trifon promptly and without wavering.

Кроме того, особенно записали, со слов Андрея, о разговоре его с Митей дорогой насчет того, «куда, дескать, я, Дмитрий Федорович, попаду: на небо аль в ад, и простят ли мне на том свете аль нет?»  
Besides this, they took down with particular care, from Andrei's words, an account of his conversation with Mitya on the road about "where, say, I'm going to end up, Dmitri Fyodorovich — to heaven or to hell, and whether they'll forgive me in the next world or not?"
> Idiom «со слов» + genitive: 'from the words of': «со слов Андрея» = 'from Andrei's account', a fixed phrase with «с(о)» + genitive meaning 'on the testimony / report of'. It frames the recorded passage as Andrei's reported speech rather than the narrator's.
> Perfective future and «ли» in Mitya's question: «попаду» is the perfective simple future ('where will I end up'); «простят ли мне» embeds a yes/no question with «ли», 'whether they will forgive me'. The dative «мне» is the one to whom forgiveness is granted.

«Психолог» Ипполит Кириллович выслушал всё это с тонкою улыбкой и кончил тем, что и это показание о том, куда Дмитрий Федорович попадет, порекомендовал «приобщить к делу».  
The "psychologist" Ippolit Kirillovich heard all this out with a subtle smile and ended by recommending that this testimony too, about where Dmitri Fyodorovich would end up, be "entered in the file."
> Correlative «кончил тем, что…»: «кончить тем, что…» ('to end by [doing]') uses the instrumental correlative «тем» pointing forward to a «что»-clause: 'ended with the fact that he recommended'. A common bookish frame for narrating how an action concluded.
> «Психолог» — the ironic epithet: The narrator dubs the prosecutor Ippolit Kirillovich «„психолог“» in scare-quotes, mocking his pretension to read souls. The label recurs through the trial books as a running jab at his over-clever, theory-driven reading of Mitya.

Спрошенный Калганов вошел нехотя, хмурый, капризный, и разговаривал с прокурором и с Николаем Парфеновичем так, как бы в первый раз увидел их в жизни, тогда как был давний и ежедневный их знакомый.  
When Kalganov was summoned he came in reluctantly, sullen and peevish, and talked with the prosecutor and Nikolai Parfenovich as though he were seeing them for the first time in his life, when in fact he had long been their daily acquaintance.
> Past passive participle as attribute: «спрошенный Калганов»: «спрошенный» ('[when] questioned, summoned') is a past passive participle placed attributively before the noun: 'Kalganov, on being summoned, came in'. The participle absorbs a whole temporal clause into a single adjectival word.
> «как бы» + past: feigned circumstance: «как бы… увидел» ('as though he were seeing them for the first time') uses «как бы» with a past-form verb to mark a pretended or merely apparent situation. «тогда как» then introduces the flat contradiction: 'whereas in fact…'.
> Kalganov's mood: «нехотя… капризный»: «нехотя» is an adverb 'reluctantly, unwillingly' (от «не хотеть»); «хмурый» 'sullen, frowning'; «капризный» 'peevish, petulant'. The triad sketches the spoilt young man's resentful manner — the indignation that frames his whole reluctant testimony.

Он начал с того, что «ничего этого не знает и знать не хочет».  
He began by saying that he "knew nothing of all this and didn't wish to know."
> Genitive of negation: «ничего этого не знает»: The negative pronoun «ничего» plus negated «не знает» shows negative concord, and the object «этого» stands in the genitive under negation: 'knows nothing of this'. The fronted infinitive in «знать не хочет» ('won't even know') echoes the s16 pattern of emphatic refusal.

Но о шестой тысяче, оказалось, слышал и он, признался, что в ту минуту подле стоял.  
But it turned out that he too had heard about the sixth thousand, and he admitted that at that moment he had been standing nearby.
> Parenthetical «оказалось» + emphatic «и он»: «оказалось» ('it turned out') is dropped in parenthetically; the particle «и» before «он» means 'he too', conceding that even reluctant Kalganov had heard. The construction reverses his earlier denial without a formal subordinator.

На его взгляд, денег было у Мити в руках «не знаю сколько».  
In his estimation, the money in Mitya's hands had been "I don't know how much."
> Genitive subject with «было»: «денег было»: «денег было» = 'there was [some] money'; under the existential «было», the quantified subject «деньги» goes into the genitive («денег»). The whole frame is impersonal — money is present in Mitya's hands, but framed as an indefinite amount, leading to «„не знаю сколько“».
> «На его взгляд» — 'in his view': A set phrase, «на (чей-то) взгляд» = 'in someone's estimation/opinion', literally 'to his eye'. It tags the following claim as Kalganov's personal impression rather than established fact.

Насчет того, что поляки в картах передернули, показал утвердительно.  
As to the Poles having cheated at cards, he testified in the affirmative.
> Fronted «что»-clause before the main verb: The reported content «что поляки… передёрнули» is fronted before its governing verb «показал», a literary inversion that throws the accusation forward. «передёрнуть (в картах)» is the precise verb for cheating by sleight of hand with the cards.

Объяснил тоже, на повторенные расспросы, что по изгнании поляков действительно дела Мити у Аграфены Александровны поправились и что она сама сказала, что его любит.  
He also explained, in answer to repeated questions, that after the Poles were driven out Mitya's affairs with Agrafena Alexandrovna had indeed taken a turn for the better, and that she herself had said she loved him.
> Bookish «по» + prepositional: 'after the expulsion': «по изгнании поляков» = 'after the Poles were driven out'. In the high register, «по» + the prepositional of a verbal noun («изгнание» → «изгнании») means 'after, upon' the event — a compact, official-sounding way to date the change.
> Reflexive «поправиться»: things 'mended themselves': «поправились» is the «-ся» middle of «поправить»: «дела поправились» = 'matters took a turn for the better, improved' — the affairs mend of their own accord, with no agent. A standard idiom for fortunes mending.

Об Аграфене Александровне изъяснялся сдержанно и почтительно, как будто она была самого лучшего общества барыня, и даже ни разу не позволил себе назвать ее «Грушенькой».  
Of Agrafena Alexandrovna he spoke with reserve and respect, as though she were a lady of the very best society, and he did not once permit himself to call her "Grushenka."
> «как будто» + genitive of quality «самого лучшего общества»: «как будто» ('as if') opens a feigned comparison. «самого лучшего общества» is a genitive of quality, 'a lady of the very best society', where «самого лучшего» is the superlative «самый» declined with the adjective in the genitive.
> «ни разу… не» — emphatic 'not once': «ни разу… не позволил» uses «ни» + «не» negative concord to mean 'not a single time did he allow himself'. «себе» is the dative reflexive ('permit himself'), and «назвать» the perfective infinitive of the act he refrained from.
> «Барыня» — a lady of the gentry: «барыня» is the mistress of a gentry household, a lady of the upper class (feminine of «барин»). Treating Grushenka — a kept woman of murky origins — «как… барыня» is precisely the elevation Kalganov insists on, and the narrator marks it as telling.

Несмотря на видимое отвращение молодого человека показывать, Ипполит Кириллович расспрашивал его долго и лишь от него узнал все подробности того, что составляло, так сказать, «роман» Мити в эту ночь.  
Despite the young man's evident reluctance to testify, Ippolit Kirillovich questioned him at length, and only from him learned all the particulars of what made up, so to speak, Mitya's "romance" that night.
> «несмотря на» + accusative concessive: «несмотря на» ('despite, notwithstanding') governs the accusative «отвращение»; the infinitive «показывать» complements it ('reluctance to testify'). The whole phrase concedes Kalganov's unwillingness before the main clause overrides it.
> Restrictive «лишь» + «от» of source: «лишь» ('only') restricts the source: «лишь от него узнал» = 'learned only from him'. «от него» (genitive after «от») marks the person from whom the knowledge came — Kalganov alone supplied the particulars.
> «Роман» — both 'novel' and 'love affair': «роман» in scare-quotes plays on its double sense: a 'novel' and a 'romance/love-affair'. Ippolit Kirillovich, the literary 'psychologist', reconstructs Mitya's night as a «роман» — a plotted story of passion — and the quotes flag the narrator's irony at the conceit.

Митя ни разу не остановил Калганова.  
Mitya did not once stop Kalganov.
> «ни разу… не» with a perfective verb: Again «ни разу… не» ('not once'), here with perfective «остановил' ('stopped/interrupted'). The negated perfective denies that even one such completed act occurred — Mitya let Kalganov speak entirely unchecked.

Наконец юношу отпустили, и он удалился с нескрываемым негодованием.  
At last the young man was released, and he withdrew with undisguised indignation.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural: «отпустили»: «отпустили» is an indefinite-personal construction — a bare 3rd-person plural with no stated subject, meaning 'they released [him]' / 'he was released'. Russian uses this for actions by unnamed authorities, much as English uses the passive. «юношу» is the animate accusative object.
> «Удалиться» and «нескрываемый»: «удалиться» (reflexive) is a dignified 'to withdraw, retire'. «нескрываемый» ('undisguised, unconcealed') is a negated present passive participle in -емый — the bookish formation noted earlier — capturing Kalganov's open, sulking indignation as he leaves.

Допросили и поляков.  
They questioned the Poles as well.
> Indefinite 3rd-plural + additive «и»: Another subjectless 3rd-plural, «допросили» ('they questioned'), with «и» meaning 'as well / too': 'the Poles were questioned too'. «поляков» is animate accusative plural (borrowing the genitive form).

Они в своей комнатке хоть и легли было спать, но во всю ночь не заснули, а с прибытием властей поскорей оделись и прибрались, сами понимая, что их непременно потребуют.  
In their little room they had indeed lain down to sleep, but they had not slept a wink all night, and on the arrival of the authorities they had hastily dressed and tidied themselves, understanding of their own accord that they would certainly be sent for.
> Concessive «хоть и» + «было»: «хоть и… но» ('though… yet') frames the concession; «легли было спать» again uses the particle «было» for an action begun but undone — 'they had lain down to sleep [but]…'. The pairing sets up the contrast with «во всю ночь не заснули'.
> Present gerund «понимая» + future «потребуют»: «понимая» is an imperfective present gerund ('understanding'), sharing the subject (the Poles) and running simultaneous with the main verbs. Its «что»-clause holds the indefinite 3rd-plural future «потребуют» ('they would be sent for'). «сами' adds 'of their own accord'.
> Diminutive «комнатка»: «комнатка» is the diminutive of «комната» ('room'), here conveying a small, cramped chamber — perhaps with a faint slighting tint suited to the down-at-heel Poles' lodging. The narrator uses it again in s55 («в той комнатке»).

Явились они с достоинством, хотя и не без некоторого страху.  
They presented themselves with dignity, though not without a certain fright.
> Litotes «не без» + old genitive «страху»: «не без» ('not without') is a double-negative understatement, 'with a certain'. «страху» is the old partitive genitive in -у (beside modern «страха»), still frequent in 19th-century prose with mass nouns — a period flavour.

Главный, то есть маленький пан, оказался чиновником двенадцатого класса в отставке, служил в Сибири ветеринаром, по фамилии же был пан Муссялович.  
The chief one, that is the little Pole, turned out to be a retired civil servant of the twelfth class, who had served in Siberia as a veterinarian; his surname was Pan Mussyalovich.
> Instrumental predicate after «оказаться»: «оказаться» ('to turn out to be') takes its predicate in the instrumental: «оказался чиновником…» = 'turned out to be a civil servant…'. The instrumental frames the identity as a discovered role; the same pattern recurs in s45 («оказался… дантистом»).
> «Пан» — the Polish 'sir': «пан» is the Polish title of address, 'mister/sir/lord', which Dostoevsky keeps on the two Poles to mark their nationality and their faded pretension. «маленький пан» = 'the little Pole'; the word itself signals their foreignness in the Russian courtroom.

Пан же Врублевский оказался вольнопрактикующим дантистом, по-русски зубным врачом.  
Pan Vrublevsky turned out to be a freelance dentist, in Russian a tooth-doctor.
> Instrumental predicate + participial adjective: Parallel to s44: «оказался… дантистом» (instrumental after «оказаться»). «вольнопрактикующим» is a present-participle-based adjective, 'freelance / privately practising', agreeing in the instrumental — bookish compounding typical of the register.
> «Дантист» glossed as «зубной врач»: The narrator pointedly translates the fancy foreign «дантист» into plain Russian «зубной врач» ('tooth-doctor'). The little gloss «по-русски» ('in Russian') quietly mocks Pan Vrublevsky's pretentious foreign label for an ordinary trade.

