# The Brothers Karamazov, I. Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book One: The History of a Family

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/fyodor-pavlovitch. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/fyodor-pavlovitch.json.


Алексей Федорович Карамазов был третьим сыном помещика нашего уезда Федора Павловича Карамазова, столь известного в свое время (да и теперь еще у нас припоминаемого) по трагической и темной кончине своей, приключившейся ровно тринадцать лет назад и о которой сообщу в своем месте.  
Alexey Fyodorovitch Karamazov was the third son of Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov, a landowner of our district so well known in his day (and even now still recalled among us) for the dark and tragic manner of his death, which befell him exactly thirteen years ago and of which I shall give an account in its proper place.
> Instrumental of the predicate: After past-tense «был» the predicate noun «сыном» (and its ordinal «третьим») stands in the instrumental, not the nominative — the case Russian uses for a role held at a particular time. The same predicate-instrumental construction governs «(был) сыном» and «(был) третьим» here; in this chapter «помещик» appears not as an instrumental predicate but as a genitive («сыном помещика») and a nominative topic.
> Past active participle «приключившейся»: «приключившейся» is the past active participle of «приключиться» (to befall), in the -вш- form, agreeing with «кончине» in feminine dative. It compresses a который-clause ('which befell') into one bookish word — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's long opening sentence.
> The relative «который»: «о которой» is the relative pronoun «который» ('which'), feminine to agree with its antecedent «кончине», but in the prepositional case after «о» because of its own role in the clause ('of which I shall give an account'). The verb «сообщу» is a perfective simple future ('I shall report'), conjugated like a present but pointing forward.
> «уезд» — the district: An «уезд» was the basic administrative subdivision of an imperial Russian province («губерния»), roughly a county. «помещик нашего уезда» places Fyodor Pavlovitch squarely in provincial gentry society, the world of the novel.
> «кончина» — a solemn 'death': «кончина» (from «кончить», to end) is an elevated, somewhat ecclesiastical word for death — 'demise', 'passing' — far weightier than the neutral «смерть». Its bookish dignity sits in pointed contrast to the squalid 'death' it actually names.

Теперь же скажу об этом «помещике» (как его у нас называли, хотя он всю жизнь совсем почти не жил в своем поместье) лишь то, что это был странный тип, довольно часто, однако, встречающийся, именно тип человека не только дрянного и развратного, но вместе с тем и бестолкового, — но из таких, однако, бестолковых, которые умеют отлично обделывать свои имущественные делишки, и только, кажется, одни эти.  
Of this "landowner" (as he was called among us, though he scarcely lived on his estate all his life) I shall say for now only this: that he was a strange type, yet one met with fairly often — precisely the type of a man who is not merely worthless and depraved but, along with that, muddle-headed too, and yet one of those muddle-headed men who know perfectly well how to manage their little property affairs, and that, it seems, is the one thing they manage.
> The emphatic particle «же»: «же» here is not the conjunction but the emphatic particle, leaning on «теперь» to mark a contrastive shift — 'but now, for the present part'. It signals the narrator turning from background to the immediate point, a texture English can only render with stress.
> Present active participle «встречающийся»: «встречающийся» is the present active participle of reflexive «встречаться» (to be met with), in -ющ- + -ся, agreeing with «тип». It packs 'a type that is met with fairly often' into a single declined modifier, the bookish equivalent of a который-clause.
> Relative clause with «который»: «которые» ('who') is nominative plural, the subject of its own clause, agreeing in number with «бестолковых». «свои» is the reflexive possessive «свой» ('their own'), pointing back to the clause's subject — their own affairs, not someone else's.
> «делишки» — petty little affairs: «делишки» is «дела» ('affairs') with the dismissive-diminutive suffix -ишк-, which belittles rather than endears: 'shabby little dealings'. The narrator's contempt for Fyodor Pavlovitch's grubby property-grubbing is built right into the word.
> «дрянной», «развратный»: «дрянной» means 'trashy, worthless, good-for-nothing' (from «дрянь», rubbish); «развратный» means 'depraved, dissolute'. Together they open the moral indictment of Fyodor Pavlovitch that the whole chapter unfolds.
> «бестолковый» — the chapter's keyword: «бестолковый» (from «толк», sense/meaning) means 'muddle-headed, senseless, without rhyme or reason'. The narrator insists on it as Fyodor Pavlovitch's defining trait — not stupidity but a peculiar incoherence — and returns to it repeatedly.

