# The Brothers Karamazov, Plans for Mitya's Escape

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Epilogue

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/epi-c1. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/epi-c1.json.


На пятый день после суда над Митей, очень рано утром, еще в девятом часу, пришел к Катерине Ивановне Алеша, чтоб сговориться окончательно о некотором важном для них обоих деле и имея, сверх того, к ней поручение.  
On the fifth day after Mitya's trial, very early in the morning, before nine o'clock had even struck, Alyosha came to Katerina Ivanovna to settle once and for all a certain matter of importance to them both, and carrying, besides, an errand to her.
> Telling time the old way: «В девятом часу» means literally 'in the ninth hour', i.e. between eight and nine o'clock — Russian counts the hour that is in progress, so the ninth hour is the stretch after eight. The ordinal «девятом» is prepositional, agreeing with «часу», a masculine noun that takes the special stressed locative ending -у́ after «в».
> Purpose clause with «чтоб»: «Чтоб» (a clipped «чтобы») introduces purpose — 'in order to settle'. When the doer is the same as the main subject it takes a bare infinitive («сговориться»); the perfective «сговориться» frames the settling as a single intended outcome.
> Present gerund «имея»: «Имея» is a деепричастие — an indeclinable verb-adverb from «иметь», 'having / while holding'. It hangs an attendant circumstance onto the main verb «пришел» and shares its subject (Alyosha), packing a second motive into one sentence — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's narration.
> «поручение»: a charge or errand: «Поручение» is a commission entrusted to someone — an errand, message, or task laid on you by another (from «поручить», to entrust). Here Alyosha comes bearing a charge laid on him, not a private wish; the word quietly marks him as someone else's emissary.

Она сидела и говорила с ним в той самой комнате, в которой принимала когда-то Грушеньку; рядом же, в другой комнате, лежал в горячке и в беспамятстве Иван Федорович.  
She sat talking with him in the very same room where she had once received Grushenka; close by, in the next room, lay Ivan Fyodorovich, feverish and senseless.
> Relative clause with «который»: «В которой» joins a relative clause: «который» agrees with its antecedent «комнате» in gender and number (feminine singular) but takes the case its own role demands — here prepositional after «в» for location. The correlative «в той самой… в которой» ('in the very same… in which') is a classic Russian pairing.
> Inversion and the particle «же»: The verb «лежал» precedes its subject «Иван Федорович», throwing the new, weighty information to the end — the standard topic-comment rhythm that free word order allows. The enclitic «же» here is not 'same' but a soft contrastive 'and as for nearby…', hinging the two rooms against each other.
> «горячка» / «беспамятство»: fever and delirium: «Горячка» is a high feverish illness, often with delirium — the old word for a 'fever' as a disease, not just a temperature. «Беспамятство» (literally 'without-memory-ness') is the state of being unconscious or out of one's senses. Together they paint Ivan's brain-fever, a key plot condition of the Epilogue.

Катерина Ивановна сейчас же после тогдашней сцены в суде велела перенести больного и потерявшего сознание Ивана Федоровича к себе в дом, пренебрегая всяким будущим и неизбежным говором общества и его осуждением.  
Immediately after that scene in court, Katerina Ivanovna had ordered the sick, unconscious Ivan Fyodorovich carried to her own house, paying no heed to whatever future and unavoidable talk and censure society might raise.
> Past active participle «потерявшего»: «Потерявшего» is a past active participle from perfective «потерять» ('having lost'), built with -вш- and declined as an adjective — here genitive/accusative animate masculine, agreeing with «Ивана Федоровича». It compresses a whole который-clause ('who had lost consciousness') into a single modifier standing beside the plain adjective «больного».
> Gerund «пренебрегая» + instrumental: «Пренебрегая» ('disregarding') is a present gerund, and the verb «пренебрегать» governs the instrumental — hence «говором… и… осуждением». So the case ending itself, not a preposition, tells you what she is brushing aside.
> «говор»: the talk of society: «Говор» here means the buzz of gossip and rumor — 'talk' in the sense of what people will say. «Общество», 'society', is the genteel provincial world whose «осуждение» (censure) Katerina Ivanovna defies by taking the unmarried Ivan into her home.

Одна из двух родственниц ее, которые с ней проживали, уехала тотчас же после сцены в суде в Москву, другая осталась.  
Of the two female relatives who had been living with her, one left for Moscow the moment the scene in court was over; the other stayed.
> «одна из» + genitive plural: «Одна из двух родственниц» — 'one of the two relatives' — takes the genitive after «из» and after the number 'two', which itself governs the genitive «родственниц». The relative «которые» then agrees in number (plural) with the whole set of relatives, though «одна» is the one who acts.
> Perfective pair: departure and staying: Both verbs are perfective — «уехала» (drove off, prefixed motion verb) and «осталась» (stayed, settled). Each names a single completed event, moving the narration forward against the imperfective «проживали» (had been living) that set the standing background.

Но если б и обе уехали, Катерина Ивановна не изменила бы своего решения и осталась бы ухаживать за больным и сидеть над ним день и ночь.  
But even had both gone, Katerina Ivanovna would not have altered her resolution, and would have stayed to nurse the sick man and to sit over him day and night.
> Past-tense conditional (бы): Russian forms unreal conditions with the past-tense verb plus the particle «бы» (here shortened to «б»): «если б … уехали … не изменила бы». There is no special subjunctive form; the past tense plus «бы» does the work of English 'if both had gone … she would have kept to her resolution.'
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + genitive of negation: «Своего решения» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('her own', pointing back to the clause's subject) and stands in the genitive: the negated verb «не изменила» pulls its object into the genitive of negation rather than the accusative.
> Substantivized adjective «больной»: «Больной» ('the sick one / the patient') is an adjective used as a noun, declined here in the instrumental «больным» because «ухаживать за» ('to care for, nurse') governs «за» + instrumental. Russian freely turns adjectives into nouns this way.

Лечили его Варвинский и Герценштубе; московский же доктор уехал обратно в Москву, отказавшись предречь свое мнение насчет возможного исхода болезни.  
He was attended by Varvinsky and Herzenstube; the Moscow doctor, for his part, had gone back to Moscow, refusing to pronounce his opinion on the possible outcome of the illness.
> Object-first word order: The sentence opens with verb + object «Лечили его» before naming the subjects «Варвинский и Герценштубе», so the new information — who the doctors were — lands last. The case-marked «его» (accusative) keeps the roles clear despite the inversion.
> Past gerund «отказавшись»: «Отказавшись» is a perfective past gerund ('having refused'), naming a completed circumstance attached to «уехал». The bookish «предречь» ('to foretell, pronounce') is a Church-Slavonic-flavored infinitive in -чь, more elevated than the everyday «предсказать».

Оставшиеся доктора хоть и ободряли Катерину Ивановну и Алешу, но видно было, что они не могли еще подать твердой надежды.  
The doctors who remained kept up the spirits of Katerina Ivanovna and Alyosha, but it was plain they could not yet hold out any firm hope.
> Participle as adjective: «оставшиеся»: «Оставшиеся» is a past active participle from «остаться» ('the ones who remained'), here standing attributively before its noun like an ordinary adjective and agreeing in nominative plural. It replaces a full clause 'the doctors who had stayed' with one word.
> Concessive «хоть и … но»: «Хоть (и) … но» is a concessive frame — 'although they cheered her, yet it was plain…'. «Видно было» is an impersonal predicate ('it was visible/plain'), with no nominative subject; the «что»-clause supplies what was plain.

Алеша заходил к больному брату по два раза в день.  
Alyosha looked in on his sick brother twice a day.
> Habitual imperfective + distributive «по»: Imperfective «заходил» ('would look in', prefixed from «ходить») reports a repeated, habitual action — he dropped by regularly. «По два раза в день» uses distributive «по» to mean 'twice each day', spreading the count across every day.

Но в этот раз у него было особое, прехлопотливое дело, и он предчувствовал, как трудно ему будет заговорить о нем, а между тем он очень торопился: было у него еще другое неотложное дело в это же утро в другом месте, и надо было спешить.  
But this time he had a particular and most troublesome matter on his hands, and he foresaw how hard it would be to broach it, while at the same time he was in great haste: he had another urgent matter awaiting him that very morning in another place, and he had to hurry.
> Dative subject of difficulty: «Трудно ему будет» is an impersonal construction: the experiencer «ему» stands in the dative, the predicate is the invariable «трудно» ('hard'), and «будет» throws it into the future. There is no nominative subject — Russian frames the difficulty as something happening to Alyosha.
> «пре-»: the intensifying prefix: «Прехлопотливое» = «пре-» + «хлопотливый» ('troublesome, full of fuss', from «хлопоты», bothersome cares). The prefix «пре-» is an intensifier, 'most / exceedingly' — so 'a most troublesome matter'. It lends a slightly bookish, expressive heightening.
> Impersonal necessity «надо было»: «Надо было спешить» — 'it was necessary to hurry' — is another subjectless construction: «надо» (must / need) plus an infinitive, with «было» supplying past tense and no nominative anywhere. The understood person would stand in the dative if named.

Они уже с четверть часа как разговаривали.  
They had already been talking for a quarter of an hour or so.
> Imperfective for ongoing duration: Imperfective «разговаривали» ('had been talking') views the conversation as a process still in progress, which is why English needs a past-continuous here. The idiom «с четверть часа как…» means 'for about a quarter-hour now since…', the «с» softening the figure to 'a quarter hour or so'.

Катерина Ивановна была бледна, сильно утомлена и в то же время в чрезвычайном болезненном возбуждении: она предчувствовала, зачем, между прочим, пришел к ней теперь Алеша.  
Katerina Ivanovna was pale, badly worn out, and at the same time in a state of extraordinary, feverish agitation: she had a presentiment of why, among other things, Alyosha had come to her now.
> Short-form adjectives as predicate: «Бледна» and «утомлена» are short-form adjectives — predicate-only forms marked for gender and number alone (feminine singular here) and joined to «была». The short form is bookish and stresses a state, and «утомлена» is also a short passive participle ('worn out').
> Embedded question with «зачем»: The verb «предчувствовала» ('had a foreboding / sensed in advance') takes an indirect question introduced by «зачем» ('why, for what purpose'), set off by a comma as Russian always sets off subordinate clauses. The imperfective past paints her foreboding as an ongoing inner state.