Оба они как вошли в комнату, так тотчас же, несмотря на вопросы Николая Парфеновича, стали обращаться с ответами к стоявшему в стороне Михаилу Макаровичу, принимая его, по неведению, за главный чин и начальствующее здесь лицо и называя его с каждым словом: «пане пулковнику».  
The moment the two of them entered the room, despite Nikolai Parfenovich's questions they at once began directing their answers to Mikhail Makarovich, who was standing off to one side, taking him, in their ignorance, for the chief official and the presiding authority here, and addressing him with every word as "pane pulkovniku" — "sir colonel."
> Correlative «как… так» of immediate sequence: «как… так тотчас же…» links two clauses as 'no sooner… than': 'the moment they entered, they at once began…'. «стали обращаться» is «стать» + imperfective infinitive marking the inception of an ongoing action.
> Gerund «принимая… за»: 'taking him for': «принимая… за» is a present gerund of «принимать за» ('to take/mistake X for Y'), with «его» accusative and «за главный чин» the role mistaken. The gerund runs simultaneous with the main verb and shares its subject (the Poles).
> Polish vocative «pane pułkowniku»: The Poles address Mikhail Makarovich «пане пулковнику» — Polish for 'sir colonel', complete with the Polish vocative endings (-e, -u) that Russian itself has lost. The comic blunder (he is no colonel) flags both their foreignness and their fawning deference to the wrong man.

И только после нескольких разов и наставления самого Михаила Макаровича догадались, что надобно обращаться с ответами лишь к Николаю Парфеновичу.  
Only after several attempts and a directive from Mikhail Makarovich himself did they realize that they were to address their answers solely to Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Archaic «надобно» + infinitive of necessity: «надобно» is the bookish/archaic equivalent of «надо/нужно» ('it is necessary'), governing the infinitive «обращаться» in an impersonal construction. The «что»-clause reports what the Poles realized: that they must address Nikolai Parfenovich alone.
> Genitive after «после» and «несколько»: «после» governs the genitive («наставления»), and the quantifier «несколько» ('several') itself takes a genitive plural «разов». Note the colloquial «разов» beside standard «раз» as genitive plural of «раз».

Оказалось, что по-русски они умели даже весьма и весьма правильно говорить, кроме разве выговора иных слов.  
It turned out that they could speak Russian very, very correctly indeed, save perhaps for the pronunciation of certain words.
> Hedging «кроме разве» + genitive: «кроме разве» ('save perhaps') hedges the claim; «кроме» governs the genitive «выговора иных слов» ('the pronunciation of certain words'). «разве» here is the particle of tentative exception. The doubled «весьма и весьма» ('very, very') is intensifying repetition.

Об отношениях своих к Грушеньке, прежних и теперешних, пан Муссялович стал было заявлять горячо и гордо, так что Митя сразу вышел из себя и закричал, что не позволит «подлецу» при себе так говорить.  
About his relations with Grushenka, past and present, Pan Mussyalovich began to declare himself hotly and proudly, so that Mitya at once flew into a rage and shouted that he would not allow "the scoundrel" to speak so in his presence.
> «стал было» — inception checked by «было»: «стал было заявлять» stacks two markers: «стать» + infinitive for the onset of an action, and the particle «было» showing it was begun but cut short (Mitya's outburst interrupts). 'He began to declare himself… (but)'. The adverbs «горячо и гордо» ('hotly and proudly') colour the manner.
> Perfective future «не позволит» + dative «подлецу»: «не позволит» is the perfective simple future ('will not allow'), and «подлецу» is the dative — «позволить кому» ('to permit someone'). The infinitive «говорить» names what he forbids the scoundrel to do «при себе» ('in his presence').
> Idiom «выйти из себя» — to lose one's temper: «выйти из себя» means 'to fly into a rage, lose all self-control', literally 'to come out of oneself'. The «из» + genitive «себя» (reflexive pronoun) makes the idiom; it captures the suddenness of Mitya's eruption at Mussyalovich.

Пан Муссялович тотчас же обратил внимание на слово «подлец» и попросил внести в протокол.  
Pan Mussyalovich instantly seized on the word "scoundrel" and asked that it be entered in the record.
> «попросить» + infinitive of request: «попросил внести» = 'asked that it be entered', with «попросить» governing a bare perfective infinitive «внести» ('to enter into the record'). Russian often expresses an indirect request this way rather than with a «чтобы»-clause when the agent is left general.
> Idiom «обратить внимание на» — to seize upon: «обратить внимание на (что)» ('to turn one's attention to, to note') governs the accusative «слово». Here it shades into 'pounced on, fastened on' the insult «подлец» — Pan Mussyalovich legalistically picks up the offensive word to have it minuted.

Митя закипел от ярости.  
Mitya boiled over with fury.
> Inceptive «за-» + «от» of cause: The prefix «за-» on «закипеть' marks the sudden onset, 'boiled up / began to boil'. «от ярости» ('from fury') is the genitive of cause after «от» — Russian's standard way of naming the emotion that triggers a reaction.
> «Закипеть» — to boil over (with feeling): Literally 'to come to the boil', «закипеть» is a vivid metaphor for a surge of rage. The kitchen image — Mitya seething like a pot — matches his volcanic, impulsive temperament throughout the scene.

— И подлец, подлец!  
"A scoundrel, yes, a scoundrel!
> «Подлец» — scoundrel, base wretch: «подлец» is a strong term of contempt — a vile, dishonourable wretch, far heavier than 'rascal'. Mitya's hurling and repeating it («И подлец, подлец!») is the very word Mussyalovich has had entered in the record, and Mitya defiantly redoubles it.

Внесите это и внесите тоже, что несмотря на протокол, я все-таки кричу, что подлец! — прокричал он.  
Enter that, and enter too that, record or no record, I still cry that he's a scoundrel!" he shouted.
> Imperative «внесите» + reported «что»-clause: «внесите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «внести' ('enter [in the record]'), repeated for insistence. The second governs a «что»-clause reporting Mitya's defiant declaration that, record or no record, he still cries «подлец».
> Concessive «несмотря на» + emphatic «все-таки»: «несмотря на протокол» ('record or no record') concedes the official act; «все-таки» ('all the same, nonetheless') then asserts defiance against it. The pair stages Mitya's reckless refusal to be cowed by the proceedings.

Николай Парфенович хоть и внес в протокол, но проявил при сем неприятном случае самую похвальную деловитость и умение распорядиться: после строгого внушения Мите он сам тотчас же прекратил все дальнейшие расспросы касательно романической стороны дела и поскорее перешел к существенному.  
Nikolai Parfenovich, though he did enter it in the record, showed on this disagreeable occasion the most praiseworthy efficiency and skill in handling matters: after a stern admonition to Mitya he himself at once broke off all further questioning touching on the romantic side of the affair and hurried on to what was essential.
> Concessive «хоть и… но»: «хоть и внёс… но проявил» ('though he did enter it… yet he showed') is the concessive pair seen at s42: a granted point followed by a countering one. It balances Nikolai Parfenovich's compliance against his deft handling of the awkward moment.
> Archaic demonstrative «сей»: «при сем случае»: «сем» is the prepositional of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'), almost wholly displaced in speech by «этот» but alive in 19th-century literary and official style. «при сём… случае» = 'on this occasion' — a deliberately formal touch.
> «Деловитость» and the bookish «касательно»: «деловитость» is brisk, businesslike efficiency. «касательно» ('concerning, touching on') is a formal, archaic preposition governing the genitive («касательно романической стороны») — both words give the sentence its dry, administrative register, fitting the cool magistrate.

В существенном же явилось одно показание панов, возбудившее необыкновенное любопытство следователей: это именно о том, как подкупал Митя, в той комнатке, пана Муссяловича и предлагал ему три тысячи отступного с тем, что семьсот рублей в руки, а остальные две тысячи триста «завтра же утром в городе», причем клялся честным словом, объявляя, что здесь, в Мокром, с ним и нет пока таких денег, а что деньги а городе.  
Now in the essential matter one piece of the Poles' testimony came up that aroused extraordinary curiosity in the investigators: namely, how Mitya, in that little room, had tried to bribe Pan Mussyalovich, offering him three thousand to step aside — seven hundred roubles down, and the remaining two thousand three hundred "tomorrow morning in town" — swearing on his word of honor and declaring that he did not yet have such money with him here at Mokroe, but that the money was in town.
> Past active participle «возбудившее»: «возбудившее» is a past active participle from perfective «возбудить' ('to arouse'), agreeing with neuter «показание»: 'a piece of testimony that aroused…'. It folds a «который»-clause into one declined modifier — characteristic of Dostoevsky's dense narration.
> Correlative «о том, как…» + imperfective verbs: «о том, как…» ('about how…') uses the prepositional correlative «том» pointing to the «как»-clause. The imperfective «подкупал… предлагал» present the bribing and offering as an attempted, ongoing process — Mitya was in the act of trying to buy the Pole off.
> «Отступное» — money to step aside: «отступное» (substantivized adjective, from «отступить», 'to step back/withdraw') is a sum paid to make someone give up a claim — here, cash to buy off his rival's claim on Grushenka. «три тысячи отступного» = 'three thousand to step aside'.

Митя заметил было сгоряча, что не говорил, что наверно отдаст завтра в городе, но пан Врублевский подтвердил показание, да и сам Митя, подумав с минуту, нахмуренно согласился, что, должно быть, так и было, как паны говорят, что он был тогда разгорячен, а потому действительно мог так сказать.  
Mitya tried to remark in the heat of the moment that he had not said he would certainly hand it over tomorrow in town, but Pan Vrublevsky confirmed the testimony, and Mitya himself, after a minute's thought, conceded with a frown that it must have been so, just as the Poles said, that he had been excited at the time and so might indeed have said as much.
> «было» yet again: a remark begun and overridden: «заметил было» — Mitya 'started to remark', the particle «было» signalling that the objection was at once overtaken (the Pole confirms, and Mitya himself concedes). «сгоряча» is an adverb, 'in the heat of the moment, rashly'.
> Perfective gerund «подумав»: prior action: «подумав» is a perfective past gerund in -в ('having thought'), expressing an action completed before the main verb «согласился» — first he reflected, then he agreed. It shares the subject (Mitya) and is a hallmark of literary narration.
> Modal «должно быть» + emphatic «так и»: «должно быть» ('it must be, probably') is a parenthetical of inference; «так и было» ('it was indeed so') uses the emphatic particle «и» to affirm. The comparative «как паны говорят» ('as the Poles say') aligns his concession with their testimony.

Прокурор так и впился в показание: оказывалось для следствия ясным (как и впрямь потом вывели), что половина или часть трех тысяч, доставшихся в руки Мите, действительно могла оставаться где-нибудь припрятанною в городе, а пожалуй так даже где-нибудь и тут в Мокром, так что выяснялось таким образом и то щекотливое для следствия обстоятельство, что у Мити нашли в руках всего только восемьсот рублей — обстоятельство, бывшее до сих пор хотя единственным и довольно ничтожным, но всё же некоторым свидетельством в пользу Мити.  
The prosecutor fairly fastened on this testimony: it became clear to the investigation (as indeed they later deduced) that half, or part, of the three thousand that had come into Mitya's hands might really still be lying hidden somewhere in town, or even, perhaps, somewhere here at Mokroe — and so there came to light that circumstance ticklish for the investigation, that on Mitya they had found only eight hundred roubles in all, a circumstance that until now had been the one, and rather trifling, but still some bit of evidence in Mitya's favor.
> Past active participle «доставшихся» + instrumental predicate «припрятанною»: «доставшихся» is a past active participle (от «достаться»), genitive plural agreeing with «трёх тысяч»: 'of the three thousand that had come into Mitya's hands'. «оставаться припрятанною» puts the predicate participle in the instrumental after «оставаться' ('to remain hidden'). Note the old feminine instrumental -ою for -ой.
> Participle «бывшее» + instrumental predicates: «бывшее» is the past active participle of «быть' ('having been'), modifying «обстоятельство»; its predicate nouns «единственным… свидетельством» stand in the instrumental, the regular case for the complement of «быть». A dense, multiply-embedded clause typical of the chapter's legal-analytic prose.
> «Впиться» and «щекотливый»: «впиться в (что)» is to fasten on, dig into, like teeth or claws — «прокурор впился в показание» = 'the prosecutor fastened on the testimony'. «щекотливый» (от «щекотать', to tickle) means 'ticklish, delicate, awkward' — the embarrassing fact that only 800 roubles were found on Mitya.

Теперь же и это единственное свидетельство в его пользу разрушалось.  
Now even this single piece of evidence in his favor was being demolished.
> Imperfective reflexive passive «разрушалось»: «разрушалось» is the imperfective «-ся» passive ('was being demolished'), painting the destruction as an ongoing process rather than a finished result — the last shred of evidence in Mitya's favour is in the act of crumbling. The particle «же» adds 'now, however'.