Федор Павлович, например, начал почти что ни с чем, помещик он был самый маленький, бегал обедать по чужим столам, норовил в приживальщики, а между тем в момент кончины его у него оказалось до ста тысяч рублей чистыми деньгами.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch, for instance, began with next to nothing; he was the smallest sort of landowner, ran about dining at other men's tables, angled to live as a hanger-on, and yet at the moment of his death there turned out to be as much as a hundred thousand roubles in hard cash to his name.
> Negative pronoun «ничто» in «ни с чем»: «начал… ни с чем» = 'began with nothing'. The negative pronoun «ничто» splits around its preposition — «ни с чем» — as Russian negatives regularly do (ни с кем, ни о чём). Note the genitive-of-negation flavour of starting 'from nothing'.
> Topic-comment word order: The fronted «помещик» is the topic ('as a landowner…'), with the comment «он был самый маленький' trailing for weight. Free case-marked word order lets Dostoevsky foreground 'landowner' and save the punchline — 'the very smallest sort' — for last.
> Imperfective past for habit: «бегал» (multidirectional 'ran about') and «норовил» ('kept angling') are imperfective pasts describing repeated, habitual behaviour — the standing background of his character — against which the perfective «оказалось» later marks the single surprising outcome.
> «приживальщик» — a hanger-on: A «приживальщик» is a hanger-on or sponger — a poor relation or guest who lives at a wealthy household's expense, flattering his hosts; we render it 'hanger-on'. «норовил в приживальщики» uses the accusative-plural-of-role construction ('aimed to become a hanger-on'). The word recurs as a key to Fyodor Pavlovitch's character.

И в то же время он все-таки всю жизнь свою продолжал быть одним из бестолковейших сумасбродов по всему нашему уезду.  
And at the same time he still went on, all his life, being one of the most muddle-headed madcaps in our whole district.
> Bookish superlative «бестолковейший»: «бестолковейших» is the synthetic superlative of «бестолковый», formed with the -ейш- suffix ('most muddle-headed of all'), a markedly bookish alternative to the everyday «самый бестолковый». Dostoevsky favours these literary superlatives throughout the chapter.
> «сумасброд» — a madcap: A «сумасброд» (literally 'one whose mind wanders, сходить с ума') is a wild, erratic, harebrained person — 'madcap, crank, hothead'. It pairs with «бестолковый» to fix Fyodor Pavlovitch's type: not insane, but reckless and incoherent.
> Imperfective «продолжал» + infinitive: «продолжал быть» ('went on being') uses the imperfective past «продолжал» with the infinitive «быть» to stress duration — phase verbs like продолжать, начинать, переставать take only imperfective infinitives, since they describe a process in progress.

Повторю еще: тут не глупость; большинство этих сумасбродов довольно умно и хитро, — а именно бестолковость, да еще какая-то особенная, национальная.  
I will say it again: this was not stupidity; the majority of these madcaps are clever and cunning enough — it was precisely muddle-headedness, and of a particular kind at that, a national one.
> Perfective future as narrative announcement: «Повторю» ('I will repeat / let me repeat') is the perfective simple future of «повторить», conjugated like a present but pointing to a single completed act. The narrator uses these first-person perfective futures (cf. «сообщу», «скажу», «не стану») as conversational signposts.
> Zero copula with «не»: «тут не глупость» = 'this is not stupidity' — present-tense 'is' is simply absent, and the predicate noun «глупость» stays nominative, negated by «не». Russian needs no verb to be in the present, only the negator before the predicate.
> The indefinite «-то» in «какая-то»: «какая-то» ('some kind of') is «какой» plus the clitic -то, marking a quality the narrator feels but cannot quite specify — 'a particular kind, of a sort'. The «да еще» before it ('and what's more') is an additive, intensifying turn of speech.
> «национальная» bestолковость: Calling Fyodor Pavlovitch's muddle-headedness 'national' («национальная») is a characteristic Dostoevskian aside: the narrator generalises a private vice into a diagnosis of the Russian character, a recurring move in the novel's self-examination.