— О его решении не беспокойтесь, — проговорила она с твердою настойчивостью Алеше.  
"Don't worry about his decision," she said to Alyosha with firm insistence.
> Negated imperative «не беспокойтесь»: «Беспокойтесь» is a -ся imperative (from «беспокоиться», to worry) with the polite/plural -те; negated by «не», it tells Alyosha 'don't worry'. The fronted «О его решении» ('about his decision', prepositional after «о») is topicalized to the head of the sentence.

— Так или этак, а он все-таки придет к этому выходу: он должен бежать!  
"One way or another, he will come round to this way out all the same: he must escape!"
> «должен» + infinitive: obligation: «Должен» is a short adjective used modally — 'he must / is obliged to' — agreeing with «он» (masculine) and governing the infinitive «бежать». Here «бежать» means specifically 'to flee, escape', a unidirectional motion verb used in its dramatic sense.
> «так или этак»: one way or another: A colloquial fixed phrase, 'one way or the other', pairing «так» ('so, thus') with «этак», a spoken variant of «эдак» ('in this/that way'). It gives Katya's speech its blunt, headlong momentum.

Этот несчастный, этот герой чести и совести — не тот, не Дмитрий Федорович, а тот, что за этой дверью лежит и что собой за брата пожертвовал, — с сверкающими глазами прибавила Катя, — он давно уже мне сообщил весь этот план побега.  
"That unhappy man, that hero of honor and conscience — not him, not Dmitri Fyodorovich, but the one who lies behind that door there and who sacrificed himself for his brother," Katya added with flashing eyes, "long ago he confided to me this whole plan of escape.
> Correlative «тот, что…»: «Тот, что…» is the bookish correlative construction: the demonstrative «тот» ('the one') sets up a relative clause introduced by «что» rather than «который» — 'the one that lies behind that door'. Repeated «тот… тот, что…» drives a pointed contrast between the two brothers.
> «пожертвовать» + instrumental: «Пожертвовать» ('to sacrifice') governs the instrumental of the thing sacrificed — «собой», the reflexive pronoun 'oneself' in its instrumental form. So «собой… пожертвовал» = 'sacrificed himself'; the case ending alone marks what was given up.
> Present active participle «сверкающими»: «Сверкающими» is a present active participle from «сверкать» ('to flash, gleam'), declined as an adjective in the instrumental plural to agree with «глазами» after «с». It condenses 'eyes that were flashing' into one vivid modifier.

Знаете, он уже входил в сношения…  
You know, he had already entered into negotiations…
> Imperfective «входил»: an unfolding process: Imperfective «входил» (from «входить», to enter) with «уже» renders 'he had already been entering / was already in the process of entering into' — an action begun and underway, not a single completed step. The idiom «входить в сношения» means 'to enter into dealings/negotiations'.
> «сношения»: dealings, contacts: «Сношения» (plural) means relations, contacts, or negotiations between parties — here secret dealings to arrange the escape. The word is neutral and somewhat formal in the 19th century; its modern colloquial sense is best left aside.

Я вам уже кой-что сообщила…  
I have already told you something of it…
> «кой-что»: an older «кое-что»: «Кой-что» is a colloquial, slightly old-fashioned form of «кое-что» ('something, a thing or two'). The «кое-» element marks a vague, unspecified amount — she has told him 'some of it'. Perfective «сообщила» views the telling as completed.

Видите, это произойдет, по всей вероятности, на третьем отсюда этапе, когда партию ссыльных поведут в Сибирь.  
You see, in all likelihood it will happen at the third etape from here, when the party of convicts is marched to Siberia.
> Impersonal 'they' + perfective future: «Поведут» is a 3rd-person-plural perfective future ('they will lead off') used impersonally, with no named subject — the English passive 'is marched' renders it. The object «партию ссыльных» is accusative; «в Сибирь» takes the accusative for motion-toward.
> «ссыльный»: an exile/convict: «Ссыльный» is one sentenced to «ссылка», exile — here the convicts being driven to Siberia. «Партия ссыльных» is a marching party of such exiles, the routine machinery of the Tsarist penal system that hangs over Mitya's fate.

О, до этого еще далеко.  
Oh, that is still a long way off.
> Impersonal «далеко»: A subjectless predicate phrase: «до этого… далеко» = 'it is still far off to this point', with «до этого» (genitive after «до») marking the goal and «далеко» the invariable predicate. No verb 'to be' appears in the present — Russian leaves the copula unspoken.

Иван Федорович уже ездил к начальнику третьего этапа.  
Ivan Fyodorovich has already driven out to see the warden of the third etape.
> Round-trip motion: «ездил»: «Ездил» is the multidirectional motion verb (from «ездить»), and with «уже» it conveys a completed round trip — 'has already driven out (and back) to see…'. Russian chooses «ездил» over unidirectional «ехал» precisely to signal a there-and-back errand, not a one-way journey. «К начальнику» takes the dative after «к».

Вот только неизвестно, кто будет партионным начальником, да и нельзя это так заранее узнать.  
Only there is no telling yet who will be the officer in charge of the party, and there is no way to learn that beforehand.
> Stacked impersonals: Two subjectless predicates carry the line: «неизвестно» ('it is not known') heads an embedded question with «кто», and «нельзя… узнать» ('it is impossible to find out') pairs an impersonal modal with an infinitive. Neither has a nominative subject — the very point is that no one knows.
> Particles «вот» and «да и»: «Вот только» ('it's just that…') flags a single snag, and «да и» ('and besides, and anyway') tacks on a reinforcing point. These small connective particles give Katya's speech the run-on, talking-aloud texture Dostoevsky favors.
> «партионный начальник»: officer of the convoy: «Партионный начальник» is the officer placed in charge of a «партия» — the marching party of convicts. Whether he can be bribed or persuaded decides the escape, which is why his identity matters so much; the instrumental «начальником» follows «будет» as a predicate role.

Завтра, может быть, я вам покажу весь план в подробности, который мне оставил Иван Федорович накануне суда, на случай чего-нибудь…  
Tomorrow, perhaps, I will show you the whole plan in detail, the one Ivan Fyodorovich left with me on the eve of the trial, in case of anything…
> Relative «который» with shifted word order: «Который» (accusative, agreeing with masculine «план») opens a relative clause whose words are reordered — object «который», then «мне» (dative recipient), then verb, then subject «Иван Федорович» last for weight. Despite the scrambling, the cases keep every role unambiguous.
> «чего-нибудь»: non-specific 'anything': «Чего-нибудь» is «что» + the indefinite particle «-нибудь», marking a wholly non-specific 'anything at all', in the genitive after «на случай» ('in case of'). The «-нибудь» series (vs. specific «-то») is exactly right for an unknown future contingency.

Это было в тот самый раз, когда, помните, вы тогда вечером застали нас в ссоре: он еще сходил с лестницы, а я, увидя вас, заставила его воротиться — помните?  
That was the very time when — you remember — you came in that evening and found us quarreling: he was already going down the stairs, and I, catching sight of you, made him turn back — remember?
> Imperfective background vs. perfective event: Imperfective «сходил» ('was going down') paints the ongoing background — he was on his way down the stairs — against the perfective «заставила… воротиться» ('made him turn back'), the single decisive act. The contrastive «а» hinges the two clauses: 'he was leaving, whereas I…'.
> Gerund «увидя» (older form): «Увидя» is a perfective past gerund of «увидеть» ('catching sight of / on seeing you') — an older, bookish variant beside the modern «увидев». It marks a momentary prior action sharing the subject «я», compressing 'when I caught sight of you' into a single word.
> «воротиться»: an old 'to turn back': «Воротиться» is the archaic, folk-tinged counterpart of «вернуться» ('to come back, return'). Dostoevsky's characters reach for it constantly; here Katya makes Ivan «воротиться» — turn back up the stairs — at the fateful moment Alyosha arrived.

Вы знаете, из-за чего мы тогда поссорились?  
Do you know what we had quarreled about then?"
> «из-за чего»: cause with «из-за»: «Из-за» ('because of, over') governs the genitive, here the interrogative «чего» ('what') — 'over what we quarreled'. The reciprocal -ся verb «поссориться» ('to fall out with each other') needs no separate object: the quarrel is mutual by the very form of the verb.

— Нет, не знаю, — сказал Алеша.  
"No, I don't," said Alyosha.

— Конечно, он тогда от вас скрыл: вот именно из-за этого плана о побеге.  
"Of course, he kept it from you then: it was precisely over this plan of escape.
> «от вас»: hiding 'from': «Скрыл от вас» — 'concealed it from you' — uses «от» + genitive «вас» to mark the person kept in the dark. Perfective «скрыл» frames the concealment as a single accomplished fact at a definite past moment («тогда»).
> Emphatic «вот именно»: «Вот именно» ('precisely, that's exactly it') is an emphatic particle cluster pinning down the cause: 'it was precisely over this plan'. «Из-за этого плана» stands in the genitive after «из-за».

Он мне еще за три дня перед тем открыл всё главное — вот тогда-то мы и начали ссориться и с тех пор все три дня ссорились.  
He had disclosed the whole of the main thing to me three days before — that was just when we began to quarrel, and we went on quarreling all three days after that.
> Emphatic «-то» and «и»: The clitic «-то» on «тогда» ('it was just then') emphasizes the known time-point, and the particle «и» before the verb ('that's when we did begin') reinforces it — a doubled emphasis hard to render in English. «Начали ссориться» pairs perfective «начали» with imperfective infinitive «ссориться» (begin doing an ongoing action).
> «за … перед тем»: three days before: The frame «за три дня перед тем» means 'three days before that' — «за» + accusative measures the interval, «перед тем» fixes the reference point. «Три дня» shows the genitive-singular «дня» that the numeral 'three' requires.

Потому поссорились, что когда он объявил мне, что в случае осуждения Дмитрий Федорович убежит за границу вместе с той тварью, то я вдруг озлилась — не скажу вам из-за чего, сама не знаю из-за чего…  
We quarreled because, when he announced to me that, in the event of a conviction, Dmitri Fyodorovich would flee abroad together with that creature, I suddenly flew into a rage — I won't tell you why, I don't know myself why…
> Perfective future «убежит»: «Убежит» is a perfective simple future ('would flee', literally 'will run away') — a perfective verb conjugated like a present to express a single completed future act. Reported inside Ivan's past announcement, it reads as 'would flee'. «За границу» takes the accusative for motion-toward.
> «тварь»: 'creature' as contempt: «Тварь» literally means 'a created being, creature' (from «творить», to create) but in speech it is a scornful insult — roughly 'that creature / that vile thing'. Katya spits it at Grushenka; the demonstrative «той» ('that') adds distancing disdain.
> «озлиться»: to fly into a rage: «Озлиться» (perfective, with -ся) means to grow bitter and furious, to be seized by spite — stronger and more inward than mere «рассердиться». The recurring «озлилась» through this passage marks Katya's whole confession as a reckoning with her own «злость», malice.