На вопрос прокурора: где же бы он взял остальные две тысячи триста, чтоб отдать завтра пану, коли сам утверждает, что у него было всего только полторы тысячи, а между тем заверял пана своим честным словом, Митя твердо ответил, что хотел предложить «полячишке» назавтра не деньги, а формальный акт на права свои по имению Чермашне, те самые права, которые предлагал Самсонову и Хохлаковой.  
To the prosecutor's question — where, then, would he have gotten the remaining two thousand three hundred to pay the Pole tomorrow, since he himself maintained that he had only fifteen hundred in all, and yet had assured the Pole on his word of honor — Mitya answered firmly that what he had meant to offer "the little Pole" the next day was not money but a formal deed to his rights in the Chermashnya estate, the very rights he had offered to Samsonov and Madame Khokhlakova.
> Conditional «бы» + «чтоб» of purpose: «где же бы он взял» is the irrealis ('where would he have gotten'), past-form «взял» + «бы», with «же» sharpening the challenge. «чтоб отдать» ('in order to pay') is the clipped «чтобы» of purpose, here with an infinitive because the subject is the same.
> Folksy/archaic «коли» for «если»: «коли» is a colloquial and archaic conjunction equal to «если» ('if, since'). Embedded in the prosecutor's reported question, it gives a slightly bookish-vernacular cast: 'since he himself maintains…'. «сам» intensifies — by his own account.
> Pejorative diminutive «полячишка»: «полячишка» adds the contemptuous suffix -ишк- to «поляк», belittling the Pole: 'the wretched little Pole'. Mitya's scorn for his rival leaks through the very morphology — the dismissive suffix does the sneering for him.

Прокурор даже усмехнулся «невинности выверта».  
The prosecutor even smiled at "the ingenuousness of the dodge."
> Dative of object of emotion: «усмехнулся невинности»: «усмехнуться (чему)» governs the dative — «усмехнулся… невинности выверта» = 'smiled at the ingenuousness of the dodge'. Russian regularly puts the thing one smiles, marvels, or rejoices at in the dative. «усмехнуться» is the reflexive perfective, a single sardonic smirk.
> «Выверт» — a twist, a contrived dodge: «выверт» (от «вывернуть», 'to twist out') is a far-fetched contortion or ingenious quibble. The prosecutor's quoted phrase «„невинности выверта“» — 'the ingenuousness of the dodge' — drips condescension at what he takes for Mitya's transparent, childish evasion.

— И вы думаете, что он бы согласился взять эти «права» вместо наличных двух тысяч трехсот рублей?  
"And you think he would have agreed to take these 'rights' instead of two thousand three hundred roubles in cash?"
> Conditional «бы» — the unrealized agreement: «бы» plus the past-tense «согласился» builds the irrealis: 'he would have agreed [to take]'. There is no separate conditional tense — the past form carries it. Here the whole clause is a hypothesis about what Mussyalovich would have done.
> Genitive after «вместо» and inside the numeral phrase: The preposition «вместо» ('instead of') governs the genitive, so the whole sum «двух тысяч трехсот рублей» stands in the genitive. Notice every part declines — «двух», «тысяч», «трехсот» — and «рублей» is genitive plural, as numbers from five up demand.

— Непременно согласился бы, — горячо отрезал Митя. — Помилуйте, да тут не только две, тут четыре, тут шесть даже тысяч он мог бы на этом тяпнуть!  
"He'd certainly have agreed," Mitya snapped hotly. "Good heavens, here he could have grabbed not just two thousand off it, but four, even six!
> «бы» fronted onto the emphatic adverb: The particle «бы» is mobile: rather than sitting on the verb it can lean on the first stressed word. Mitya's reply echoes the question's conditional, with «Непременно» ('certainly') carrying the emphasis up front.
> «отрезать» — to snap (a retort): Literally 'to cut off', «отрезал» here means to snap out a sharp, curt reply, ending discussion. Paired with «горячо» ('hotly') it conveys Mitya's impulsive heat.
> «тяпнуть» — to grab / snatch off: Coarse colloquial slang: to snatch, swipe, or knock back. Applied to money it means to grab a quick profit dishonestly — exactly the cynical scheming Mitya imputes to the Pole.
> «Помилуйте!» — 'Good heavens!': Literally an imperative 'have mercy', «Помилуйте» has frozen into an exclamation of protest or astonishment, like 'Good heavens!' or 'Come now!'. It opens a vehement objection rather than asking for mercy.

Он бы тотчас набрал своих адвокатишек, полячков да жидков, и не то что три тысячи, а всю бы Чермашню от старика оттягали.  
He'd have rounded up his little lawyers in a flash, the Polacks and the Yids, and not just three thousand, no — they'd have wrung the whole of Chermashnya out of the old man."
> Belittling suffixes piled up: Mitya stacks contemptuous diminutives: the pejorative «-ишк-» in «адвокатишек» ('wretched little lawyers') and dismissive «-к-» forms «полячков» (Polacks) and «жидков» (Yids). The suffixes do the sneering; English needs slurs and adjectives to match the scorn.
> «бы» again, split from its verb: The conditional particle «бы» wedges in after «всю», far from its verb «оттягали» ('they'd have wrung out'). This scattering of «бы» across the clause is idiomatic; the perfective «оттягали» views the imagined extortion as a single completed coup.

Разумеется, показание пана Муссяловича внесли в протокол в самой полной подробности.  
Pan Mussyalovich's testimony was, of course, entered in the record in the fullest detail.
> Subjectless 'they' — the indefinite-personal plural: «внесли» ('entered') is a bare third-person-plural verb with no stated subject — the clerks, 'they', anyone. Russian uses this impersonal plural where English reaches for the passive ('was entered'), as our translation does.

На том панов и отпустили.  
On that the Poles were dismissed.
> Fronted «На том» and the focusing «и»: The phrase opens with «На том» ('on that') for narrative closure, and «и» here is not 'and' but a focusing particle — 'and so they dismissed them'. «панов» is animate accusative (= genitive plural) as the object of «отпустили».

О факте же передержки в картах почти и не упомянули; Николай Парфенович им слишком был и без того благодарен и пустяками не хотел беспокоить, тем более что всё это пустая ссора в пьяном виде за картами и более ничего.  
Of the fact of the cheating at cards scarcely any mention was made; Nikolai Parfenovich was already too grateful to them as it was and had no wish to trouble them with trifles, the more so since the whole thing was an empty quarrel over cards while drunk, and nothing more.
> Topic-fronting with the particle «же»: The sentence leads with the prepositional «О факте» ('Of the fact'), the topic, and «же» marks the shift to a new subject ('as for the cheating…'). «о» + prepositional is the standard way to say 'about/of' a topic.
> «передержка» — sharping at cards: «передержка» is cheating at cards — palming or false dealing. The whole quarrel turned on the Poles being caught cheating, which the investigators tactfully chose not to pursue.
> Short adjective «благодарен» as predicate: «благодарен» is the short (predicative) form of «благодарный» ('grateful'), the form Russian uses after «был» to state a temporary state. The scattered «и без того» ('as it was anyway') softens it: he was already grateful enough.

Мало ли было кутежа и безобразий в ту ночь… Так что деньги, двести рублей, так и остались у панов в кармане.  
There had been carousing and disorder enough that night… So that the money, the two hundred roubles, stayed right where it was, in the Poles' pockets.
> «мало ли» + genitive — 'plenty / no end of': «Мало ли...» is an idiom that, despite «мало» ('little'), means the opposite: 'there was no end of'. The nouns counted go in the genitive («кутежа», «безобразий») as a quantity expression demands.
> «кутёж» and «безобразие» — revelry and disgrace: «кутёж» is a wild drunken spree; «безобразие» (literally 'formlessness, ugliness') is outrageous, scandalous behavior. Together they paint the debauched night at Mokroe.
> The lingering «так и» — 'just stayed put': «так и» before a perfective verb conveys that something happened and stuck — the money 'just stayed' in the Poles' pocket. «у панов в кармане» uses «у» + genitive for possession-location, literally 'in the Poles' pocket'.

Призвали затем старичка Максимова.  
Then they summoned the little old man Maximov.
> «старичок» — the little old man: The affectionate-pitying diminutive of «старик» ('old man'). Applied to Maximov it conveys the narrator's gentle, slightly comic tenderness toward the harmless old hanger-on. It declines here as animate accusative «старичка».
> Verb-first impersonal plural: Again a subjectless third-plural «Призвали» ('they summoned'), with the verb fronted for narrative momentum and «старичка» in animate accusative. The doers — the investigators — are understood, not named.

Он явился робея, подошел мелкими шажками, вид имел растрепанный и очень грустный.  
He came in timidly, approaching with little mincing steps, looking disheveled and very mournful.
> Gerund «робея» — 'timidly, growing shy': «робея» is an imperfective gerund («деепричастие») from «робеть» ('to be shy/timid'), describing the manner attending «явился» ('appeared'): he came in while quailing. The gerund shares the main subject 'he'.
> «шажками» — little mincing steps: «шажки» is the diminutive of «шаги» ('steps'), in the instrumental of manner: 'with little steps'. The diminutive plus «мелкими» ('small') doubles the smallness, mimicking Maximov's timid shuffle.
> «иметь вид» + inverted accusative: «вид имел растрепанный» ('he had a disheveled look') fronts the object «вид» before the verb «имел» for stylistic weight; «растрепанный» is the long-form participle-adjective agreeing in the accusative. Free word order lets the appearance lead the clause.

Всё время он ютился там внизу подле Грушеньки, сидел с нею молча и «нет-нет да и начнет над нею хныкать, а глаза утирает синим клетчатым платочком», как рассказывал потом Михаил Макарович.  
All this while he had been huddling there downstairs beside Grushenka, sitting silently with her and "every now and then breaking into a whimper over her, dabbing at his eyes with a blue checkered handkerchief," as Mikhail Makarovich told it afterwards.
> «ютиться» — to huddle / take cramped shelter: A reflexive «-ся» verb meaning to nestle or huddle in a cramped, out-of-the-way spot. It pictures the old man tucked away downstairs, small and self-effacing, at Grushenka's side.
> The idiom «нет-нет да и» — 'every now and then': «нет-нет да и» + a perfective verb («начнёт») is a fixed colloquial pattern for an action that keeps cropping up unpredictably: 'every so often he'd start whimpering'. The perfective present «начнёт» reads as an iterative habitual here, not a single future.
> «платочек» — a (dear little) handkerchief: «платочек» is the diminutive of «платок» ('handkerchief'), here in the instrumental as the means of dabbing his eyes. The homely diminutive and the «синий клетчатый» ('blue checkered') detail give the weeping old man a pathetic, faintly comic concreteness.

Так что она сама уже унимала и утешала его.  
So that she herself was the one soothing and comforting him.
> Intensive «сама» and imperfective process: «сама» ('herself') intensifies the subject — it was she, of all people, who ended up consoling him. The imperfective pair «унимала и утешала» ('soothing and comforting') presents this as an ongoing process, the role reversal lingering in view.

Старичок тотчас же и со слезами признался, что виноват, что взял у Дмитрия Федоровича взаймы «десять рублей-с, по моей бедности-с» и что готов возвратить…  
The little old man at once and with tears confessed that he was guilty, that he had borrowed "ten roubles, sir, on account of my poverty, sir," from Dmitri Fyodorovich, and that he was ready to repay it…
> «что»-clauses reporting fact: The subordinator «что» ('that') opens each reported clause after «признался» ('confessed'). «виноват» is a short adjective ('[he is] guilty') and «взял» a perfective past — the confession lays out a completed act of borrowing.
> «по» + dative — 'on account of': «по» here governs the dative «моей бедности» in a causal sense, 'because of / on account of my poverty'. The servile «-с» (clipped «сударь», 'sir') glued to the phrase marks Maximov's cringing low register.
> «-с» the deferential clitic: The little «-с» tacked on («рублей-с») is a contraction of «сударь» ('sir'). Old Maximov sticks it onto nearly every word to sound humble and submissive before his betters; in Russian it instantly marks his servile, lower social register.

На прямой вопрос Николая Парфеновича: не заметил ли он, сколько же именно денег было в руках у Дмитрия Федоровича, так как он ближе всех мог видеть у него в руках деньги, когда получал от него взаймы, — Максимов самым решительным образом ответил, что денег было «двадцать тысяч-с».  
To Nikolai Parfenovich's direct question — whether he had noticed just how much money Dmitri Fyodorovich had had in his hands, since he was closer than anyone and could have seen the money in his hands when he received the loan from him — Maximov answered in the most decisive manner that the money had been "twenty thousand, sir."
> Embedded «ли» = 'whether': Inside the reported question, «не заметил ли он» means 'whether he had noticed' — the enclitic «ли» turns the clause into an indirect yes/no question. The intensive «же» in «сколько же» adds insistence: 'just how much exactly'.
> Genitive of quantity «денег»: After the quantity word «сколько» ('how much'), the noun «денег» stands in the genitive plural — a partitive/quantitative genitive. «было» is the impersonal neuter past, agreeing with no nominative subject.
> Instrumental of manner «образом»: «самым решительным образом» ('in the most decisive manner') is an instrumental-of-manner phrase, the standard Russian way to form an adverbial of manner from an adjective + «образом» ('way, manner'). All three words agree in the instrumental.

— А вы видели когда-нибудь двадцать тысяч где-нибудь прежде? — спросил, улыбнувшись, Николай Парфенович.  
"And have you ever seen twenty thousand anywhere before?" asked Nikolai Parfenovich, smiling.
> «-нибудь» — 'ever, at all': «когда-нибудь» uses the non-specific indefinite clitic «-нибудь»: 'at any time, ever'. It asks whether such a thing happened even once, with no particular occasion in mind — contrast «когда-то», 'at some specific (unknown) time'.
> Past gerund «улыбнувшись» — 'with a smile': «улыбнувшись» is a perfective past gerund from «улыбнуться» ('to smile'), tucked between dashes: he asked, having broken into a smile. The gerund compresses a second action of the same subject into the manner of asking.