Он был женат два раза, и у него было три сына: старший, Дмитрий Федорович, от первой супруги, а остальные два, Иван и Алексей, от второй.  
He was married twice, and he had three sons: the eldest, Dmitri Fyodorovitch, by his first wife, and the other two, Ivan and Alexey, by his second.
> Past tense of «быть»: Russian has no present-tense 'is/are'; the past tense of «быть» (to be) agrees in gender and number: «был» (m.), «была» (f.), «было» (n.), «были» (pl.). «был женат» = 'was married', said of a man (a woman is «была замужем»).
> Possession with «у» + genitive: Russian has no verb 'to have'; possession is framed as «у него было…» ('at him there was…'), with the possessor in the genitive after «у» and «быть» as the neuter «было». With the numeral «три» the counted noun takes the genitive singular «сына».
> Contrastive «а»: «а» ('and / while') here is the mild contrastive conjunction, marking a shift between the two groups of sons — the eldest by the first wife, «а» the other two by the second. It contrasts without real opposition, a constant hinge in Russian narration.
> «супруга» — wife (elevated): «супруга» / «супруг» are the formal, slightly ceremonious words for wife and husband (cf. plain «жена», «муж»). The narrator's choice keeps a faintly ironic dignity around a marriage he is about to expose as a fiasco.

Первая супруга Федора Павловича была из довольно богатого и знатного рода дворян Миусовых, тоже помещиков нашего уезда.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch's first wife came of the Miusov family, gentry fairly rich and distinguished, themselves landowners of our district.
> Origin with «из» + genitive: «была из… рода дворян Миусовых» = 'came of the Miusov family of gentry'. The preposition «из» ('out of, from') governs the genitive throughout — «богатого и знатного рода», «дворян Миусовых» — stacking genitives to express descent.

Как именно случилось, что девушка с приданым, да еще красивая и, сверх того, из бойких умниц, столь нередких у нас в теперешнее поколение, но появлявшихся уже и в прошлом, могла выйти замуж за такого ничтожного «мозгляка», как все его тогда называли, объяснять слишком не стану.  
How it could have come about that a girl with a dowry — and a beautiful one besides, and, on top of that, one of those bright, spirited wits not at all rare among us in the present generation, though they had begun to appear already in the last — could marry such a worthless "runt," as everyone then called him, I shall not undertake to explain at any length.
> A suspended subordinate frame: The whole sentence hangs on «Как… случилось, что… объяснять не стану» — 'How it came about that… I shall not undertake to explain'. The «что»-clause (the reported fact) is stretched across many lines before the main verb «не стану» finally lands, a signature of Dostoevsky's deferred-syntax narration.
> Past active participle «появлявшихся»: «появлявшихся» is the imperfective past active participle of «появляться» (to appear), genitive plural agreeing with «умниц». Imperfective stems give the participle an ongoing past sense — 'who had been appearing already' — and it replaces a full который-clause.
> Idiom «выйти замуж за» + accusative: A woman 'marries (a man)' with the fixed idiom «выйти замуж за» + accusative («за такого… мозгляка»). «замуж» (from за + муж, 'behind a husband') is used only of a woman; a man marries with «жениться на» + prepositional.
> «умница» — a clever woman: «умница» (here genitive plural «умниц») is an affectionate noun for a bright, sensible person, 'a clever one'. The narrator's «бойких умниц» ('spirited clever women') frames Adelaïda's set as the smart, restless young women of the day.
> «мозгляк» — a runt: «мозгляк» is a contemptuous word for a puny, feeble, sickly little man — a 'runt, weakling, milksop'. Set in quotation marks as the village nickname, it captures how the whole district despised Fyodor Pavlovitch.