О, конечно, я за тварь, за эту тварь тогда озлилась, и именно за то, что и она тоже, вместе с Дмитрием, бежит за границу! — воскликнула вдруг Катерина Ивановна с задрожавшими от гнева губами.  
Oh, of course it was over the creature, over that creature, that I grew enraged then, and precisely because she too, along with Dmitri, would flee abroad!" Katerina Ivanovna suddenly exclaimed, her lips trembling with anger.
> Correlative «за то, что»: «За то, что…» ('because of the fact that…') is a correlative: the demonstrative «то» (accusative after «за») points forward to the «что»-clause giving the reason. The particles «и… тоже» ('she too, as well') stress that Grushenka's flight is what enrages Katya.
> Past active participle «задрожавшими»: «Задрожавшими» is a past active participle from perfective «задрожать» ('to start trembling'), declined instrumental plural to agree with «губами» after «с». «От гнева» ('from anger', genitive after «от») gives the cause — 'lips that had begun trembling with anger'.

Иван Федорович как только увидел тогда, что я так озлилась за эту тварь, то мигом и подумал, что я к ней ревную Дмитрия и что, стало быть, всё еще продолжаю любить Дмитрия.  
"The moment Ivan Fyodorovich saw that I was so enraged over that creature, he instantly imagined that I was jealous of her on Dmitri's account, and that I therefore still went on loving Dmitri.
> «как только… то…»: the moment that…: «Как только… то…» frames an immediate sequence — 'the moment he saw…, he instantly thought…'. The correlative «то» resumes the main clause after the subordinate one. Both perfectives («увидел», «подумал») are punctual completed acts.
> «стало быть» + continuing imperfective: «Стало быть» is a fixed parenthetical, 'therefore / it follows that'. «Продолжаю любить» joins «продолжать» to the imperfective infinitive «любить» to mean 'go on loving' — an inherently ongoing action that only the imperfective can carry.
> «мигом»: in a flash: «Мигом» is an adverb 'in an instant, in a flash' (from «миг», a moment, blink). It is the frozen instrumental of «миг» used adverbially — the instrumental's old job of marking manner — and gives the line its sense of Ivan's lightning, jealous inference.

Вот и вышла тогда первая ссора.  
That was how our first quarrel came about.
> «Вот и…»: 'and so it came about': «Вот и вышла…» is an idiomatic resultative — 'and so the first quarrel came out / arose'. The verb «вышла» precedes its subject «первая ссора», which lands last as the point of the sentence; «вышла» here means 'came about, resulted'.

Я объяснений дать не захотела, просить прощения не могла; тяжело мне было, что такой человек мог заподозрить меня в прежней любви к этому…  
I would not give any explanations, I could not bring myself to beg his pardon; it weighed on me that such a man could suspect me of my former love for that one…
> Genitive of negation + fronted objects: Under negation the objects shift to genitive: «объяснений» ('explanations', gen.) after «не захотела дать», and «прощения» ('pardon', gen.) after «просить» in a negated frame. Both objects are fronted before their verbs for emphasis, the verbs of refusal closing each clause.
> Dative subject of feeling «тяжело мне»: «Тяжело мне было» — 'it weighed on me / I found it hard' — is the dative-experiencer pattern: «мне» (dative) feels the state, «тяжело» is the invariable predicate, «было» supplies the past. This subjectless framing of inner pain is everywhere in Dostoevsky.

И это тогда, когда я сама, уже давно перед тем, прямо сказала ему, что не люблю Дмитрия, а люблю только его одного!  
And that, when I myself, long before, had told him plainly that I do not love Dmitri, that I love him alone!
> Contrastive «а» pivoting the clause: The mild adversative «а» pivots between the denial and the assertion — 'that I do not love Dmitri, but love him alone'. It is not strong «но» (opposition) but the shifting 'whereas' that marks a change of focus, the untranslatable hinge of Russian speech.
> Perfective «сказала» for a single past act: Against the present-tense reported feelings («не люблю… люблю»), the framing verb «сказала» is perfective past — one completed act of telling, 'I had told him plainly'. «Ему» is the dative recipient of the telling.

Я от злости только на эту тварь на него озлилась!  
It was only out of spite at that creature that I grew enraged at him!"
> Cause «от злости» + redundant emphasis: «От злости» ('out of spite', genitive after «от») gives the cause of the rage. The line piles on emphatic repetition — «только… на эту тварь… на него» — and the doubled «на» phrases ('at that creature… at him') let Katya insist that her anger at Ivan was really displaced spite at Grushenka.

Через три дня, вот в тот вечер, когда вы вошли, он принес ко мне запечатанный конверт, чтоб я распечатала тотчас, если с ним что случится.  
"Three days later, that very evening you came in, he brought me a sealed envelope, for me to open at once should anything happen to him.
> «чтоб» purpose + conditional inside: «Чтоб я распечатала» uses «чтобы» with a past-form verb («распечатала») for a willed purpose — 'so that I should open it'. Nested in it is a real condition «если… что случится» ('if anything should happen'), with the indefinite «что» here meaning 'anything' and perfective future «случится».
> «запечатанный»: a sealed envelope: «Запечатанный» is a past passive participle from «запечатать» ('to seal up'), here a long-form adjective before «конверт» — 'a sealed envelope'. The root «печать» means a seal or stamp; the sealed envelope is the physical token of Ivan's secret plan.

О, он предвидел свою болезнь!  
Oh, he had foreseen his own illness!
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «Свою болезнь» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» ('his own'), pointing back to the clause's subject «он» — 'he had foreseen his own illness'. Using «его» instead would suggest someone else's illness; «свой» keeps the reference firmly on Ivan.

Он открыл мне, что в конверте подробности о побеге и что в случае, если он умрет или опасно заболеет, то чтоб я одна спасла Митю.  
He disclosed to me that the envelope held the details of the escape, and that, in the event of his death or dangerous illness, I alone was to save Mitya.
> Condition + purpose chain: A conditional «в случае, если… умрет или… заболеет» (both perfective futures, 'should he die or fall dangerously ill') feeds into «то чтоб я… спасла» — a «чтобы»-purpose with past-form «спасла» expressing what was to be done. The whole reproduces the conditional instructions of the sealed letter.
> «Митя»: the diminutive of Dmitri: «Митя» (accusative «Митю») is the warm diminutive of «Дмитрий» — the familiar name Katya and Alyosha use for him. The ladder «Дмитрий → Митя → Митенька» measures intimacy; her using «Митю» here, even while raging, betrays how close he still is to her.

Тут же оставил у меня деньги, почти десять тысяч, — вот те самые, про которые прокурор, узнав от кого-то, что он посылал их менять, упомянул в своей речи.  
At the same time he left money with me, nearly ten thousand — the very sum the prosecutor, having learned from someone that he had sent it out to be changed, alluded to in his speech.
> Relative clause with embedded gerund: Inside the relative clause «про которые… упомянул» ('which he mentioned'), a gerund phrase «узнав от кого-то, что…» ('having learned from someone that…') is folded in — a participle/gerund nested within a relative, the dense layering typical of Dostoevsky's long periods. «Узнав» is a perfective past gerund.
> «десять тысяч» + genitive plural: «Десять тысяч» ('ten thousand') is a numeral above four, so it governs the genitive plural — «тысяч» is itself the gen. pl. of «тысяча». The whole quantity «почти десять тысяч» (rubles understood) is the very sum the prosecutor seized on at the trial.

Меня страшно вдруг поразило, что Иван Федорович, всё еще ревнуя меня и всё еще убежденный, что я люблю Митю, не покинул, однако, мысли спасти брата и мне же, мне самой доверяет это дело спасения!  
It struck me with sudden terror that Ivan Fyodorovich, still jealous of me and still convinced that I love Mitya, had nonetheless not given up the thought of saving his brother, and was entrusting that very work of rescue to me, to me myself!
> Gerund and participle in parallel: Two attendant-circumstance forms run side by side: the present gerund «ревнуя» ('still jealous of me', from «ревновать») and the short passive participle «убежденный» ('still convinced'). Both modify «Иван Федорович» and pile up the contradictions in his state of mind.
> Dative recipient + intensifier «самой»: «Доверять» ('to entrust') governs the dative of the person trusted — «мне», emphatically doubled «мне же, мне самой» ('to me, to me myself'). «Самой» is the intensifier «сама» in the dative, agreeing with «мне», hammering home the astonishing fact that Ivan trusts her of all people.

О, это была жертва!  
Oh, it was a sacrifice!
> Past copula + nominative predicate: In the past, «была» links «это» to the predicate noun «жертва» ('sacrifice'). Note that here the predicate stays in the nominative rather than the instrumental — common with the impersonal subject «это» ('this/it was a sacrifice'), where «это» is treated as the equational pivot.

Нет, вы такого самопожертвования не поймете во всей полноте, Алексей Федорович!  
No, you cannot grasp the full measure of such self-sacrifice, Alexei Fyodorovich!
> Genitive of negation: «самопожертвования»: The object of negated «не поймете» ('you will not grasp') stands in the genitive — «такого самопожертвования» (gen.), not accusative — the genitive of negation, especially natural with an abstract noun. «Поймете» is a perfective future used for a confident prediction.

Я хотела было упасть к ногам его в благоговении, но как подумала вдруг, что он сочтет это только лишь за радость мою, что спасают Митю (а он бы непременно это подумал!), то до того была раздражена лишь одною только возможностью такой несправедливой мысли с его стороны, что опять раздражилась и вместо того, чтоб целовать его ноги, сделала опять ему сцену!  
I was on the point of falling at his feet in reverence, but the instant it crossed my mind that he would take it merely as my joy that Mitya was being saved (and he certainly would have thought so!), I was so exasperated by the sheer possibility of so unjust a thought on his part that I flared up again, and instead of kissing his feet, made him another scene!
> The particle «было»: an interrupted intention: «Хотела было упасть» uses the special particle «было», which marks an action begun or intended but then broken off — 'I was about to / I made to fall, but…'. It is a distinct grammatical device (not the verb 'to be') signaling an aborted move, exactly the abrupt reversal the sentence describes.
> Parenthetical conditional with «бы»: «Он бы… подумал» is the conditional/subjunctive — past-form verb plus «бы» — slipped in as a parenthetical: 'and he certainly would have thought so'. The «бы» leans here on the pronoun «он» rather than the verb, showing the particle's mobility.
> «вместо того, чтоб» + infinitive: «Вместо того, чтоб + infinitive» means 'instead of doing': the correlative «того» (genitive after «вместо») points to the «чтоб»-clause, which takes the imperfective infinitive «целовать» ('kissing'). The contrast with the perfective «сделала… сцену» ('made a scene') sharpens the self-reproach.