— Как же-с, видел-с, только не двадцать-с, а семь-с, когда супруга моя деревеньку мою заложила.  
"Why, yes, sir, I have seen it, sir, only not twenty, sir, but seven, sir, when my spouse mortgaged my little estate.
> «Как же» — emphatic affirmation: «Как же!» (here «Как же-с») is an emphatic 'Why, of course! Certainly!', with «же» insisting. Maximov coats even this with his deferential «-с», so the whole reply drips servility.
> «деревенька» — my poor little estate: The diminutive of «деревня» ('village/estate'). The «-еньк-» suffix makes it endearing and self-deprecating — 'my dear little place' — fitting Maximov's humble, slightly pitiful self-presentation.

Дала мне только издали поглядеть, похвалилась предо мной.  
She only let me look at it from a distance, boasting of it before me.
> Dative «мне» + perfective infinitive of permission: «Дала мне поглядеть» ('she let me have a look') uses «дать» + dative person + perfective infinitive to express letting/allowing. «издали» ('from afar') and «только» ('only') sharpen the stinginess of the glimpse.
> Reflexive «-ся» + archaic «предо»: «похвалилась» is the reflexive «похвалиться» ('to boast, show off'). The preposition «предо мной» ('before me') uses the older, bookish vowel-padded variant «предо» of «перед», a faintly elevated touch.

Очень крупная была пачка-с, всё радужные.  
It was a very thick bundle, sir, all rainbow notes.
> Inversion for emphasis: The adjective fronts the noun and the verb: «Очень крупная была пачка» ('a very thick bundle it was'), throwing the weight onto 'thick'. Russian's free word order lets the new, vivid information lead.

И у Дмитрия Федоровича были всё радужные…  
And Dmitri Fyodorovich's were all rainbow notes too…"
> Possessive «у» + genitive, no verb 'to have': Russian expresses 'had' with «у» + genitive of the possessor: «у Дмитрия Федоровича были...» literally 'at Dmitri Fyodorovich's there were...'. The initial «И» links it to the previous boast: 'his were rainbow notes too'.

Его скоро отпустили.  
He was soon released.
> Animate accusative «Его» + impersonal plural: «Его» is the accusative of «он», fronted as topic; «отпустили» is again the subjectless third-plural ('they released'). English renders the construction as a passive, 'he was released'.

Наконец дошла очередь и до Грушеньки.  
At last it came Grushenka's turn as well.
> «дойти до» + genitive — 'the turn reached…': The idiom «дошла очередь до Грушеньки» literally 'the turn came down to Grushenka'. «до» governs the genitive «Грушеньки», and the focusing «и» ('also') marks that her turn has at last arrived too.
> «Грушенька» — the affectionate name: Grushenka is itself a diminutive (Agrafena → Grusha → Grushenka), the warm everyday name for the heroine Agrafena Alexandrovna. The narrator's use of it throughout the scene signals familiar intimacy, against the formal «Аграфена Александровна» others use to address her.

Следователи, видимо, опасались того впечатления, которое могло произвести ее появление на Дмитрия Федоровича, и Николай Парфенович пробормотал даже несколько слов ему в увещание, но Митя, в ответ ему, молча склонил голову, давая тем знать, что «беспорядка не произойдет».  
The investigators were evidently apprehensive about the effect her appearance might have on Dmitri Fyodorovich, and Nikolai Parfenovich even muttered a few words of admonition to him, but Mitya, by way of answer, silently bowed his head, giving them to understand that "there would be no disturbance."
> Relative «которое» with its own case: «которое» agrees with «впечатление» in neuter singular but takes the accusative its role in the relative clause demands. Word order is inverted — object «впечатление» (referred to by «которое») before subject «появление» — a literary scrambling typical of Dostoevsky.
> Dative «ему» of the addressee: «ему» is the dative for the person addressed ('to him'), and «в увещание» ('by way of admonition') uses «в» + accusative for purpose/role. Together: he muttered a few words to Mitya as an admonition.
> Gerund «давая» — 'giving (them) to understand': «давая знать» is the imperfective gerund of «давать» in the idiom 'to let know, give to understand', running simultaneously with «склонил голову» ('bowed his head'). «тем» (instrumental of «то») means 'by that, thereby'.

Ввел Грушеньку сам Михаил Макарович.  
Mikhail Makarovich himself brought Grushenka in.
> Verb-first, subject last for emphasis: The clause runs verb–object–subject: «Ввёл Грушеньку сам Михаил Макарович» ('brought-in Grushenka himself Mikhail Makarovich'). Putting the subject last, with intensive «сам» ('himself'), stresses who did the honors. Cases keep roles clear despite the order.

Она вошла со строгим и угрюмым лицом, с виду почти спокойным, и тихо села на указанный ей стул напротив Николая Парфеновича.  
She came in with a stern and gloomy face, almost calm in appearance, and quietly sat down on the chair indicated to her, opposite Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Instrumental of attendant feature after «с»: «с» + instrumental describes the manner/appearance one enters with: «со строгим... лицом» ('with a stern face'). The string of agreeing instrumental adjectives builds her portrait without a single new verb.
> Passive participle «указанный» + dative agent-ish «ей»: «указанный» is a past passive participle ('indicated, pointed out'), agreeing with «стул» in the accusative; «ей» is the dative 'to her'. The participle compresses 'the chair that had been shown to her' into one modifier — a bookish economy.

Была она очень бледна, казалось, что ей холодно, и она плотно закутывалась в свою прекрасную черную шаль.  
She was very pale, seemed to feel cold, and wrapped herself tightly in her splendid black shawl.
> Short adjective «бледна» — pale (just now): «бледна» is the short predicative form of «бледный», stating a current state after «была». Short adjectives lean bookish and often signal a temporary condition — apt for the chill coming over her at this moment.
> Impersonal «казалось» + dative-subject «ей холодно»: Two impersonal layers: «казалось» ('it seemed') with no subject, and the dative-experiencer «ей холодно» ('she felt cold' — literally 'to her [it is] cold'). The person who feels stands in the dative, the hallmark of Russian inner-state syntax.
> Reflexive «закутывалась» + «свою»: «закутывалась» is the reflexive «-ся» middle ('wrapped herself up'), imperfective for the ongoing gesture. «свою» is the reflexive possessive, marking the shawl as her own — «её» would have pointed to someone else's.

Действительно, с ней начинался тогда легкий лихорадочный озноб — начало длинной болезни, которую она потом с этой ночи перенесла.  
In fact a slight feverish chill was coming over her just then — the beginning of the long illness she went through afterwards from that night on.
> Reflexive «начинался» — an onset 'coming over' her: «начинался» is the imperfective reflexive «начинаться» ('to begin', intransitive), viewing the chill as a process setting in. «с ней» ('with her') frames it as something happening to her rather than something she does.
> Relative «которую» — accusative object: «которую» refers to «болезнь» (feminine), but takes the accusative as the object of «перенесла» ('went through, endured'). The perfective «перенесла» looks ahead past this night to the whole illness she would later survive.

Строгий вид ее, прямой и серьезный взгляд и спокойная манера произвели весьма благоприятное впечатление на всех.  
Her stern look, her direct and serious gaze, and her composed manner made a very favorable impression on everyone.
> «произвести впечатление на» + accusative: The set phrase «произвести впечатление на кого» ('to make an impression on someone') takes «на» + accusative «всех» ('everyone'). The bookish intensifier «весьма» ('very, exceedingly') belongs to the elevated narratorial register.

Николай Парфенович даже сразу несколько «увлекся».  
Nikolai Parfenovich even grew somewhat "taken" with her at once.
> Reflexive «увлёкся» — was carried away: «увлёкся» is the perfective reflexive «увлечься» ('to be carried away, become smitten'). The scare-quotes and «даже... несколько» ('even somewhat') flag the narrator's wink: the grave investigator was a touch taken with the witness.

Он признавался сам, рассказывая кое-где потом, что только с этого разу постиг, как эта женщина «хороша собой», а прежде хоть и видывал ее, но всегда считал чем-то вроде «уездной гетеры».  
He admitted himself, telling of it here and there afterwards, that only from that occasion did he grasp how "good-looking" this woman was, for though he had seen her before, he had always taken her for something like a "provincial courtesan."
> «только с... разу» — 'only from that time': «с этого разу» ('from that occasion') uses «с» + genitive for a starting point in time, with the old genitive «разу». The perfective «постиг» ('grasped, comprehended') marks the single moment of realization.
> Iterative «видывал» — 'used to see now and then': «видывал» is an iterative/frequentative imperfective of «видеть», a bookish-folk form meaning 'had occasionally seen, used to catch sight of'. «хоть и» ('though') concedes the point: he had seen her before, yet never really noticed her.
> «уездная гетера» — a provincial courtesan: «гетера» (Greek hetaera) is a literary, ironic word for a high-class courtesan; «уездная» ('district, provincial') deflates it to small-town scale. The pairing is snobbish and dismissive — exactly the prejudice the narrator quotes and then upends.

«У ней манеры как у самого высшего общества», — восторженно сболтнул он как-то в одном дамском кружке.  
"She has the manners of the very highest society," he once blurted out rapturously in some ladies' circle.
> Possessive «у» twice + colloquial «ней»: The comparison runs «у ней... как у... общества» ('she has... like the [highest] society has'), both halves built on «у» + genitive. «ней» (for «неё») is a colloquial-period variant, and «самого высшего» ('the very highest') stacks two superlative markers.
> «сболтнуть» — to blurt out: A perfective colloquial verb: to let slip, blab out something one shouldn't. It paints Nikolai Parfenovich's praise as indiscreet and impulsive — the very gossip that earns him a scolding in the next line.

Но его выслушали с самым полным негодованием и тотчас назвали за это «шалуном», чем он и остался очень доволен.  
But he was heard out with the fullest indignation and was at once called "a naughty boy" for it, with which he remained quite content.
> «назвать» + instrumental of the label: After «назвать» ('to call [someone something]'), the name predicated goes in the instrumental: «назвали шалуном» ('called him a naughty boy'). Both verbs are again subjectless plurals ('they'). «за это» ('for this') gives the grounds.
> «шалун» — a naughty boy / mischief-maker: «шалун» means a playful rogue or naughty child — a teasing, affectionate scolding here aimed at a grown official. That he «остался очень доволен» ('was quite pleased') with the label is the comic point.

Входя в комнату, Грушенька лишь как бы мельком глянула на Митю, в свою очередь с беспокойством на нее поглядевшего, но вид ее в ту же минуту и его успокоил.  
As she entered the room, Grushenka only glanced fleetingly, as it were, at Mitya, who in his turn looked anxiously at her, but the sight of her at that very moment reassured him too.
> Gerund «входя» — 'as she entered': «входя» is the imperfective present gerund of «входить» ('entering'), the simultaneous backdrop to her glance. «как бы» ('as it were') and «лишь... мельком» ('only fleetingly') soften the look to a barely-there flicker.
> Past active participle «поглядевшего»: «поглядевшего» is a past active participle ('who had looked'), agreeing with «Митю» in the animate accusative/genitive. It folds a whole который-clause ('who in turn had looked at her with anxiety') into one bookish modifier.
> Object «его» fronted, focusing «и»: «вид её... и его успокоил» — 'the sight of her reassured him too'. The accusative «его» comes before its verb «успокоил», and «и» is the focusing 'also/too', not 'and': her calm soothed him as well.

После первых необходимых вопросов и увещаний Николай Парфенович, хоть и несколько запинаясь, но сохраняя самый вежливый, однако же, вид, спросил ее: «В каких отношениях состояла она к отставному поручику Дмитрию Федоровичу Карамазову?»  
After the first necessary questions and admonitions Nikolai Parfenovich, though stammering a little, yet preserving the most courteous air, asked her: "In what relation had she stood to the retired lieutenant Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov?"
> Two contrasting gerunds, «хоть... но»: A pair of imperfective gerunds frame his manner of asking: «запинаясь» ('stammering') and «сохраняя... вид» ('preserving an air'), bridged by the concessive «хоть... но» ('though... yet'). Both run simultaneously with the main verb «спросил».
> «состоять в» + prepositional: «состоять в отношениях» ('to stand in a relationship') governs «в» + prepositional «отношениях». The interrogative «каких» ('what kind of') agrees in the prepositional plural — a formal, lawyerly phrasing fitting the deposition.

На что Грушенька тихо и твердо произнесла:  
To which Grushenka quietly and firmly replied:
> «произнести» — to utter, pronounce: A weightier, more deliberate verb than «сказать» ('to say'): to enunciate, to pronounce words with gravity. The narrator's choice, with «тихо и твердо» ('quietly and firmly'), lends Grushenka's reply a measured solemnity.