О, я несчастна!  
Oh, I am wretched!
> Short adjective predicate «несчастна»: «Несчастна» is the short feminine form of «несчастный» ('unhappy, wretched'), used predicatively with a zero copula in the present — 'I am wretched'. The short form is the bookish, emphatic choice for such a cry of state.

Таков мой характер — ужасный, несчастный характер!  
Such is my character — a dreadful, wretched character!
> Predicative «таков»: «Таков» is the special short predicative form of «такой» ('such'), used only as a predicate and agreeing in gender/number — 'such is my character'. Its inversion to the front («Таков мой характер») gives a sententious, summing-up ring.

О, вы еще увидите: я сделаю, я доведу-таки до того, что и он бросит меня для другой, с которой легче живется, как Дмитрий, но тогда… нет, тогда уже я не перенесу, я убью себя!  
Oh, you will see yet: I shall bring it about, I shall drive things to the point where he too abandons me for another woman with whom life comes easier, just as Dmitri did, but then… no, then I shall not bear it, I shall kill myself!
> «довести до того, что…» + particle «-таки»: «Довести до того, что…» ('to drive things to the point that…') uses correlative «того» (genitive after «до») pointing to the «что»-clause of result. The clitic «-таки» on «доведу» means 'after all, in the end' — a stubborn insistence that she will indeed bring it about.
> Impersonal «живется» + comparative: «Живется» is the -ся verb «житься» used impersonally — 'living is/comes (easier)', with no subject and an implied dative experiencer. «Легче» is the invariable comparative of «легко» ('more easily'). Together: 'with whom life comes easier'.
> Reflexive «себя» as object: «Убью себя» ('I shall kill myself') uses the full reflexive pronoun «себя» as a real accusative object — distinct from the verbal clitic -ся. «Себя» has no nominative and refers back to whoever is the subject. Both «перенесу» and «убью» are perfective futures of vehement resolve.

А когда вы вошли тогда и когда я вас кликнула, а ему велела воротиться, то, как вошел он с вами, меня до того захватил гнев за ненавистный, презрительный взгляд, которым он вдруг поглядел на меня, что — помните — я вдруг закричала вам, что это он, он один уверил меня, что брат его Дмитрий убийца!  
And when you came in that day and I called you over, and bade him turn back, then, as he entered with you, I was so seized by rage at the hateful, contemptuous look he suddenly shot at me that — you remember — I suddenly cried out to you that it was he, he alone, who had assured me that his brother Dmitri was the murderer!
> «до того… что»: degree result: «До того… что…» means 'to such a degree that…': «до того захватил гнев» ('rage seized me so much') sets up the «что»-clause of consequence. The object «меня» (accusative) is fronted ahead of verb and subject «гнев», the new agent landing later for force.
> Relative «которым» in the instrumental: «Которым» (instrumental, agreeing with masculine «взгляд») opens a relative clause: «поглядеть… взглядом» takes the instrumental of manner — 'the look with which he glanced at me'. So the relative pronoun carries the case its role inside the clause demands.
> Emphatic repetition and «один»: The cleft «это он, он один…» ('it was he, he alone…') uses fronting «это» + nominative for emphasis, and «один» here means 'alone, by himself' rather than the number one. The stammered repetition mimics Katya's accusatory outburst in court.

Я нарочно наклеветала, чтоб еще раз уязвить его, он же никогда, никогда не уверял меня, что брат — убийца, напротив, в этом я, я сама уверяла его!  
I slandered him on purpose, to wound him once more, whereas he had never, never assured me that his brother was the murderer — on the contrary, in that it was I, I myself, who had been assuring him!
> Negative concord with «никогда»: «Никогда… не уверял» shows obligatory negative concord: the ни-adverb «никогда» ('never') still requires «не» on the verb — two negatives, one meaning. The doubled «никогда, никогда» intensifies; the particle «же» ('whereas, but') marks the contrast with what she had claimed.
> Intensive «сама» + fronted topic: «Я сама» ('I myself') uses the emphatic «сам/сама» to insist on the agent, and «в этом» ('in that', prepositional after «в») is fronted as the topic. Imperfective «уверяла» depicts her repeated assuring of Ivan — 'it was I who kept assuring him'.

О, всему, всему причиною мое бешенство!  
Oh, the cause of it all, of everything, was my own frenzy!
> Instrumental predicate «причиною»: «Причиною» is the instrumental of «причина» ('cause') in its older -ою ending, serving as predicate: 'my frenzy was the cause of everything'. «Всему» is the dative governed by «причина чему» ('cause of what'). The bare, copula-less construction has an exclamatory, archaic ring.
> «бешенство»: frenzy, rabid fury: «Бешенство» means raging frenzy or fury, from «бешеный» ('rabid, mad' — originally of a rabid animal). It is stronger than «гнев» (anger): Katya names her outburst a kind of madness, accepting full blame for it.

Это я, я и приготовила эту проклятую сцену в суде!  
It was I, I who got up that accursed scene in court!
> Cleft «это я» + emphatic «и»: «Это я… и приготовила» is a cleft of self-accusation — 'it was I who got up that scene'. The particle «и» before the verb ('it was indeed I who…') reinforces the cleft, and the repeated «я, я» drives the guilt home. «Приготовила» is perfective: a single engineered act.

Он захотел доказать мне, что он благороден и что пусть я и люблю его брата, но он все-таки не погубит его из мести и ревности.  
He wanted to prove to me that he was honorable, and that, though I might love his brother, he would not for all that ruin him out of vengeance and jealousy.
> Concessive «пусть … но»: «Пусть» here is concessive, not an imperative — 'even though / let it be that I love his brother, still he…'. With the particle «и» ('even if I do love…') it grants the point before «но» overturns it. «Не погубит» is a negated perfective future, 'he will not ruin'.
> Cause «из» + genitive: «Из мести и ревности» ('out of vengeance and jealousy') uses «из» + genitive to give the motive from which one would act. Two abstract nouns in the genitive name the base motives Ivan refuses to be ruled by.

Вот он и вышел в суде…  
So he came out with it in court…
> Idiomatic «вышел» + particle «и»: «Вот он и вышел» — 'and so he came out with it' — pairs the resultative «вот… и» frame with «вышел» in its sense 'came out, made his move'. The clipped clause, trailing off, lets Katya's account of Ivan's courtroom self-sacrifice hang unfinished.

Я всему причиною, я одна виновата!  
I am the cause of it all, I alone am to blame!"
> Two predicates of guilt: First the instrumental predicate «причиною» ('I am the cause of everything', «всему» dative); then the short adjective «виновата» ('guilty, to blame', feminine short form) with «одна» ('alone'). The pairing — cause and guilt — closes the confession on a note of total self-accusation.

Еще никогда не делала Катя таких признаний Алеше, и он почувствовал, что она теперь именно в той степени невыносимого страдания, когда самое гордое сердце с болью крушит свою гордость и падает побежденное горем.  
Never before had Katya made such confessions to Alyosha, and he felt that she was now precisely at that pitch of unendurable suffering when the proudest heart shatters its own pride in pain and falls, vanquished by grief.
> Inversion + genitive of negation: The sentence opens with the negated verb «не делала» before its subject «Катя» for emphasis ('never yet had Katya made…'), and the negated object «таких признаний» stands in the genitive of negation. «Никогда… не» is the usual negative concord.
> Superlative «самое» + past passive participle «побежденное»: «Самое гордое сердце» uses «самый/самое» to form the superlative 'the proudest heart'. The clause closes with the past passive participle «побежденное» ('vanquished', from «победить»), agreeing as a neuter adjective with «сердце» — 'falls, conquered by grief'.

О, Алеша знал и еще одну ужасную причину ее теперешней муки, как ни скрывала она ее от него во все эти дни после осуждения Мити; но ему почему-то было бы слишком больно, если б она до того решилась пасть ниц, что заговорила бы с ним сама, теперь, сейчас, и об этой причине.  
Oh, Alyosha knew yet another terrible cause of her present torment, however she had hidden it from him through all these days since Mitya's conviction; but for some reason it would have been too painful for him if she had brought herself to the point of falling prostrate and had spoken to him of her own accord, now, this very moment, about that cause as well.
> Concessive «как ни…»: «Как ни скрывала» is the concessive idiom 'however much she hid it' — «ни» here intensifies within a concession rather than negating, and the imperfective «скрывала» stresses her sustained effort to conceal. The construction grants the hiding while the main clause says Alyosha knew anyway.
> Unreal conditional with «бы»: A full unreal conditional: protasis «если б она… решилась… заговорила бы» (past-form verbs + «бы») and apodosis «было бы… больно» (impersonal dative-feeling predicate + «бы»). The «бы» recurs in each limb, the hallmark of the Russian subjunctive.
> «пасть ниц»: to fall prostrate: «Пасть ниц» is a solemn, Church-Slavonic-tinged phrase — to throw oneself face-down to the ground (the adverb «ниц», 'face downward'). It carries the charge of penitential prostration, the bodily gesture of confession and abasement that recurs throughout the novel's spiritual scenes.

Она страдала за свое «предательство» на суде, и Алеша предчувствовал, что совесть тянет ее повиниться, именно перед ним, перед Алешей, со слезами, со взвизгами, с истерикой, с битьем об пол.  
She was suffering over her "betrayal" at the trial, and Alyosha had a presentiment that her conscience was driving her to confess, precisely to him, to Alyosha, with tears, with shrieks, with hysterics, with beating herself against the floor.
> «тянуть» + infinitive: an inner pull: «Тянет ее повиниться» — literally 'her conscience pulls her to confess' — uses «тянуть» figuratively for an inward compulsion, with «ее» (accusative) the one drawn and the infinitive «повиниться» ('to own one's guilt', perfective -ся) the act. A vivid Russian way to render irresistible inner urge.
> Anaphora of instrumental «с»: A drumbeat of «с» + instrumental phrases — 'with tears, with shrieks, with hysterics, with beating against the floor' — accumulates the manner of the dreaded confession. «Взвизги» (shrill cries) and «битье об пол» (hurling oneself on the floor) escalate the physical violence Alyosha foresees.

Но он боялся этой минуты и желал пощадить страдающую.  
But he dreaded that moment and longed to spare the suffering woman.
> Substantivized present active participle «страдающую»: «Страдающую» is a present active participle from «страдать» ('suffering') used as a noun — 'the suffering woman' — in the accusative feminine as object of «пощадить» ('to spare'). The participle both verbalizes and substantivizes in one stroke, a compact literary touch.

Тем труднее становилось поручение, с которым он пришел.  
All the harder, then, grew the errand on which he had come.
> «тем + comparative»: 'all the harder': «Тем труднее» is the «(чем)… тем + comparative» correlative shorn of its first half — 'all the harder, then'. «Труднее» is the invariable comparative of «трудный»; imperfective «становилось» ('was becoming') frames the growing difficulty as a process.

Он опять заговорил о Мите.  
He spoke again of Mitya.
> Inceptive perfective «заговорил»: «Заговорил» is a perfective with the inceptive prefix «за-», meaning 'began to speak / started talking' — the prefix marks the onset of the action. «О Мите» ('about Mitya') is prepositional after «о», with «Мите» the dative/prepositional of the diminutive «Митя».

— Ничего, ничего, за него не бойтесь! — упрямо и резко начала опять Катя, — всё это у него на минуту, я его знаю, я слишком знаю это сердце.  
"Never mind, never mind, don't be afraid for him!" Katya began again, stubbornly and sharply. "All this with him is only for a moment, I know him, I know that heart far too well.
> Negated imperative of a -ся verb: «Не бойтесь» is the negated polite imperative of «бояться» ('to fear') — a verb that exists only in the -ся form. «За него» ('for him', «за» + accusative) marks the person feared for: 'don't be afraid for him'.
> «слишком знаю»: intensive 'know all too well': «Слишком знаю» ('I know all too well') stretches «слишком» ('too, excessively') to an emotional intensifier rather than a literal excess. Imperfective «знаю» states an enduring, settled knowledge — her intimate, weary familiarity with Mitya's heart.

Будьте уверены, что он согласится бежать.  
Rest assured, he will consent to escape.
> Imperative «будьте» + short participle: «Будьте уверены» ('rest assured') is the imperative of «быть» plus the short passive participle «уверены» ('assured'). It heads a «что»-clause of content; «согласится бежать» joins perfective future «согласится» ('will consent') to the infinitive «бежать» ('to escape').

И, главное, это не сейчас; будет еще время ему решиться.  
And the main thing is, it is not for now; there will still be time for him to make up his mind.
> Existential «будет время» + dative: «Будет… время ему решиться» — 'there will still be time for him to decide' — uses «будет» existentially ('there will be') with «время» and a dative «ему» naming for whom, plus the perfective infinitive «решиться» ('to make up one's mind', -ся). The dative-experiencer framing keeps the focus on what is granted to Mitya.

Иван Федорович к тому времени выздоровеет и сам всё поведет, так что мне ничего не придется делать.  
Ivan Fyodorovich will have recovered by then and will manage everything himself, so that I shall have nothing to do.
> Perfective future: 'will have recovered': «выздоровеет» is the perfective verb «выздороветь» (to get well, fully) conjugated like a present — which, for a perfective, yields the future of a single completed event. It pictures the recovery as already achieved by then, which our 'will have recovered' captures.
> Dative experiencer with «не придётся»: An impersonal construction: there is no nominative subject, and the person affected — «мне» — stands in the dative. «придётся» ('it will fall to one') plus the negated «ничего» means 'I shall have nothing to do.' Note the negative concord: «ничего… не».

Не беспокойтесь, согласится бежать.  
Don't worry, he will consent to escape.
> Subject dropped; perfective future: The subject pronoun «он» is omitted because the ending of «согласится» already marks 3rd-person singular. «согласится» is perfective future ('he will consent'), followed by the imperfective infinitive «бежать» — here in its lexicalised sense 'to escape, flee.'
> Polite negative imperative with -ся: «беспокойтесь» is the polite/plural imperative of the reflexive verb «беспокоиться» (to worry oneself), with «не» making it the reassurance 'don't worry.' The -сь is the post-vowel form of the reflexive clitic -ся.

Да он уже и согласен: разве может он свою тварь оставить?  
Why, he has already consented: how could he abandon his creature?
> тварь: 'creature' as an insult: Literally 'a created being,' «тварь» is used here as a contemptuous slur for a woman (Grushenka); we render it 'creature.' Note that Katya then turns it on herself — «Это я тварь, я!» ('It is I who am the creature, I!') — so the same word swings from insult to self-accusation.
> «разве» — an incredulous rhetorical question: The particle «разве» frames a rhetorical question expecting the answer 'no, of course not' — 'how could he possibly…?' Combined with the inverted «может он», it gives Katya's line its scornful, foregone-conclusion tone.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою» (from «свой», 'one's own') points back to the clause's subject «он» — his own creature. Using «его» instead would mean someone else's. The reflexive possessive keeps the ownership pinned to Mitya himself.

А в каторгу ее не пустят, так как же ему не бежать?  
And they won't let her into penal servitude, so how can he not escape?
> Impersonal 3rd-person plural 'they': «не пустят» is a subjectless 3rd-person-plural ('they won't let'), Russian's standard way of saying 'one is not allowed' without naming an agent — here the authorities. «её» is the accusative object, fronted before the verb.
> Dative subject + «же» + negated infinitive: Another dative-experiencer frame: «ему… не бежать» ('how is he to not escape?'), with the bare infinitive expressing obligation or inevitability. The particle «же» intensifies the 'how on earth…?' rhetorical force.

Он, главное, вас боится, боится, что вы не одобрите побега с нравственной стороны, но вы должны ему это великодушно позволить, если уж так необходима тут ваша санкция, — с ядом прибавила Катя.  
Above all, he is afraid of you — afraid that you will not approve of the escape on moral grounds, but you must magnanimously grant him this leave, if your sanction is so indispensable here," Katya added venomously.
> Genitive object & «что»-clause of fear: «боится» (he fears) is one of the verbs that exists only in the reflexive -ся form and governs the genitive; here it opens onto a «что»-clause reporting what is feared. «не одобрите» is a negated perfective future.
> Short adjective «необходима»: «необходима» is the short (predicative) feminine form of «необходимый» ('indispensable'), agreeing with «санкция». Short adjectives are bookish and predicate-only, lending Katya's barb its sharp, almost legal precision — heightened by the conceding particle «уж».
> «с ядом» — 'venomously': Literally 'with poison,' the adverbial phrase «с ядом прибавила» means she added the words venomously. Dostoevsky favours such concrete instrumental-of-manner phrases to colour a speaker's tone.
> «великодушно» — 'magnanimously': A bookish compound adverb from «велик-» (great) + «душ-» (soul), 'great-souled' = magnanimously. Katya wields it ironically: Mitya is to 'magnanimously' grant his own escape.

Она помолчала и усмехнулась.  
She fell silent and gave a smile.
> Two perfectives moving the scene: Both verbs are perfective past: «помолчала» (the prefix по- gives 'fell silent for a while') and «усмехнулась» (a single «-ну-» momentary 'gave a smirk'). They advance the action as two discrete completed events. The -сь on the second is the reflexive clitic.
> «усмехнуться» — a wry, knowing smile: Not a warm «улыбнуться» (to smile) but «усмехнуться» — to give a half-smile, smirk, or sneer. The choice signals irony or bitterness; we render it 'gave a smile' but the Russian leans cooler.

— Он там толкует, — принялась она опять, — про какие-то гимны, про крест, который он должен понести, про долг какой-то, я помню, мне много об этом Иван Федорович тогда передавал, и если б вы знали, как он говорил! — вдруг с неудержимым чувством воскликнула Катя, — если б вы знали, как он любил этого несчастного в ту минуту, когда мне передавал про него, и как ненавидел его, может быть, в ту же минуту!  
"He goes on there," she resumed again, "about some sort of hymns, about a cross he is bound to bear, about some duty or other — I remember, Ivan Fyodorovich passed a great deal of it on to me at the time, and if you only knew how he spoke of it!" Katya suddenly exclaimed with irrepressible feeling. "If you only knew how he loved that unhappy man in the moment he was telling me about him, and how he hated him, perhaps, in that very same moment!
> Inverted word order in a speech tag: «принялась она опять» ('she resumed again') inverts verb before subject, the conventional Russian order for a narrative speech-tag interrupting direct discourse — like English 'said she.' «принялась» (perfective, +infinitive understood) means 'set to, began afresh.'
> Indefinite «-то»: 'some sort of': The clitic «-то» on «какие-то» and «какой-то» marks a specific-but-vague referent — 'some hymns or other,' 'some duty or other.' It conveys Katya's dismissive distance from Mitya's lofty talk of crosses and duty.
> Conditional «бы» as an exclamation of wish: «если б (бы) вы знали» — 'if only you knew' — is the conditional/irrealis built from past-form «знали» plus the particle «бы» (here clipped to «б»). Repeated, it becomes an emotional refrain rather than a real condition.

А я, о, я выслушала тогда его рассказ и его слезы с горделивою усмешкою!  
And I — oh, I listened then to his account and to his tears with a haughty smirk!
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «горделивою усмешкою» is the instrumental of manner ('with a haughty smirk'), but with the older literary endings «-ою/-ою» instead of modern «-ой/-ой». This period flavour is common in Dostoevsky's prose.
> «горделивый» — proud, haughty: From «гордость» (pride), «горделивый» tilts toward arrogant or vainglorious pride rather than simple «гордый». Paired with «усмешка» (smirk), it paints Katya's self-condemned past hauteur.

О, тварь!  
Oh, the creature!
> «тварь» now turned inward: The same contemptuous «тварь» Katya hurled at Grushenka (s63) she now cries out — the exclamation pivoting in the next line onto herself. The bare interjection «О» plus the noun is a raw cry, not a sentence.

Это я тварь, я!  
It is I who am the creature, I!
> Zero copula and emphatic «я»: The present tense needs no verb 'to be': «Это я тварь» is literally 'This [is] I, the creature.' The doubled, fronted «я» throws the full weight of the accusation onto the speaker herself — word order doing the emotional work.