— Знакомый мой был, как знакомого его в последний месяц принимала.  
"He was an acquaintance of mine; as an acquaintance I received him this last month."
> Predicate noun without copula, then accusative: «Знакомый мой был» ('he was an acquaintance of mine') keeps the predicate in the nominative «знакомый» even with past «был» — common with this animate noun. Then «как знакомого» is the animate accusative ('as an acquaintance I received [him]'), object of «принимала».

На дальнейшие любопытствующие вопросы прямо и с полною откровенностью заявила, что хотя он ей «часами» и нравился, но что она не любила его, но завлекала из «гнусной злобы моей», равно как и того «старичка», видела, что Митя ее очень ревновал к Федору Павловичу и ко всем, но тем лишь тешилась.  
To the further inquisitive questions she declared frankly and with complete candor that, although at times he had pleased her, she had not loved him, but had lured him on out of "my own vile spite," just as she had the "little old man" too; she had seen how Mitya was very jealous of her with Fyodor Pavlovich and with everyone, but had only amused herself with that.
> Dative experiencer with «нравиться»: «он ей нравился» literally 'he was pleasing to her' — the verb «нравиться» puts the one who likes in the dative «ей» and the liked one in the nominative. Note «часами» ('at times, by the hour') used adverbially in the instrumental.
> «из» + genitive of motive: «из» here gives the motive: «из злобы» ('out of spite'). The whole phrase «из гнусной злобы моей» stands in the genitive, with the possessive «моей» trailing the noun for the heightened, self-accusing tone of her confession.
> Reflexive «тешилась» + instrumental «тем»: «тешиться чем» ('to amuse/divert oneself with something') is a reflexive «-ся» verb taking the instrumental; «тем» ('with that') is the instrumental of «то». She 'only amused herself with that' — a cold, self-aware admission.

К Федору же Павловичу совсем никогда не хотела идти, а только смеялась над ним.  
To Fyodor Pavlovich she had never had any wish to go at all, but had only laughed at him.
> Negative concord «никогда... не»: «никогда... не хотела» is Russian's obligatory negative concord: the ни-adverb «никогда» ('never') and the «не» on the verb both appear, doubling but not cancelling. «К... Павловичу» fronts the topic with «же» marking the shift; «к» + dative gives direction.
> «смеяться над» + instrumental: «смеяться над кем» ('to laugh at / mock someone') is a reflexive «-ся» verb governing «над» + instrumental «ним». She 'only laughed at him' — the construction itself carries the sense of mockery directed downward.

«В тот весь месяц не до них мне обоих было; я ждала другого человека, предо мной виновного… Только, думаю, — заключила она, — что вам нечего об этом любопытствовать, а мне нечего вам отвечать, потому что это особливое мое дело».  
"That whole month I had no thought for either of the two of them; I was waiting for another man, one who had wronged me… Only," she concluded, "I think there's nothing for you to be curious about in this, and nothing for me to answer you, because it's a private affair of mine."
> Idiom «не до кого/чего» + dative experiencer: «мне не до них было» is the impersonal idiom «(кому) не до (чего)» — 'I had no thought/time for them'. The experiencer «мне» is dative, the thing dismissed «до них» genitive, «было» impersonal neuter. A pure dative-subject construction.
> Archaic «предо» + participle-adjective «виновного»: «виновного» ('guilty, who had wronged') agrees with «человека» in the animate accusative and governs «предо мной» ('before me' — bookish «предо»). 'I awaited another man, one guilty before me' — the man who had wronged her.
> «особливое» — archaic for 'particular/private': «особливый» is an older, folk-colored variant of «особенный/особый» ('special, particular'). In Grushenka's mouth 'a private affair of mine' carries a faintly old-fashioned, plain-spoken dignity that closes the subject firmly.

Так немедленно и поступил Николай Парфенович: на «романических» пунктах он опять перестал настаивать, а прямо перешел к серьезному, то есть всё к тому же и главнейшему вопросу о трех тысячах.  
And so Nikolai Parfenovich did at once: on the "romantic" points he again stopped pressing, and went straight to the serious matter, that is, to that same chief question about the three thousand.
> Contrastive «а» linking the pivot: «а» joins the two moves with a mild contrast/topic-shift: he 'stopped pressing, and [instead] went straight on'. «перестал настаивать» pairs perfective «перестал» with imperfective infinitive «настаивать» ('to keep insisting'), the natural combination after 'stop doing'.
> Superlative «главнейшему» in -ейш-: «главнейший» is the bookish suffixal superlative of «главный» ('chief'), formed with «-ейш-» — 'the very chief'. It agrees in the dative with «вопросу» after «к», stressing that everything returns to the one central question of the three thousand.

Грушенька подтвердила, что в Мокром, месяц назад, действительно истрачены были три тысячи рублей, и хоть денег сама и не считала, но слышала от самого Дмитрия Федоровича, что три тысячи рублей.  
Grushenka confirmed that at Mokroe, a month ago, three thousand roubles had indeed been spent, and that, though she had not counted the money herself, she had heard from Dmitri Fyodorovich's own lips that it was three thousand roubles.
> Short passive participle «истрачены» — periphrastic passive: «истрачены были» is the past passive: short participle «истрачены» ('spent') from perfective «истратить» + «были», stating the completed result. The agent is left unnamed; the focus is the bare fact that three thousand were spent.
> Genitive of negation «денег»: Under negation the object shifts to genitive: «не считала денег» ('did not count the money'). The intensive «сама» ('herself') and concessive «хоть... и» concede the gap in her knowledge before she reports what she heard.

— Наедине он вам это говорил или при ком-нибудь, или вы только слышали, как он с другими при вас говорил? — осведомился тотчас же прокурор.  
"Did he tell you this alone with you, or in someone's presence, or did you only hear him saying it to others when you were there?" the prosecutor inquired at once.
> «при ком-нибудь» — 'in anyone's presence': «при» + prepositional means 'in the presence of'; «ком-нибудь» uses the non-specific «-нибудь» ('anyone at all'). The alternative question lines up three options: alone, before someone, or only overheard.
> «осведомиться» — to inquire (formally): A formal, slightly officious verb for 'to inquire, ascertain' — the reflexive «осведомиться о чём». It suits the prosecutor's careful, procedural questioning and recurs through this exchange.

На что Грушенька объявила, что слышала и при людях, слышала, как и с другими говорил, слышала и наедине от него самого.  
To which Grushenka declared that she had heard it both in front of people, heard him say it to others as well, and heard it from him alone.
> Anaphoric repetition with focusing «и»: Grushenka repeats «слышала» three times, each with focusing «и» ('also'): in front of people, to others, and alone. The triple imperfective «слышала» stresses repeated, habitual hearing — she heard it on many occasions.

— Однажды слышали от него наедине или неоднократно? — осведомился опять прокурор и узнал, что Грушенька слышала неоднократно.  
"Did you hear it from him once alone, or repeatedly?" the prosecutor inquired again, and learned that Grushenka had heard it repeatedly.
> «неоднократно» — repeatedly, more than once: A bookish adverb (literally 'not-once-ly') meaning 'on repeated occasions'. Set against «однажды» ('once'), it is the answer the prosecutor extracts — that Mitya said it more than one time.
> Reported clause with «что»: «узнал, что...» ('learned that...') opens a factual reported clause with the subordinator «что». The narration compresses question and answer into one sentence, then states the imperfective result: she had heard it repeatedly.

Ипполит Кириллыч остался очень доволен этим показанием.  
Ippolit Kirillovich was very pleased with this testimony.
> Short adjective «доволен» + instrumental: «доволен» is the short predicative form of «довольный» ('content'); the thing one is pleased with goes in the instrumental — «доволен показанием» ('pleased with the testimony'). «остался» ('remained') frames it as a settled state.

Из дальнейших вопросов выяснилось тоже, что Грушеньке было известно, откуда эти деньги и что взял их-де Дмитрий Федорович от Катерины Ивановны.  
From the further questions it came out too that Grushenka knew where the money had come from, and that Dmitri Fyodorovich had taken it, so they said, from Katerina Ivanovna.
> Dative + «известно» — impersonal 'it was known': «Грушеньке было известно» literally 'to Grushenka it was known' — the dative experiencer with the impersonal predicate «известно» ('known'). Another subjectless construction centering on whose knowledge it is.
> The reportive clitic «-де»: «-де» is a hearsay particle marking reported speech — 'so they say, allegedly'. Tacked onto «их-де» it flags that what follows is reported, not vouched for by the narrator. Our English 'so they said' renders it.

— А не слыхали ли вы хоть однажды, что денег было промотано месяц назад не три тысячи, а меньше, и что Дмитрий Федорович уберег из них целую половину для себя?  
"And did you never once hear that the money squandered a month ago was not three thousand but less, and that Dmitri Fyodorovich had kept a whole half of it back for himself?"
> «не... ли» question with «слыхали»: The yes/no question is built with «не... ли»: «не слыхали ли вы» ('did you not ever hear / have you not heard'). «слыхали» is the folksy iterative of «слышать». «хоть однажды» means 'even once'.
> Corrective «не... а» + comparative «меньше»: «не..., а...» is the corrective pairing 'not X, but Y'. «меньше» is the suppletive comparative of «мало/маленький» ('less'). The prosecutor floats the theory that less than three thousand was spent.
> «уберечь» — to keep safe, hold back: «уберечь» (perfective) is to preserve, guard, keep something from being lost. Here, to have squirreled away «целую половину» ('a whole half') of the sum — the crux of the prosecution's theory that Mitya hid half the money.

— Нет, никогда этого не слыхала, — показала Грушенька.  
"No, I never heard that," Grushenka testified.
> Negative concord + genitive of negation: Two negation features at once: «никогда... не» is double negative concord ('never... not'), and «этого» is genitive ('that'), the genitive an abstract object takes under negation. 'I never heard any of that.'

Дальше выяснилось даже, что Митя, напротив, часто говорил ей во весь этот месяц, что денег у него нет ни копейки.  
It came out further still that, on the contrary, Mitya had often told her throughout this month that he had not a kopek of money.
> Genitive of absence + emphatic «ни копейки»: «нет» ('there is no') forces the genitive of what is absent: «денег нет» ('there is no money'). «ни копейки» ('not a kopek') is the «ни»-intensifier in the genitive — 'not a single kopek'. A textbook genitive-of-negation existential.
> Imperfective «говорил» for habit: «часто говорил» ('often told') is imperfective for repeated, habitual action across the month. «напротив» ('on the contrary') pivots the testimony against the prosecutor's theory; «ей» is the dative addressee.

«С родителя своего всё ждал получить», — заключила Грушенька.  
"He was always expecting to get some from his father," Grushenka concluded.
> «ждать получить» + «свой» + «с» genitive: «ждал получить» chains the imperfective 'kept expecting' with a perfective infinitive 'to get'. «с родителя своего» ('from his own father') uses «с» + genitive for source and the reflexive «своего» pointing back to Mitya. «всё» ('all the time') stresses the constant waiting.
> «родитель» — sire / parent (elevated): «родитель» is a loftier, more formal word for 'father' than «отец», with a faintly archaic or genteel ring. In Grushenka's reported phrase it lends a touch of mock-solemnity to Mitya's chronic hope of money from the old man.

— А не говорил ли когда при вас… или как-нибудь мельком, или в раздражении, — хватил вдруг Николай Парфенович, — что намерен посягнуть на жизнь своего отца?  
"And did he never say in your presence… or somehow in passing, or in irritation," Nikolai Parfenovich suddenly let fly, "that he intended to make an attempt on his father's life?"
> «не... ли» + «когда» indefinite: Another «не говорил ли» yes/no question, with «когда» used as an unstressed indefinite 'ever, at some point'. «при вас» ('in your presence') sets the condition.
> «посягнуть на» — to make an attempt on: «посягнуть на что» is a grave, formal verb: to encroach upon, make a criminal attempt on. «посягнуть на жизнь» ('to attempt the life of') is the legal-rhetorical phrasing for an intent to kill — the gravest charge, dropped here on the father.
> «хватил» — let fly (a sudden thrust): Colloquially «хватить» can mean to come out with something abruptly and forcefully — to 'let fly'. «хватил вдруг Николай Парфенович» frames the question as a sudden, pointed thrust the investigator springs on her.

— Ох, говорил! — вздохнула Грушенька.  
"Oh, he did!" sighed Grushenka.
> «Ох!» — a sigh of pained acknowledgment: «Ох» is an interjection of heaviness, grief, or reluctant admission — quite distinct from surprised «ах». Paired with «вздохнула» ('she sighed'), it conveys Grushenka's sorrowful yielding to an uncomfortable truth.

— Однажды или несколько раз?  
"Once, or several times?"
> Elliptical alternative question: A bare, verbless question: 'Once or several times?'. Russian readily drops the understood verb («говорил») once context supplies it. «несколько раз» pairs «несколько» ('a few') with «раз» ('time'), which stays singular in form here.