Это я народила ему горячку!  
It was I who brought this fever on him!
> Cleft 'It was I who…' with dative «ему»: «Это я народила…» is a cleft of insistence — 'It was I who brought on…' — fronting «я» for blame. «ему» is the dative of the person affected ('on him'), «горячку» the accusative object.
> «народить» — to 'breed up' a fever: «народить» normally means 'to bear (children), bring forth.' Applied to «горячку» (fever) it is a vivid, almost violent metaphor — she 'gave birth to' Ivan's fever, a stronger and more self-accusing image than a neutral 'caused.'
> «горячка» — brain-fever: «горячка» (from «горячий», hot) is the 19th-century 'brain-fever' — a delirious feverish illness, a stock fate of overwrought Dostoevsky characters. Ivan succumbs to it; here Katya blames herself for it.

А тот, осужденный, — разве он готов на страдание, — раздражительно закончила Катя, — да и такому ли страдать?  
And as for that one, the convicted man — is he in any way ready for suffering?" Katya finished irritably. "And is suffering even for the likes of him?
> «тот» as scornful 'that one': The demonstrative «тот» ('that [farther] one') here distances and disparages Mitya — 'that one over there.' In apposition stands «осуждённый», a past passive participle used as a noun, 'the condemned/convicted man.'
> Dative + «ли»: 'is suffering even for the likes of him?': A scornful rhetorical question: dative «такому» ('to such a one') plus the bare infinitive «страдать» frames an impersonal 'is it for him to suffer?', and the interrogative particle «ли» sharpens the doubt. «да и» tacks it on with disdain.

Такие, как он, никогда не страдают!  
Men like him never suffer!"
> Generalising «такие, как…» + negative concord: «Такие, как он» ('those like him') is a generic plural subject. «никогда… не страдают» shows negative concord — both the negative adverb «никогда» and the negator «не» appear, one negation in meaning.

Какое-то чувство уже ненависти и гадливого презрения прозвучало в этих словах.  
A certain feeling now of hatred and of loathing contempt rang out in these words.
> Two genitives 'of' qualifying «чувство»: «чувство… ненависти и… презрения» is a chain of genitives — 'a feeling of hatred and of contempt.' «гадливого презрения» shows full adjective–noun agreement in the genitive. «прозвучало» (perfective, neuter) agrees with neuter «чувство».
> «гадливый» — squeamish loathing: «гадливый» (from «гад», a vile crawling creature) names a physical, skin-crawling disgust — 'loathing contempt' that recoils as from something repulsive. Stronger and more visceral than plain 'contempt.'

А между тем она же его предала.  
And yet it was she who had betrayed him.
> Contrastive «а» + emphatic «же»: The narrator's aside pivots on the mild adversative «а» ('and yet') plus «между тем» ('meanwhile'). The particle «же» after «она» insists on the irony: 'and yet it was she, of all people, who had betrayed him.'

«Что ж, может, потому, что так чувствует себя пред ним виноватой, и ненавидит его минутами», — подумал про себя Алеша.  
"Perhaps it is because she feels herself so guilty before him that she hates him at moments," Alyosha thought to himself.
> Reflexive «себя» + instrumental of state «виноватой»: «чувствует себя… виноватой» — 'feels herself guilty.' «себя» is the reflexive object pointing to the subject, and «виноватой» stands in the instrumental, the case for the predicate of state after «чувствовать себя» (compare 'feels herself [to be] guilty').
> «пред» — bookish 'before': «пред» is the elevated, shortened form of the preposition «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «ним». Its truncated shape is a marker of literary, slightly archaic register.
> Instrumental of time: «минутами»: «минутами» is the instrumental plural used adverbially for recurring time — 'at moments, by fits.' This is the very word Alyosha clings to in the next line; he wants the hatred to be only «минутами».

Ему хотелось, чтоб это было только «минутами».  
He wanted it to be only "at moments."
> Dative + impersonal «хотелось» + «чтоб»-clause: «Ему хотелось» is the classic dative-experiencer impersonal — 'he wanted, it was wished by him.' It governs a «чтоб(ы)»-clause of desired outcome, whose verb «было» takes the irrealis past form that «чтобы» requires.

В последних словах Кати он заслышал вызов, но не поднял его.  
In Katya's last words he caught a challenge, but he did not take it up.
> Aspectual prefix «за-» + perfective pair: «заслышал» (perfective, prefix за- of inception, 'caught/began to hear') and «не поднял» ('did not take up') are both perfective past, two completed events linked by adversative «но». «его» refers back to «вызов» (the challenge).
> «поднять вызов» — to pick up a challenge: An idiom: «поднять вызов», literally 'to lift the challenge,' means to take it up, accept the gauntlet. Alyosha hears Katya's provocation but declines to answer in kind.

— Я для того вас и призвала сегодня, чтоб вы обещались мне сами его уговорить.  
"I called you here today for this very reason, so that you would promise me to persuade him yourself.
> Correlative «для того… чтоб»: purpose: «для того… чтоб(ы)» is the correlative purpose frame — 'for this very reason… so that.' The particle «и» after «для того» emphasises ('that is exactly why'). «обещались» takes the past-form irrealis demanded by «чтобы».
> «призвать» — to summon solemnly: «призвала» (perfective of «призвать», 'to call upon, summon') is weightier than a casual «позвала» — it suggests a deliberate, even solemn summons, fitting the gravity of what Katya is asking.

Или, по-вашему, тоже бежать будет нечестно, не доблестно, или как там… не по-христиански, что ли? — еще с пущим вызовом прибавила Катя.  
Or do you too think that escaping would be dishonorable, ignoble, or however one puts it… un-Christian, is that it?" Katya added with still greater defiance.
> «по-вашему» — 'in your view': The prefix «по-» plus the possessive «-вашему» builds an adverb of manner/opinion, 'according to you, in your view.' This «по- + -ому/-ему» pattern also makes «по-христиански» later in the sentence ('in a Christian way').
> Impersonal predicate with adverb + infinitive: «бежать будет нечестно» is impersonal: the infinitive «бежать» is the logical subject, and the neuter predicate adverbs «нечестно», «недоблестно» say it 'would be dishonorable.' «будет» supplies the future of this copular frame.
> «пущий» — archaic 'greater': «пущий» is a bookish, archaic comparative meaning 'greater, all the more' (still alive in «пуще всего», 'most of all'). «с пущим вызовом» = 'with still greater defiance,' a period-elevated turn.

— Нет, ничего. Я ему скажу всё… — пробормотал Алеша.  
"No, it's nothing. I will tell him everything…" Alyosha muttered.
> Perfective future + dative recipient: «скажу» is the perfective future of «сказать» ('I will tell [it all]'), a single completed act. «ему» is the dative of the recipient ('to him'), «всё» the accusative object.
> «пробормотать» — to mumble: «пробормотал» (perfective, prefix про-) means to mutter or mumble out — Alyosha's hesitation made audible. Dostoevsky's speech-tags are richly specific: not «сказал» but how exactly the words came out.

— Он вас зовет сегодня к себе, — вдруг брякнул он, твердо смотря ей в глаза.  
"He is asking you to come to him today," he suddenly blurted out, looking firmly into her eyes.
> Present gerund «смотря» of attendant action: «смотря» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «смотреть» — 'looking,' an attendant simultaneous action sharing the subject «он». «ей в глаза» = 'into her eyes' (dative of the possessor + в + accusative).
> «брякнуть» — to blurt out clumsily: «брякнул» (perfective, momentary «-ну-») is to blurt out bluntly or tactlessly, even to 'clang' something out — an expressive, slightly comic verb that marks the suddenness of Alyosha's announcement.

Она вся вздрогнула и чуть-чуть отшатнулась от него на диване.  
She gave a shudder all over and shrank back from him just a little on the sofa.
> «вся» as intensifier; reflexive «отшатнуться»: «вся» ('all of her') intensifies the shudder, agreeing with the implied feminine subject. «отшатнулась» is a reflexive -ся verb of recoiling motion (to shrink/start back), the -сь marking the involuntary movement. «чуть-чуть» softens it to 'just a little.'

— Меня… разве это возможно? — пролепетала она побледнев.  
"Me… is that even possible?" she faltered, turning pale.
> Fronted accusative «меня» + «разве»: The broken-off accusative «Меня…» ('Me…?') is left hanging in shock, then «разве это возможно?» asks an incredulous question ('is that even possible?') with the doubt-particle «разве».
> Perfective past gerund «побледнев»: «побледнев» is the perfective past gerund («деепричастие») of «побледнеть» ('having turned pale') — a prior completed action accompanying «пролепетала». The ending «-в» marks the perfective gerund.
> «пролепетать» — to falter, stammer: «пролепетать» suggests faint, childlike, faltering speech — barely getting the words out. It recurs as Katya's signature verb in this scene (s84, s93), tracking how the iron woman is shaken.

— Это возможно и должно! — настойчиво и весь оживившись, начал Алеша.  
"It is possible, and it must be!" Alyosha began, insistently and all aglow.
> Short neuter predicates «возможно и должно»: Both are short (predicative) neuter forms: «возможно» ('it is possible') and «должно» ('it must be / it is obligatory'). The bare short form «должно» as an impersonal 'it ought to be' is bookish and emphatic — Alyosha answering moral necessity with moral necessity.
> Past gerund «оживившись» + «весь»: «оживившись» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «оживиться» ('having grown animated, lit up'); the -сь marks the reflexive, the «-вши» the perfective gerund. «весь» ('all') intensifies — 'all aglow.'

— Ему вы очень нужны, именно теперь.  
"He needs you very much, precisely now.
> «нужны» construction: the needed thing is the subject: In «Ему вы очень нужны» the logic inverts English: the needer «ему» is in the dative, and the needed person «вы» is the nominative subject agreeing with the short adjective «нужны» ('you are needed by him'). Fronting «ему» throws the stress onto Mitya's need.

Я не стал бы начинать об этом и вас преждевременно мучить, если б не необходимость.  
I would not begin on this and torment you prematurely if it were not a necessity.
> Conditional «бы» in both clauses: A full contrary-to-fact conditional: «не стал бы начинать» ('I would not begin') in the main clause and «если б (бы) не необходимость» ('were it not for the necessity') in the if-clause — each carrying the irrealis particle «бы».
> Imperfective infinitive of process «мучить»: «мучить» (to torment) is an imperfective infinitive depending on «стал бы»; its imperfective aspect frames the tormenting as an ongoing process Alyosha would spare her. «вас» is the accusative object.