— Несколько раз поминал, всегда в сердцах.  
"He mentioned it several times, always in a temper."
> «поминать» — to mention, bring up: An imperfective verb for repeatedly referring to or recalling something. «Несколько раз поминал» ('he brought it up several times') stresses recurrence, fitting her admission that the threat surfaced more than once.
> «в сердцах» — in a flash of temper: A fixed idiom (frozen prepositional plural of «сердце», 'heart') meaning 'in anger, in a fit of temper'. «всегда в сердцах» ('always in a temper') paints his threats as hot-blooded outbursts, not cold resolve — softening their weight.

— И вы верили, что он это исполнит?  
"And did you believe he would carry it out?"
> Perfective future «исполнит» in reported thought: «исполнит» is the perfective present-form of «исполнить» ('to carry out'), which yields future meaning — 'that he would carry it out'. Embedded under past «верили» ('believed'), Russian keeps the future form where English shifts to 'would'.

— Нет, никогда не верила! — твердо ответила она, — на благородство его надеялась.  
"No, I never believed it!" she answered firmly. "I trusted in his nobility."
> Negative concord «никогда не верила»: «никогда не верила» — the ни-adverb «никогда» ('never') and the «не» on the verb both stand, Russian's required double negation. The imperfective «верила» states an enduring disbelief throughout.
> «надеяться на» + accusative, fronted object: «надеяться на что» ('to trust/hope in') is reflexive «-ся» governing «на» + accusative. The object «на благородство его» ('in his nobility') is fronted before the verb «надеялась» for emphasis — what she trusted in leads the clause.

— Господа, позвольте, — вскричал вдруг Митя, — позвольте сказать при вас Аграфене Александровне лишь одно только слово.  
"Gentlemen, allow me," Mitya suddenly cried out, "allow me to say just one single word to Agrafena Alexandrovna in your presence."
> Polite imperative «позвольте» + infinitive: «позвольте» is the polite/plural imperative of «позволить» ('to allow'), softening the request: 'allow [me] to say'. The doubled «лишь... только» ('just only') and «одно... слово» ('one word') stress how brief he means to be.

— Скажите, — разрешил Николай Парфенович.  
"Speak," Nikolai Parfenovich permitted.
> Imperative «Скажите» — perfective command: «Скажите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «сказать» ('say [it]'), granting permission with a single curt word. The perfective fits a one-off act of speech, as opposed to imperfective «говорите» ('go on speaking').

— Аграфена Александровна, — привстал со стула Митя, — верь богу и мне: в крови убитого вчера отца моего я не повинен!  
"Agrafena Alexandrovna," Mitya half-rose from his chair, "believe in God and in me: of the blood of my father, murdered yesterday, I am not guilty!"
> Singular imperative «верь» + dative: «верь» is the singular (intimate) imperative of «верить» ('believe, trust'), governing the dative «богу и мне» ('God and me'). The shift to «ты» («верь», not «верьте») marks the sudden intimacy of his direct plea to her alone.
> Short adjective «повинен» + «в» prepositional: «повинен в чём» ('guilty of') is an archaic-solemn short adjective governing «в» + prepositional «в крови» ('of the blood'). «убитого» is a past passive participle ('murdered') agreeing with «отца» in the genitive — a dense, oath-like declaration.

Произнеся это, Митя опять сел на стул.  
Having said this, Mitya sat down again on his chair.
> Past gerund «Произнеся» — 'having said': «Произнеся» is a perfective past gerund from «произнести» ('to utter'), naming the completed prior act before the main verb «сел» ('sat down'): having pronounced this, he sat. The gerund shares Mitya as subject.

Грушенька привстала и набожно перекрестилась на икону.  
Grushenka half-rose and crossed herself devoutly before the ikon.
> Reflexive «перекреститься» — to cross oneself: «перекрестилась» is the perfective reflexive of «перекреститься» ('to make the sign of the cross'), the «-ся» here truly reflexive — the action falls on the doer. «привстала» ('half-rose') is also perfective, two single completed gestures.

— Слава тебе господи! — проговорила она горячим, проникновенным голосом и, еще не садясь на место и обратившись к Николаю Парфеновичу, прибавила: — Как он теперь сказал, тому и верьте!  
"Glory be to Thee, O Lord!" she said in a fervent, heartfelt voice, and, still not sitting down and turning to Nikolai Parfenovich, added: "What he has just now said, that you must believe!"
> Two gerunds: imperfective «не садясь» + perfective «обратившись»: «не садясь» (imperfective present gerund, 'still not sitting down') gives an ongoing attendant state, while «обратившись» (perfective past gerund, 'having turned') gives a completed prior act. The pairing layers a lingering posture with a finished turn toward the investigator.
> Correlative «как... тому» + imperative: A correlative construction: «как он сказал» ('what he just said') is picked up by the dative «тому» ('that') after «верить», which governs the dative. «и верьте» ('believe, then!') is the polite imperative with focusing «и» — 'that is what you must believe!'

Знаю его: сболтнуть что сболтнет, али для смеху, али с упрямства, но если против совести, то никогда не обманет.  
I know him: he'll let something slip, all right — for a laugh, or out of sheer stubbornness — but if it goes against his conscience, never; he'll not deceive you.
> «сболтнуть» — to blurt out: «сболтнуть» is colloquial for letting something slip thoughtlessly, blabbing. The doubled construction «сболтнуть что сболтнет» (lit. 'as for blurting, blurt he will') is a folk concessive idiom — 'sure, he may blab' — conceding the point before the «но».
> «али» — folk 'or': «али» is a peasant, dialectal variant of «или» ('or'). Grushenka's whole defence of Mitya is voiced in this homely register — «али для смеху, али с упрямства» — marking her as a woman of the people.
> Cause expressed with «с» + genitive: The preposition «с» governs the genitive here to express cause or motive — «с упрямства» ('out of stubbornness'), parallel to «для смеху» ('for a laugh'). «для смеху» also shows the old partitive-genitive ending -у rather than -а.
> Negative concord and perfective future: «никогда … не» is Russian's obligatory double negation: the ни-adverb still requires «не» on the verb. «обманет» is a perfective present-form serving as future — 'he will (never) deceive'.

Прямо правду скажет, тому верьте!  
He'll tell the plain truth — believe that of him!
> Dative object of «верить»: «верить» governs the dative — you believe to someone/something. «тому» is the dative of the demonstrative «то», so 'believe that (of him)'. «верьте» is the polite/plural imperative in -те.

— Спасибо, Аграфена Александровна, поддержала душу! — дрожащим голосом отозвался Митя.  
"Thank you, Agrafena Alexandrovna, you have given my soul some strength!" Mitya answered in a trembling voice.
> Instrumental of manner: «дрожащим голосом» ('in a trembling voice') is the bare instrumental of manner, needing no preposition. «дрожащим» is a present active participle of «дрожать», declined to agree in the instrumental.

На вопросы о вчерашних деньгах она заявила, что не знает, сколько их было, но слышала, как людям он много раз говорил вчера, что привез с собой три тысячи.  
To the questions about yesterday's money she declared that she did not know how much there had been, but that she had heard him tell people many times yesterday that he had brought three thousand with him.
> Genitive with «сколько»: Quantity words like «сколько» take the genitive of what is counted — here «их» (genitive of «они', i.e. the money/roubles). The verb «было' stands in the neuter singular, the impersonal default for a quantified subject.
> «как» reporting perceived action: After verbs of perception, «как» introduces what was witnessed — 'heard how/that he spoke'. The imperfective «говорил» plus «много раз» frames it as repeated, habitual telling.
> Reflexive «с собой»: «с собой» ('with him/oneself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the instrumental, pointing back to the clause's subject (Mitya). «привёз» is a prefixed perfective verb of motion — 'brought (by conveyance)'.

А насчет того: откуда деньги взял, то сказал ей одной, что у Катерины Ивановны «украл», а что она ему на то ответила, что он не украл и что деньги надо завтра же отдать.  
And as for where he had got the money, he had told her alone that he had "stolen" it from Katerina Ivanovna, and that she had answered him in reply that he had not stolen it and that the money must be paid back the very next day.
> Dative indirect object with «один»: «ей одной' is dative — 'told to her alone'. «одной» here is «одна» in the dative, agreeing with «ей» and meaning 'alone/only', not the numeral 'one'.
> Stacked «что»-clauses of reported speech: The sentence chains subordinate «что»-clauses ('that … that … that …'), the standard way Russian embeds reported speech. Each opens a fresh dependent clause set off by a comma.
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «надо» ('it is necessary') is an impersonal predicate taking an infinitive «отдать» and no nominative subject — obligation expressed without a doer. The particle «же» after «завтра» sharpens it: 'the very next day'.

На настойчивый вопрос прокурора: о каких деньгах говорил, что украл у Катерины Ивановны, — о вчерашних или о тех трех тысячах, которые были истрачены здесь месяц назад, — объявила, что говорил о тех, которые были месяц назад, и что она так его поняла.  
Pressed insistently by the prosecutor as to which money he meant when he said he had stolen it from Katerina Ivanovna — yesterday's, or the three thousand that had been spent here a month ago — she announced that he had spoken of the money from a month ago, and that this was how she had understood him.
> Который-clause with passive participle: «которые» relativises 'the three thousand', taking nominative as subject of its own clause. «были истрачены» is the periphrastic passive — «быть» plus the short past passive participle of «истратить» ('spent').
> Prepositional after «о»: «о» ('about, concerning') governs the prepositional: «о каких деньгах», «о вчерашних», «о тех». The repeated «о» keeps the topic of the prosecutor's question explicit through a long sentence.

Грушеньку наконец отпустили, причем Николай Парфенович стремительно заявил ей, что она может хоть сейчас же воротиться в город и что если он с своей стороны чем-нибудь может способствовать, например, насчет лошадей или, например, пожелает она провожатого, то он… с своей стороны…  
Grushenka was finally let go, whereupon Nikolai Parfenovich hurriedly assured her that she could return to town even now, that very instant, and that if for his part he could be of any service to her — with horses, for example, or if, for example, she should wish for an escort — then he… for his part…
> Indefinite «-нибудь»; «способствовать» + dative: «чем-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite 'in some way / anything at all', formed with the «-нибудь» clitic — here an instrumental of means. «способствовать» itself governs the dative (способствовать чему-либо); its dative object is left unexpressed, so the verb is used absolutely — 'be of service in some way'.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «с своей стороны» ('for his/one's own part') uses the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause's subject. The repetition mirrors Nikolai Parfenovich's stammering self-importance.

— Покорно благодарю вас, — поклонилась ему Грушенька, — я с тем старичком отправлюсь, с помещиком, его довезу, а пока подожду внизу, коль позволите, как вы тут Дмитрия Федоровича порешите.  
"I humbly thank you," Grushenka bowed to him, "I shall set off with that old gentleman, the landowner; I'll see him home. And in the meantime, if you will allow it, I'll wait downstairs to learn how you settle matters here with Dmitri Fyodorovich."
> «Покорно благодарю» — an old courtesy: «Покорно благодарю» ('I humbly thank you', lit. 'submissively') is a formal, slightly old-fashioned formula of thanks. In Grushenka's mouth it carries a touch of folk ceremoniousness.
> Instrumental of accompaniment + diminutive: «с» ('with', accompaniment) governs the instrumental: «с тем старичком», «с помещиком». «старичок» is the affectionate diminutive of «старик» ('old man'), warm and a little pitying.
> Perfective future of a reflexive verb: «отправлюсь» (from «отправиться», 'to set off') is a perfective present-form with future meaning — 'I shall set off'. The «-сь» is the reflexive clitic marking a middle, change-of-state sense (setting oneself in motion).
> «коль» — folk 'if': «коль» (here «коль позволите») is an archaic, folk-poetic clipping of «если» / «коли» ('if, since'). It keeps Grushenka's speech in its rustic, songlike key.

Она вышла.  
She went out.
> Perfective prefixed verb of motion: «вышла» (from «выйти», 'to go out') is a perfective verb of motion with the prefix «вы-» (out). The clipped, single-event perfective gives the line its finality — she is simply gone.

Митя был спокоен и даже имел совсем ободрившийся вид, но лишь на минуту.  
Mitya was calm and even had the look of a man who had taken heart again — but only for a minute.
> Past active participle of a reflexive verb: «ободрившийся» is the past active participle of «ободриться» ('to take heart'), the «-вший-» form plus the reflexive «-ся», declined to agree with «вид» — 'a look that had cheered up'.
> Adversative «но» with a terse coda: «но» ('but') turns the sentence on a dime, the bare phrase «лишь на минуту» ('only for a minute') withholding the reassurance the first clause offered — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's nervous rhythm.

Всё какое-то странное физическое бессилие одолевало его чем дальше, тем больше.  
Some strange physical weakness was overtaking him more and more, the further things went.
> Imperfective of a creeping process: «одолевало» is imperfective past, depicting weakness 'overtaking' Mitya as an ongoing, unfinished process rather than a completed event. The leading «Всё» here means 'all the while / continually'.
> «чем … тем» correlative comparatives: «чем дальше, тем больше» ('the further, the more') is the standard correlative-comparative frame, both members in the bare comparative form «дальше / больше». It conveys steady intensification.

Глаза его закрывались от усталости.  
His eyes were closing from exhaustion.
> Reflexive of intransitive change of state: «закрывались» ('were closing') is the «-ся» middle of «закрывать», making it intransitive — the eyes close of their own accord, not closed by anyone. The imperfective shows the slow, involuntary droop.
> Cause with «от» + genitive: «от усталости» ('from exhaustion') uses «от» governing the genitive to give the cause of a physical state — a frequent Dostoevskian formula for bodily reactions («от холоду», «от слёз»).

Допрос свидетелей наконец окончился.  
The interrogation of the witnesses was at last finished.
> Perfective reflexive marking completion: «окончился» (from «окончиться») pairs the «-ся» middle with perfective aspect to mark the interrogation reaching its end — a single completed close. «наконец» ('at last') underlines the result.

Приступили к окончательной редакции протокола.  
They set about the final drafting of the protocol.
> «приступить к» + dative: «приступить» ('to set about, begin') governs «к» plus the dative: «к … редакции протокола». The subjectless «приступили» (3rd-pl, 'they set about') is an impersonal 'one' construction, leaving the officials unnamed.

Митя встал и перешел с своего стула в угол, к занавеске, прилег на большой накрытый ковром хозяйский сундук и мигом заснул.  
Mitya stood up, moved from his chair into the corner by the curtain, lay down on a large household chest covered with a rug, and instantly fell asleep.
> Chain of perfectives moving the action: Four perfective verbs in a row — «встал, перешёл, прилёг, заснул» — drive the narrative forward event by event, each a single completed act. This is the perfective's storytelling function against imperfective background.
> «свой» for the subject's own chair: «с своего стула» ('from his own chair') again uses the reflexive possessive «свой», keyed to the subject Mitya. The older «с своего» (rather than modern «со своего») is a 19th-century orthographic touch.
> «сундук» — chest: A «сундук» is a large household storage chest, the «хозяйский» (the innkeeper's) one here covered with a rug. Mitya's falling asleep on a peasant's chest, rather than a bed, prepares the homely, folk setting of the dream.

Приснился ему какой-то странный сон, как-то совсем не к месту и не ко времени.  
He dreamed a strange dream, somehow altogether out of place and out of season.
> Dative experiencer of «присниться»: Dreaming is framed impersonally: the dream «приснился» (came in sleep) to «ему» (dative experiencer), with «сон» as grammatical subject. Russian routinely makes the dreamer a dative recipient rather than an agent.
> «какой-то» — a certain, unidentified: «какой-то» ('some kind of, a certain') is the specific-but-unknown indefinite built with the «-то» clitic. Repeated through the dream («как-то», «какое-то»), it lends the whole vision its hazy, unaccountable quality.

Вот он будто бы где-то едет в степи, там, где служил давно, еще прежде, и везет его в слякоть на телеге, на паре, мужик.  
There he was, it seemed, riding somewhere across the steppe, in the country where he had served long ago, in earlier days, and a peasant was driving him through the slush in a cart drawn by a pair of horses.
> «будто бы» — the dream's 'as if': «будто бы» ('as though, supposedly') with the irrealis particle «бы» casts the whole scene as unreal, dreamlike supposition. It recurs as a refrain («Только холодно будто бы Мите»), keeping the narration suspended between seeing and seeming.
> «телега» and «на паре»: A «телега» is a simple peasant cart; «на паре» means 'with a pair (of horses)'. The detail «в слякоть» ('through the slush/mud') sets the bleak late-autumn road. «мужик» (peasant) drives — the dream's everyman.

Только холодно будто бы Мите, в начале ноябрь, и снег валит крупными мокрыми хлопьями, а падая на землю, тотчас тает.  
Only Mitya felt cold, it seemed — it was the beginning of November — and the snow was coming down in great wet flakes that melted the moment they touched the ground.
> Dative of the one who feels cold: «холодно Мите» ('Mitya feels cold') is the classic impersonal: the neuter predicative «холодно» plus the dative experiencer «Мите», with no nominative subject. Dostoevsky uses it to put us inside Mitya's sensation.
> Imperfective present + gerund in the dream: The dream shifts to the vivid imperfective present: «валит» ('is falling'), «тает» ('melts'). «падая» ('falling') is a present gerund (деепричастие), sharing the snow's subject and adding a simultaneous circumstance — the flakes melt as they fall.
> «хлопья» — flakes: «хлопьями» (instrumental of manner) describes the snow coming down 'in great wet flakes' — «хлопья» is the word for large, soft snowflakes or tufts. The instrumental, with no preposition, paints the manner of the falling.

И бойко везет его мужик, славно помахивает, русая, длинная такая у него борода, и не то что старик, а так лет будет пятидесяти, серый мужичий на нем зипунишко.  
And the peasant drove him along briskly, flicking the whip in fine style; he had a fair beard, a long one, and he was not so much an old man as somewhere about fifty, in a coarse grey peasant's smock.
> Approximate age by inversion + genitive: «лет будет пятидесяти» ('he'd be about fifty') shows the idiom where putting the noun «лет» before the numeral signals approximation, and the whole counts in the genitive after the verb «будет» of estimation.
> «зипунишко» — a wretched little smock: «зипун» is a coarse peasant overcoat; the suffix «-ишк-» here is pejorative-pitying — a poor, shabby little garment. The same belittling suffix colours «одежонка» (s148) for the baby's threadbare clothes.
> «русый» and folk «такая»: «русый» means light-brown / fair (of hair). The dangling «такая» ('such a, kind of') is colloquial filler conveying impressionistic vividness — 'a long sort of beard he had' — typical of the dream's oral texture.

И вот недалеко селение, виднеются избы черные-пречерные, а половина изб погорела, торчат только одни обгорелые бревна.  
And here, not far off, was a village; the huts showed up black, black as could be, and half of them had burned down, with only the charred beams still sticking up.
> Reduplicated intensive «черные-пречерные»: Doubling with the «пре-» prefix — «черные-пречерные» ('black, the very blackest') — is a folk intensifier meaning 'utterly black'. «виднеются» is a «-ся» middle, 'come into view / show up', imperfective present.
> «изба», «погорелый», «бревно»: «изба» is the log peasant hut; «погорела» / «погорелые» means 'burned down', a recurrent dream-word for a village ravaged by fire; «бревна» are the charred timbers left standing. The vocabulary builds the image of ruin.

А при выезде выстроились на дороге бабы, много баб, целый ряд, всё худые, испитые, какие-то коричневые у них лица.  
And at the edge of the village, ranged along the road, stood peasant women, a great many of them, a whole row, all of them gaunt and worn, their faces a kind of brown.
> «бабы» — peasant women: «баба» denotes a peasant woman or wife, plain and unromantic (not the polite «женщина»). The piled-up «много баб, целый ряд» ('a great many, a whole row') makes the gaunt women a chorus of suffering.
> «испитой» — wasted, drawn: «испитые» (from «испитой») means haggard, worn-out, with the gaunt, sunken look of long hardship — stronger than «худые» ('thin') beside it. «коричневые … лица» ('brown faces') completes the image of weathered destitution.
> Reflexive perfective of arranging: «выстроились» (from «выстроиться») is the «-ся» middle — the women 'lined themselves up / stood ranged'. The perfective gives the fixed, completed tableau Mitya's cart sweeps past.

Вот особенно одна с краю, такая костлявая, высокого роста, кажется ей лет сорок, а может, и всего только двадцать, лицо длинное, худое, а на руках у нее плачет ребеночек, и груди-то, должно быть, у ней такие иссохшие, и ни капли в них молока.  
One in particular, there at the end, stood out — a bony woman, tall, who looked about forty, though perhaps she was only twenty, with a long, thin face; and in her arms a baby was crying, and her breasts, surely, must have been so withered that there was not a drop of milk in them.
> Impersonal «кажется» + dative: «кажется ей лет сорок» ('she looks about forty') is impersonal — «кажется» ('it seems') with a dative; here «ей» is the dative of the woman as the one whose age 'seems'. «лет сорок» is the approximation-by-inversion idiom again.
> «ребёночек» — the tender diminutive: «ребёночек» is a doubly-affectionate diminutive of «ребёнок» ('child') — 'the dear little baby'. The pile of tender suffixes here («ребёночек», «груди-то») channels the dream's welling pity.
> Genitive of absence with «ни»: «ни капли … молока» ('not a drop of milk') sets the intensifier «ни» ('not even one') over a genitive of absence — both «капли» and «молока» genitive — the existential negative that needs no «нет» spelled out.
> Topic clitic «-то» and folk «у ней»: «-то» on «груди» flags it as the known topic 'as for her breasts'. «у ней» (instead of standard «у неё») is a colloquial/19th-century pronoun form, keeping the narration in a folk voice.

И плачет, плачет дитя и ручки протягивает, голенькие, с кулачонками, от холоду совсем какие-то сизые.  
And the child cried and cried, holding out its little arms, bare little arms, with tiny fists gone quite blue from the cold.
> Reduplication for unceasing action: Repeating the imperfective present «плачет, плачет» conveys the child's ceaseless, ongoing crying — a folk-narrative device of insistent iteration that the dream leans on throughout.
> Diminutives of pity: «ручки», «кулачонки»: «ручки» (dear little arms/hands) and «кулачонками» (with tiny little fists) heap pitying diminutives on the freezing baby. «голенькие» ('all bare') adds the «-еньк-» tender suffix — the language itself aching over the child.
> «сизый» — blue-grey: «сизый» is a dove-grey / bluish colour; the fists are «от холоду» ('from the cold') gone livid blue. «от холоду» again shows the old partitive-genitive ending -у.

— Что они плачут? Чего они плачут? — спрашивает, лихо пролетая мимо них, Митя.  
"What are they crying for? What are they crying for?" Mitya asked as he swept gaily past them.
> Present gerund «пролетая»: «пролетая» ('flying/sweeping past') is a present gerund (деепричастие) describing Mitya's manner as he asks — he questions while rushing by, sharing the verb's subject. «мимо них» governs the genitive after «мимо».
> «лихо» — dashingly: «лихо» means with bold, dashing, devil-may-care energy. The contrast is bitter: Mitya sweeps past «лихо», gaily, even as he is moved to ask why these women weep.

— Дитё, — отвечает ему ямщик, — дитё плачет. — И поражает Митю то, что он сказал по-своему, по-мужицки: «дитё», а не «дитя».  
"The babe," the driver answers him, "the babe is crying." And what strikes Mitya is that he said it in his own way, in the peasant's way: "дитё", and not "дитя".
> «Дитё» — the peasant form for child: Standard Russian for 'child' is «дитя»; the driver says «дитё», a colloquial peasant pronunciation. Mitya notices the difference and feels there is 'more pity' in the rustic word. The chapter's subtitle, «дитё», quotes this very moment, which awakens his sudden compassion for all suffering.
> «ямщик» — the coachman: A «ямщик» is the driver of a horse-team, a coachman of the old post-road system. He is the same «мужик» of the dream, now voicing the folk word «дитё» that pierces Mitya.
> Manner adverbs in «по-…»: «по-своему» ('in his own way') and «по-мужицки» ('peasant-fashion') are adverbs built with the «по-…-и/-ому» pattern that turns an adjective into a manner-of-speaking adverb — the same frame as «по-русски».

И ему нравится, что мужик сказал «дитё»: жалости будто больше.  
And he likes it that the peasant said "дитё": there seems to be more pity in it.
> «нравиться» with the dative liker: «ему нравится» ('he likes it') puts the one who likes in the dative («ему») and what is liked as subject — Russian's experiencer-first idiom, identical to «мне нравится». The «-ся» verb is reflexive-middle in form.
> Genitive of quantity + comparative: «жалости … больше» ('more pity') governs the genitive «жалости» after the quantity-comparative «больше'. «будто» ('as if') keeps the dreamlike hedge: 'there seems to be more pity in it'.

— Да отчего оно плачет? — домогается, как глупый, Митя. — Почему ручки голенькие, почему его не закутают?  
"But why is it crying?" Mitya persists, like a simpleton. "Why are its little arms bare — why don't they wrap it up?"
> Neuter «оно» for the baby: The baby is referred to with neuter «оно» because «дитя/дитё» is grammatically neuter — and Russian uses neuter pronouns for the very young child. «отчего» ('why, for what cause') is a bookish-folk variant of «почему».
> «домогаться» — to press insistently: «домогаться» means to keep demanding, to press for something doggedly. «как глупый» ('like a simpleton') marks Mitya's childlike, helpless insistence — the holy-fool note of the whole exchange.
> Impersonal 3rd-plural 'they': «не закутают» ('they don't wrap it up') is the subjectless 3rd-person-plural — an unnamed 'they/people', Russian's regular impersonal. «его» is the accusative object (the baby).

— А иззябло дитё, промерзла одежонка, вот и не греет.  
"The babe's gone cold, its little clothes are frozen through, so they don't keep it warm."
> «иззябнуть» and «промёрзнуть»: «иззябло» ('has got chilled through') and «промёрзла» ('froze through') are intensive perfective verbs of cold, the prefixes «из-/про-» meaning 'thoroughly'. The driver's terse folk speech makes the cold total.
> «одежонка» — poor little clothes: «одежонка» is «одежда» ('clothing') with the pitying-pejorative «-онк-» suffix: scanty, threadbare little garments. It rhymes in feeling with «зипунишко» (s139) — poverty registered in the very suffixes.