Он болен, он как помешанный, он всё просит вас.  
He is ill, he is like one half-crazed, he keeps asking for you.
> Past passive participle «помешанный» as a noun: «помешанный» ('deranged, one who has lost his mind') is a past passive participle in -нный used substantively; «как помешанный» = 'like a madman.' The comparative «как» frames it as a simile, not a diagnosis.
> Imperfective «просит» of insistent repetition; «всё»: «просит» is imperfective present, and the adverb «всё» here means 'keeps on, continually' — together 'he keeps asking for you,' an ongoing, repeated plea. «вас» is the accusative object of «просить».

Он не мириться вас к себе просит, но пусть вы только придете и покажетесь на пороге.  
It is not to make peace that he asks you to come, but only that you should come and show yourself on the threshold.
> Contrastive negation + «пусть» exhortation: The «не… но» frame contrasts two purposes: not «мириться» (to make peace) but merely that she appear. «пусть вы… придёте» uses the 3rd-person hortative particle «пусть» ('let, may') with a perfective future to express a wished-for outcome.
> Reflexive «к себе» — 'to himself': «к себе» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» (dative «себе») after «к», pointing back to the subject «он» — 'asks you to come to himself.' The reflexive keeps the destination pinned to Mitya.

С ним многое совершилось с того дня.  
A great deal has happened within him since that day.
> Reflexive «совершилось» + two senses of «с»: «совершилось» is the reflexive/middle perfective of «совершиться» ('came to pass, took place'). Note the preposition «с» working twice: «с ним» = 'with/within him' (instrumental), «с того дня» = 'since that day' (genitive) — the same word, two cases, two meanings.

Он понимает, как неисчислимо перед вами виновен.  
He understands how incalculably he has wronged you.
> Short adjective «виновен» + degree adverb: «виновен» is the short (predicative) masculine of «виновный» ('guilty'), governing «перед вами» ('before you, toward you'). The adverb «неисчислимо» ('incalculably') intensifies the guilt. Short adjectives are the natural predicate of such moral states.

Не прощения вашего хочет: «Меня нельзя простить», — он сам говорит, а только чтоб вы на пороге показались…  
It is not your forgiveness he wants: 'I cannot be forgiven,' he says himself, but only that you should show yourself on the threshold…"
> Genitive object of «хотеть»: «хотеть» governs the genitive when the object is abstract or partitive: «не прощения вашего хочет» = 'it is not your forgiveness he wants.' The fronting and negation place full stress on what he does NOT want. «вашего» agrees in the genitive.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + infinitive: «нельзя простить» is the impersonal modal 'one cannot / it is not allowed to forgive,' with «нельзя» plus the perfective infinitive «простить» and the accusative object «меня». No subject — a categorical 'I cannot be forgiven.'

— Вы меня вдруг… — пролепетала Катя, — я все дни предчувствовала, что вы с этим придете… Я так и знала, что он меня позовет!.. Это невозможно!  
"You spring this on me…" Katya faltered. "All these days I had a presentiment that you would come with this… I knew he would summon me!.. It is impossible!"
> Emphatic «так и» + «что»-clause: «так и знала» — 'I just knew it all along,' where «так и» reinforces foreknowledge. It opens a «что»-clause reporting the foreseen fact: «что он меня позовёт» (perfective future, 'that he would summon me').
> Imperfective «предчувствовала» of duration: «предчувствовала» (imperfective past, prefix пред- 'before-feel' = to have a presentiment) over «все дни» ('all these days') frames a sustained, ongoing premonition — the imperfective's natural job for a drawn-out inner state.

— Пусть невозможно, но сделайте.  
"Let it be impossible, but do it.
> Concessive «пусть» + imperative: Here «пусть» means not 'let him' but the concessive 'let it be / granted' — «Пусть невозможно» = 'Let it be impossible.' Then «сделайте», the polite imperative of perfective «сделать», commands the act anyway.

Вспомните, он в первый раз поражен тем, как вас оскорбил, в первый раз в жизни, никогда прежде не постигал этого в такой полноте!  
Remember, it is for the first time that he is stunned by how he insulted you — for the first time in his life, he never before grasped it in such fullness!
> Perfective imperative «вспомните»: «вспомните» is the polite imperative of perfective «вспомнить» ('call to mind, remember [as a single act]'), distinct from imperfective «помните» ('keep remembering'). The perfective urges a single act of recollection.
> Genitive of negation + negative concord: «никогда… не постигал этого» combines the negative adverb «никогда» with «не» (concord) and the negated imperfective «постигал». «этого» is genitive — the object of a negated verb shifting from accusative to genitive (genitive of negation).

Он говорит: если она откажет прийти, то я «во всю жизнь теперь буду несчастлив».  
He says: if she refuses to come, then 'I shall be unhappy now for the whole of my life.'
> Real conditional «если… то» with futures: A real (not hypothetical) conditional: «если она откажет… то я буду несчастлив.' The if-clause has perfective future «откажет», the then-clause «буду несчастлив» — the future of the copula «быть» plus a predicate adjective (not the compound imperfective future, which is «быть» + an imperfective infinitive). The correlative «то» marks the apodosis.
> «во всю жизнь» — emphatic 'all my life': «во всю жизнь» (в + accusative «всю жизнь») spans the whole of life as a duration — 'for the whole of my life.' The phrase recurs across the scene (s96, s104, s105) as the stakes of the choice.

Слышите: каторжный на двадцать лет собирается еще быть счастливым — разве это не жалко?  
Do you hear: a convict sentenced to twenty years is still making ready to be happy — is that not pitiful?
> Imperative-as-appeal «Слышите»: «Слышите» (lit. polite imperative 'hear / do you hear') functions as a rhetorical appeal to the listener — 'do you hear, mark this.' Such second-person interjections drive Alyosha's plea forward.
> Substantivised adjective «каторжный»: «каторжный» ('penal-servitude man, convict') is an adjective used as a noun. «на двадцать лет» (в/на + accusative of extent) measures his sentence — 'a convict for twenty years.'
> «разве не…?» — rhetorical 'isn't it?': «разве… не жалко?» pairs the doubt-particle «разве» with negation to ask a leading question expecting agreement — 'is that not pitiful?' The impersonal predicate «жалко» ('it is a pity') needs no subject.

Подумайте: вы безвинно погибшего посетите, — с вызовом вырвалось у Алеши, — его руки чисты, на них крови нет!  
Consider: you would be visiting an innocent man brought to ruin," broke from Alyosha defiantly. "His hands are clean, there is no blood on them!
> Past active participle «погибшего» as object-noun: «погибшего» is the past active participle of «погибнуть» ('having perished/come to ruin'), used as a noun and standing in the animate accusative (= genitive form) as object of «посетите» — 'you will visit one who has been ruined.' «безвинно» = 'guiltlessly.'
> Genitive of negation: «крови нет»: «крови нет» — 'there is no blood.' Under the existential negator «нет», the absent thing «кровь» obligatorily takes the genitive «крови». A textbook genitive of negation.
> «вырваться» — words that 'burst out': «вырвалось» (reflexive perfective of «вырваться», 'to break/tear free') with «у Алёши» — «у» + the genitive «Алёши» (a genitive of source, 'from/out of Alyosha'; the dative would be «Алёше») — means the words escaped him involuntarily, 'broke from Alyosha.' A vivid idiom for speech beyond the speaker's control.

Ради бесчисленного его страдания будущего посетите его теперь!  
For the sake of his boundless future suffering, visit him now!
> «ради» + genitive; split modifiers: «ради» ('for the sake of') governs the genitive «страдания», wrapped in agreeing genitive modifiers «бесчисленного… будущего» ('boundless… future'). The modifiers straddle the noun — bookish word order for rhetorical weight.
> Perfective imperative «посетите»: «посетите» is the polite perfective imperative of «посетить» ('visit'), urging a single decisive act 'now.' The perfective insists on the deed done, not a habit of visiting.

Придите, проводите во тьму… станьте на пороге, и только…  
Come, see him off into the darkness… stand on the threshold, and that is all…
> A chain of perfective imperatives: Three perfective imperatives in a row — «Придите» (come), «проводите» (see off), «станьте» (stand) — each a single decisive act, mounting in urgency. The perfective aspect makes each a discrete deed to be done, not an ongoing process.
> «проводить во тьму» — 'see him off into the darkness': «проводить» is to escort or see someone off (on a journey); «во тьму» ('into the darkness') makes it a sombre image of seeing Mitya off into exile and night. «во» is the form of «в» before the consonant cluster «тьм-».

Ведь вы должны, должны это сделать! — заключил Алеша, с неимоверною силой подчеркнув слово «должны».  
You must, you must do this!" Alyosha concluded, stressing the word "must" with incredible force.
> Appeal-particle «ведь» + doubled «должны»: «ведь» appeals to shared, self-evident knowledge ('after all, you surely…'), softening the command into something Katya is presumed already to feel. The repeated short adjective «должны» ('you must') hammers the obligation.
> Past gerund «подчеркнув» + archaic instrumental: «подчеркнув» is the perfective past gerund ('having stressed'), an attendant completed action. «с неимоверною силой» is instrumental of manner with the older «-ою» ending — 'with incredible force,' the period flavour heightening the drama.

— Должна, но… не могу, — как бы простонала Катя, — он на меня будет глядеть… я не могу.  
"I must, but… I cannot," Katya all but moaned. "He will be looking at me… I cannot."
> The obligation/incapacity antithesis: Katya answers Alyosha's «должны» with the matching short adjective «должна» ('I must'), then breaks it against «не могу» ('I cannot') — the moral core of the scene compressed into three words. «должна» is feminine, agreeing with her.
> Compound imperfective future «будет глядеть»: «будет глядеть» is the compound future — «быть» plus the imperfective infinitive «глядеть» ('to look/gaze') — naming an ongoing future action: 'he will be looking at me.' The durative aspect is what she dreads, the sustained gaze.

— Ваши глаза должны встретиться.  
"Your eyes must meet.
> Reciprocal «встретиться» + «должны»: «встретиться» is the reciprocal -ся verb 'to meet (one another)' — here 'your eyes must meet.' The short adjective «должны» agrees with plural «глаза». The reflexive marks the mutual, eye-to-eye encounter.

Как вы будете жить всю жизнь, если теперь не решитесь?  
How will you live your whole life through if you do not bring yourself to it now?"
> Compound future + conditional «если»: «будете жить» is the compound imperfective future ('will be living') over the duration «всю жизнь». The «если»-clause has «не решитесь» — negated perfective future of reflexive «решиться» ('to bring oneself to, resolve').
> «решиться» — to bring oneself to act: Distinct from «решить» (to decide/solve), the reflexive «решиться (на)» means to nerve oneself, to take the plunge — 'if you do not bring yourself to it.' The -ся turns a decision into an act of inner courage.