— Да почему это так? Почему? — всё не отстает глупый Митя.  
"But why is it so? Why?" the foolish Mitya keeps pressing.
> «всё» + negated imperfective for persistence: «всё не отстаёт» ('keeps on, won't let up') uses «всё» as 'continually' over the negated imperfective «отстаёт» — a 'still won't drop it' idiom that conveys Mitya's relentless, foolish questioning.

— А бедные, погорелые, хлебушка нетути, на погорелое место просят.  
"They're poor folk, burned out, no bread to be had; they're begging for the place that burned down."
> «хлебушка» and folk «нетути»: «хлебушка» is the affectionate diminutive of «хлеб» (bread) in the partitive genitive — 'no dear bread to be had'. «нетути» is an emphatic, rustic doubling of «нет» ('there isn't any'), pure peasant speech.
> Genitive of absence with «нет»: «нетути» (= «нет») obligatorily takes the genitive of the thing that is absent: «хлебушка» (genitive). This is the core 'there is no X' construction, the genitive of negation in its existential form.

— Нет, нет, — всё будто еще не понимает Митя, — ты скажи: почему это стоят погорелые матери, почему бедны люди, почему бедно дитё, почему голая степь, почему они не обнимаются, не целуются, почему не поют песен радостных, почему они почернели так от черной беды, почему не кормят дитё?  
"No, no," Mitya keeps on, as though he still does not understand, "tell me: why are these burned-out mothers standing here, why are the people poor, why is the babe poor, why is the steppe bare, why do they not embrace one another, do not kiss, why do they not sing joyful songs, why have they gone so black with black misery, why do they not feed the babe?"
> Anaphora as rising lament: The drumbeat of «почему» ('why') heading clause after clause is rhetorical anaphora, mounting toward the moral cry at the dream's centre. Each clause stays in the simple imperfective present, holding the scene in a timeless 'now'.
> Reciprocal «-ся» verbs: «обнимаются» and «целуются» are reciprocal «-ся» verbs — 'embrace / kiss one another'. The «-ся» here marks mutual action between people, not a true reflexive.
> «почернеть от чёрной беды»: The figura etymologica «почернели … от чёрной беды» ('gone black from black misery') turns the colour black into the dream's emblem of catastrophe. «беда» is grave misfortune, calamity — heavier than mere trouble.

И чувствует он про себя, что хоть он и безумно спрашивает и без толку, но непременно хочется ему именно так спросить и что именно так и надо спросить.  
And he feels within himself that, though he is asking senselessly and to no purpose, he absolutely must ask in just this way, and that this is precisely how one ought to ask.
> Impersonal «хочется» + dative: «хочется ему» ('he feels he must / longs to') is the impersonal reflexive of wanting, with the dative experiencer «ему» and an infinitive. It frames the urge as something rising in Mitya rather than willed by him.
> Concessive «хоть … и»: «хоть он и … спрашивает» ('though he is asking…') is the concessive 'even though', the «и» reinforcing the concession before the «но»-style turn. It sets Mitya's senseless questioning against the conviction that it is exactly right.
> Impersonal «надо» of moral necessity: «так и надо спросить» ('that is just how one ought to ask') is the impersonal «надо» plus infinitive — a subjectless statement of obligation. The «именно так … именно так» repetition fixes it as the only right way.

И чувствует он еще, что подымается в сердце его какое-то никогда еще не бывалое в нем умиление, что плакать ему хочется, что хочет он всем сделать что-то такое, чтобы не плакало больше дитё, не плакала бы и черная иссохшая мать дити, чтоб не было вовсе слез от сей минуты ни у кого и чтобы сейчас же, сейчас же это сделать, не отлагая и несмотря ни на что, со всем безудержем карамазовским.  
And he feels, too, that there is rising in his heart a tenderness such as he has never known before, that he wants to weep, that he wants to do something for everyone so that the babe shall cry no more, so that the black, withered mother of the babe shall cry no more, so that from this moment on there shall be no more tears for anyone at all — and to do it now, this very instant, without delay and in spite of everything, with all the Karamazov unrestraint.
> «умиление» — tender emotion: «умиление» is a key Dostoevskian word: a melting, reverent tenderness, the heart softened toward grace — close to spiritual rapture. Its rising in Mitya «никогда ещё не бывалое» ('never known before') marks his moment of conversion.
> Purpose «чтобы» with the irrealis: «чтобы» introduces purpose and takes the past-form irrealis: «не плакало», «не было», «не плакала бы». The aim — 'so that the babe should cry no more' — is a willed, hypothetical outcome, hence the «бы»-mood verbs.
> Genitive of negation + «ни»-concord: «не было … слёз» puts the absent subject «слёз» in the genitive after «не было», and «ни у кого» ('for no one at all') adds the «ни»-word in negative concord — 'no tears for anyone'.
> «безудерж карамазовский» — Karamazov unrestraint: «безудерж» is unbridled, headlong abandon; «карамазовский» makes it the family trait — the all-or-nothing intensity that drives every brother. Even Mitya's new compassion arrives 'with all the Karamazov unrestraint'.
> Archaic «сей» — 'this': «от сей минуты» ('from this moment') uses the bookish-archaic demonstrative «сей» ('this'), elevated and solemn beside the everyday «этот». It lifts Mitya's vow into near-liturgical register.
> «дити» — archaic genitive of «дитя»: «мать дити» ('mother of the babe') uses «дити», the old genitive of «дитя», a bookish/archaic survival of an irregular declension. It heightens the scriptural solemnity of the passage.

— А и я с тобой, я теперь тебя не оставлю, на всю жизнь с тобой иду, — раздаются подле него милые, проникновенные чувством слова Грушеньки.  
"And I am with you too; I will not leave you now; I will go with you all my life," come the dear words of Grushenka, ringing close beside him, charged with feeling.
> Perfective future of pledge: «не оставлю» ('I will not leave you') is a perfective present-form with future force — a single, decisive future act, the form of a vow. «иду» beside it is imperfective present of the motion verb, 'I am going (with you)'.
> Instrumental of cause with adjective: «проникновенные чувством» ('charged with feeling') has «чувством» in the instrumental as the means/cause filling the words — a participial-adjective plus instrumental, very common in literary description.
> Reflexive «раздаваться» of a sound: «раздаются» (from «раздаваться», to ring out, resound) is a «-ся» middle used of sounds arising of themselves — Grushenka's words 'ring out' beside him. Note the inversion: predicate first, subject «слова» last for dramatic weight.

И вот загорелось всё сердце его и устремилось к какому-то свету, и хочется ему жить и жить, идти и идти в какой-то путь, к новому зовущему свету, и скорее, скорее, теперь же, сейчас!  
And now his whole heart caught fire and strained toward some light, and he wants to live and live, to go on and on along some road, toward a new and beckoning light, and quickly, quickly, this very moment, at once!
> Perfective ignition of the heart: «загорелось» ('caught fire') and «устремилось» ('strained toward') are perfective, both «-ся» middles, marking the sudden, completed kindling of Mitya's heart. The «за-» prefix conveys the onset of the blaze.
> Dative longing + reduplicated infinitive: «хочется ему жить и жить» again uses the impersonal «хочется» with dative «ему»; the doubled infinitives «жить и жить», «идти и идти» express boundless, swelling desire — 'to live and live, go on and on'.
> Present active participle «зовущий»: «зовущему» is the present active participle of «звать» ('to call'), declined into the dative to agree with «свету» — 'toward a calling/beckoning light'. The participle compresses a 'light that beckons' into one luminous modifier.

— Что? Куда? — восклицает он, открывая глаза и садясь на свой сундук, совсем как бы очнувшись от обморока, а сам светло улыбаясь.  
"What? Where?" he exclaims, opening his eyes and sitting up on his chest, looking for all the world as though he had come round from a fainting fit, and smiling a radiant smile.
> Coordinated present gerunds: «открывая … и садясь» are two present gerunds (деепричастия) — 'opening his eyes and sitting up' — naming simultaneous actions that accompany his exclamation. «садясь» is the gerund of the reflexive «садиться».
> Past gerund «очнувшись» with «как бы»: «очнувшись» is a perfective past gerund ('having come to'), the «-вши» form, expressing a prior completed action. «как бы» ('as if') softens it to a likeness — he looks 'as though he had come round from a faint'.

Над ним стоит Николай Парфенович и приглашает его выслушать и подписать протокол.  
Nikolai Parfenovich stands over him, inviting him to hear the protocol read out and to sign it.
> Aspect of the two infinitives: Both governed infinitives are perfective — «выслушать» ('hear out to the end') and «подписать» ('sign') — naming completed acts the magistrate invites. «выслушать» with «вы-» means to hear through to the finish, not merely listen.

Догадался Митя, что спал он час или более, но он Николая Парфеновича не слушал.  
Mitya guessed that he had slept an hour or more, but he was not listening to Nikolai Parfenovich.
> Inversion + «что»-clause: The verb-first «Догадался Митя» ('Mitya guessed') throws weight onto the act of realising; «что спал он час или более» is the reported content. «спал» is imperfective — the duration of sleeping, not a single act.

Его вдруг поразило, что под головой у него очутилась подушка, которой, однако, не было, когда он склонился в бессилии на сундук.  
He was suddenly struck that a pillow had appeared under his head — one that had certainly not been there when he had sunk down on the chest in his exhaustion.
> Reflexive «очутиться» of sudden appearance: «очутилась» (from «очутиться», to find oneself, turn up) is a «-ся» verb existing only in that form, perfective — the pillow 'had turned up' under his head. The locative «под головой» (instrumental after «под») gives the position.
> Genitive of negation in a relative clause: «которой … не было» ('which had not been there') — the relative «которой» stands in the genitive because a negated existential «не было» demands the genitive of its absent subject. So the missing pillow is genitive, not nominative.

— Кто это мне под голову подушку принес? Кто был такой добрый человек! — воскликнул он с каким-то восторженным, благодарным чувством и плачущим каким-то голосом, будто и бог знает какое благодеяние оказали ему.  
"Who put a pillow under my head? What kind soul was it!" he cried out with a kind of rapturous, grateful feeling and in a voice near to weeping, as though God knows what great kindness had been shown him.
> Nominative predicate with past «был»: Here the predicate noun stays nominative — «такой добрый человек» — even after past «был», because the question is exclamatory identification ('What a kind soul it was!'). It contrasts with the usual instrumental of the predicate.
> «будто» + impersonal 'they': «оказали ему» ('had shown him') is the subjectless 3rd-plural impersonal, the benefactor unnamed. «будто и бог знает какое благодеяние» ('as though God knows what great kindness') is hyperbolic comparison, «бог знает какое» an idiom for 'some extraordinary'.
> «благодеяние» — a good deed, benefaction: «благодеяние» is an elevated, bookish word — a benefaction, an act of charity, with the «благо-» ('good') prefix of the high register. Mitya's calling a tucked-under pillow a «благодеяние» measures how softened his heart now is.

Добрый человек так потом и остался в неизвестности, кто-нибудь из понятых, а может быть, и писарек Николая Парфеновича распорядились подложить ему подушку из сострадания, но вся душа его как бы сотряслась от слез.  
The kind soul was never afterward discovered; perhaps it was one of the witnesses, or maybe Nikolai Parfenovich's little clerk who had ordered the pillow tucked under him out of compassion — but his whole soul seemed to be shaken with tears.
> «писарек» — the little clerk: «писарек» is the diminutive of «писарь» (a copying clerk/scribe), the «-ек» suffix making him a lowly, slight figure. The smallness of the office sharpens the tenderness of the unseen kindness.
> Reflexive «сотрястись» + «как бы»: «сотряслась» (from «сотрястись», to be shaken/convulsed) is a perfective «-ся» verb; «как бы» ('as if') keeps it figurative — his soul 'seemed to be shaken with tears'. «от слёз» gives the cause in the genitive after «от».

Он подошел к столу и объявил, что подпишет всё что угодно.  
He went up to the table and declared that he would sign anything they liked.
> «что угодно» — anything at all: «всё что угодно» ('absolutely anything') is the fixed phrase where «угодно» ('as one pleases') makes a free-choice indefinite. «подпишет» is perfective future — 'he will sign (and be done with it)'.

— Я хороший сон видел, господа, — странно как-то произнес он, с каким-то новым, словно радостью озаренным лицом.  
"I had a good dream, gentlemen," he said, somehow strangely, with a new look on his face, as though lit up by joy.
> Object order foregrounding the dream: «Я хороший сон видел» places the object «хороший сон» before the verb, weighting the dream itself as the news of the utterance. The imperfective «видел» is the idiom for 'had / saw a dream'.
> Short-form passive participle as modifier: «озарённым» is the past passive participle of «озарить» ('to light up'), in the instrumental agreeing with «лицом» ('face'), the agent «радостью» ('by joy') itself in the instrumental — 'with a face lit up, as if by joy'.
---

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.