— Лучше страдать во всю жизнь.  
"Better to suffer my whole life through."
> Suppletive comparative «лучше» + infinitive: «Лучше страдать» is an impersonal comparative judgement — 'better to suffer.' «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хороший/хорошо» (good/well), with no regular -ее form; «страдать» is the imperfective infinitive of enduring process.

— Вы должны прийти, вы должны прийти, — опять неумолимо подчеркнул Алеша.  
"You must come, you must come," Alyosha stressed again, inexorably.
> Insistent repetition + perfective infinitive: The doubled «должны прийти» drives the obligation home through sheer repetition — a rhetorical device the narrator flags as «неумолимо подчеркнул» ('stressed inexorably'). «прийти» is the perfective infinitive ('to come [and arrive]').

— Но почему сегодня, почему сейчас?.. Я не могу оставить больного…  
"But why today, why right now?.. I cannot leave the sick man…"
> Elliptical repeated questions: Two verbless «почему…?» questions ('why today, why now') in tight parallel — ellipsis of the shared predicate intensifies Katya's panicked resistance. Russian readily drops the understood verb in such echoes.
> Substantivised «больного» in animate accusative: «больного» ('the sick man') is an adjective used as a noun; as an animate masculine object of «оставить» it takes the accusative shaped like the genitive («-ого»). She means the feverish Ivan, whom she nurses.

— На минуту можете, это ведь минута.  
"For a moment you can, after all it is only a moment.
> Subject-dropped «можете» + «ведь»: «можете» drops its subject «вы» (the ending shows 2nd-person plural). «На минуту» (в/на + accusative of duration) = 'for a minute.' «ведь» appeals to the obvious — 'after all, it's only a moment.'

Если вы не придете, он к ночи заболеет горячкой.  
If you do not come, by nightfall he will fall ill with fever.
> Real conditional with two perfective futures: «Если вы не придёте… он заболеет» — a real conditional, both verbs perfective future. «к ночи» (к + dative) = 'by nightfall.' «горячкой» is instrumental: «заболеть» governs the instrumental of the illness one falls ill 'with.'

Не стану я говорить неправду, сжальтесь!  
I will not tell an untruth — have mercy!"
> «стать» as future auxiliary + inversion: «не стану говорить» uses «стать» ('to begin/set to') as a near-auxiliary of the imperfective future — 'I will not [set to] tell.' The inverted «стану я» throws emphasis onto the verb. «неправду» is the accusative object.
> Imperative of reflexive «сжалиться»: «сжальтесь» is the polite imperative of the reflexive perfective «сжалиться» ('to take pity'), the -тесь combining plural/polite -те with reflexive -ся. It governs «над» + instrumental ('have mercy on'), picked up in the next line.

— Надо мной-то сжальтесь, — горько упрекнула Катя и заплакала.  
"Have mercy on me instead," Katya reproached him bitterly, and burst into tears.
> Fronted «над мной» + emphatic «-то»: Katya throws his own word «сжальтесь» back, but fronts «надо мной» ('on ME') and pins it with the topic-clitic «-то» — 'have pity on me, for once.' «надо» is the form of «над» before «мной». The contrast 'me, not him' is the whole point.
> Inceptive «за-»: «заплакала»: «заплакала» (perfective, inceptive prefix за-) means 'burst into tears, began to weep' — the prefix marking the onset of the crying. Paired with «упрекнула» (reproached), two completed events close the line.

— Стало быть, придете! — твердо проговорил Алеша, увидав ее слезы.  
"So you will come!" Alyosha said firmly, seeing her tears.
> «стало быть» — 'so, therefore': «Стало быть» is a fossilised phrase ('it has come to be') functioning as a discourse connective — 'so then, therefore.' Alyosha reads her tears as consent: «придёте» is perfective future, here almost a triumphant statement, 'so you WILL come.'
> Past gerund «увидав»: «увидав» is the perfective past gerund of «увидеть» ('having caught sight of'), an attendant prior action sharing Alyosha's subject — 'seeing her tears.' The variant ending «-ав/-в» marks the perfective gerund.

— Я пойду скажу ему, что вы сейчас придете.  
"I will go and tell him you will come at once."
> Two perfective futures in sequence (no «и»): «пойду скажу» juxtaposes two perfective futures with no conjunction — 'I'll go [and] tell.' This asyndetic 'go-and-do' pairing is colloquial and brisk, the second verb naming the purpose of the going.
> Reported «что»-clause, perfective future: «что вы сейчас придёте» is a «что»-clause reporting fact ('that you will come at once'). The perfective future «придёте» views the arrival as a single completed event. «сейчас» = right away.

— Нет, ни за что не говорите! — испуганно вскрикнула Катя.  
"No, on no account tell him!" Katya cried out in fright.
> Emphatic «ни за что» + negative imperative: «ни за что» ('for nothing, on no account') is a fixed «ни»-phrase that demands the verbal negator «не» (negative concord) — here on the imperfective imperative «не говорите» ('do not tell'). The imperfective is normal for prohibitions.

— Я приду, но вы ему вперед не говорите, потому что я приду, но, может быть, не войду… Я еще не знаю…  
"I will come, but do not tell him beforehand, because I will come, but, perhaps, I will not go in… I do not know yet…"
> Imperfective imperative of prohibition + dative: «не говорите» (imperfective imperative) forbids the telling; «ему» is the dative recipient, «вперёд» = 'beforehand, in advance.' Imperfective aspect is the default for a negative command.
> Two prefixed motion perfectives contrasted: «приду» (perfective of «прийти», 'arrive') and «не войду» (perfective of «войти», 'go in') are prefixed motion verbs, their prefixes при-/в- giving precise direction. The contrast — come up to, but perhaps not enter — captures her wavering at the threshold.

Голос ее пресекся.  
Her voice broke off.
> Reflexive «пресечься» of a voice breaking off: «пресекся» is the perfective reflexive/middle of «пресечься» ('to break off, be cut short'), the -ся marking the intransitive change of state. Her voice failed of itself. «ее» is the possessive ('her voice').
> «пресечься» — a bookish 'broke off': «пресечься» (root «-сек-», to cut) is a literary verb for a voice or speech being cut short by emotion — more elevated than a plain «оборвался». It suits the heightened pitch of the scene's close.

Она дышала трудно.  
She breathed with difficulty.
> Imperfective «дышала» of ongoing state: «дышала» is imperfective past — the durative, ongoing process of breathing ('she was breathing'). Aspect here paints a continuing physical state, not a single event. «трудно» ('with difficulty') is the manner adverb.

Алеша встал уходить.  
Alyosha rose to go.
> Perfective «встал» + imperfective infinitive of purpose: «встал» (perfective, 'rose, got up') takes the imperfective infinitive «уходить» ('to be leaving') expressing the purpose of rising — 'rose to go.' The imperfective frames the leaving as an unfolding intent rather than a single completed exit.

— А если я с кем-нибудь встречусь? — вдруг тихо проговорила она, вся опять побледнев.  
"And what if I meet someone there?" she suddenly said in a low voice, turning pale all over again.
> Indefinite «-нибудь» + reciprocal «встречусь»: «с кем-нибудь» uses the non-specific indefinite «-нибудь» — 'with anyone at all,' any chance person. «встречусь» is the reflexive/reciprocal perfective future of «встретиться» (to meet), governing «с» + instrumental.
> Past gerund «побледнев» + intensifier «вся»: «побледнев» is the perfective past gerund of «побледнеть» ('having turned pale'), an attendant action; «вся» ('all of her') intensifies — she paled all over once again, echoing s84. The repetition tracks her recurring dread.

— Для того и нужно сейчас, чтоб вы там ни с кем не встретились.  
"That is exactly why it must be now, so that you meet no one there."
> Purpose «для того… чтоб» + «ни с кем»: «Для того… чтоб(ы)» frames purpose ('precisely so that'), with «и» emphasising. Inside, «ни с кем не встретились» shows negative concord — the «ни»-phrase «ни с кем» ('with no one') still demands «не» on the verb. «встретились» takes the irrealis past form «чтобы» requires.

Никого не будет, верно говорю.  
There will be nobody there, I tell you truly.
> Negative concord with the genitive: «Никого» is the genitive of the negative pronoun «никто» (nobody), and it pairs obligatorily with the verbal «не» — Russian stacks negatives where English uses one. The existential «не будет» (there will not be) then demands the genitive of its missing subject, so «никого» does double duty as a negative-concord word and as a genitive of negation.
> Future of the negated existential: «Будет» here is the third-person future of «быть», used impersonally to mean 'there will (not) be'. Negated existence in present, past, and future takes the same frame — «нет / не было / не будет» — always with its subject in the genitive («никого»), never the nominative.
> Imperfective present, subject dropped: «Говорю» is the first-person present of imperfective «говорить» — 'I say / I'm telling you' as an ongoing assurance, not a single completed act. The pronoun «я» is dropped because the -ю ending already marks first person, and «верно» ('truly, for sure') colours the whole claim as earnest insistence.

Мы будем ждать, — настойчиво заключил он и вышел из комнаты.  
We will be waiting, he concluded insistently, and went out of the room.
> Compound imperfective future: «Будем ждать» is the imperfective future built analytically: conjugated «быть» (будем, 'we will') plus the imperfective infinitive «ждать» (to wait). It names an ongoing, open-ended waiting — 'we will be waiting' — exactly the sustained state the compound future is for, as opposed to a single completed perfective act.
> Inverted dialogue tag with perfective past: In the narration after direct speech Russian routinely inverts to verb-then-subject — «заключил он» ('he concluded') rather than «он заключил» — keeping the new agent in final, stressed position. «Заключил» is the perfective past, marking the concluding remark as a single finished act.
> Prefixed motion verb plus genitive: «Вышел» is the perfective past of «выйти» — the prefix вы- ('out') turns the motion verb into a precise, completed exit. It governs «из» + the genitive «комнаты» (out of the room): «из» always takes the genitive to express motion out of an enclosed space.
> «настойчиво» — insistently: An adverb from «настойчивый» (persistent, insistent), itself from «настоять (на чём-либо)», to insist on something. It frames the speaker's final word as a pressing of his point — the urgency of one who will not be talked out of the escape plan.
---

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.