Ведь знал же я одну девицу, еще в запрошлом «романтическом» поколении, которая после нескольких лет загадочной любви к одному господину, за которого, впрочем, всегда могла выйти замуж самым спокойным образом, кончила, однако же, тем, что сама навыдумала себе непреодолимые препятствия и в бурную ночь бросилась с высокого берега, похожего на утес, в довольно глубокую и быструю реку и погибла в ней решительно от собственных капризов, единственно из-за того, чтобы походить на шекспировскую Офелию, и даже так, что будь этот утес, столь давно ею намеченный и излюбленный, не столь живописен, а будь на его месте лишь прозаический плоский берег, то самоубийства, может быть, не произошло бы вовсе.  
After all, I once knew a young lady, still of the last "romantic" generation, who, after several years of an enigmatic love for a certain gentleman — whom, by the way, she could always have married in the most untroubled manner — wound up, all the same, by inventing for herself insurmountable obstacles, and on a stormy night threw herself from a high, cliff-like bank into a fairly deep and swift river, perishing in it decidedly out of her own caprices, solely so as to resemble Shakespeare's Ophelia; and so much so that, had this cliff she had long marked out and cherished been less picturesque, had there stood in its place a merely prosaic, flat bank, then the suicide might very likely never have taken place at all.
> Particle «же» and inverted order: «Ведь знал же я…» piles two particles: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all, you know'), and «же» insists. The inverted «знал же я» (verb before subject) gives the storyteller's buttonholing, oral cadence as he launches the Ophelia anecdote.
> Conditional with «бы» and imperative-as-condition: The hypothetical is built on past-form + «бы»: «не произошло бы» ('might not have taken place'). Its 'if'-clause uses the bookish imperative-as-conditional «будь… не столь живописен» ('had the cliff been less picturesque') — a literary substitute for «если бы был».
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «за которого» is the relative «который», masculine to agree with «господину», but in the accusative because «выйти замуж за» governs the accusative. The case is dictated by its job inside the relative clause, not by its antecedent's case.
> «навыдумать» — to dream up a heap: «навыдумала» layers the prefix на- ('a quantity of') onto «выдумать' (to invent): 'invented a whole heap of, dreamt up no end of'. The на-…-себе construction (на + accumulation, dative/reflexive) conveys her piling imaginary obstacles upon herself.

Факт этот истинный, и надо думать, что в нашей русской жизни, в два или три последние поколения, таких или однородных с ним фактов происходило немало.  
This fact is a true one, and one must suppose that in our Russian life, over the last two or three generations, no small number of such facts, or of facts of the same kind, have occurred.
> Postposed demonstrative «этот»: «Факт этот» places the demonstrative «этот» after its noun rather than before — a bookish, slightly emphatic word order ('this fact, the one just told') common in 19th-century prose. The neutral order would be «этот факт».
> Genitive subject with «немало»: After the quantifier «немало» ('not a few') the counted noun stands in the genitive plural «фактов», and the verb is impersonal neuter «происходило». Quantity words behave like numerals, pulling their noun into the genitive.

Подобно тому и поступок Аделаиды Ивановны Миусовой был без сомнения отголоском чужих веяний и тоже пленной мысли раздражением.  
In just the same way, the deed of Adelaïda Ivanovna Miusova was without doubt an echo of influences from elsewhere, and likewise the chafing of a mind held captive.
> Two instrumental predicates after «был»: Both predicates after «был» take the instrumental: «отголоском» ('an echo') and «раздражением» ('a chafing'). The case marks them as roles the deed represented rather than fixed identities — the standard instrumental complement of «быть» in the past.
> «пленной мысли раздражением»: A dense, almost untranslatable phrase: «раздражением пленной мысли» = 'the irritation/chafing of a captive thought' — a mind fretting against its confinement. The inverted genitive «пленной мысли раздражением» heightens its bookish, abstract weight; we render it 'the chafing of a mind held captive'.

Ей, может быть, захотелось заявить женскую самостоятельность, пойти против общественных условий, против деспотизма своего родства и семейства, а услужливая фантазия убедила ее, положим, на один только миг, что Федор Павлович, несмотря на свой чин приживальщика, все-таки один из смелейших и насмешливейших людей той, переходной ко всему лучшему, эпохи, тогда как он был только злой шут, и больше ничего.  
She may, perhaps, have wished to assert feminine independence, to go against the conditions of society, against the despotism of her kin and her family — and an obliging fancy persuaded her, let us suppose for one moment only, that Fyodor Pavlovitch, for all his rank of hanger-on, was nonetheless one of the boldest and most mocking men of that age, an age in transition toward all that was better — whereas in fact he was only a spiteful buffoon, and nothing more.
> Dative subject with «захотелось»: «Ей… захотелось» is the classic impersonal-experiencer pattern: the person stands in the dative «ей» ('to her'), the reflexive verb «захотелось» is neuter and subjectless, and an infinitive follows — 'she came to feel a wish to assert'. The dative frames desire as something that happens to her, not a deliberate act.
> «положим» — let us suppose: «положим» ('let us suppose, say, granted') is a first-person-plural imperative of «положить» used as a parenthetical concessive — the narrator hedging his own conjecture. Such imperatives-as-discourse-markers (cf. «допустим») are common in reasoning prose.
> Bookish superlatives: «смелейших» ('boldest') and «насмешливейших» ('most mocking') are again synthetic -ейш- superlatives, in the genitive plural after «один из» ('one of the…'). The piled-up literary superlatives mimic the inflated, romantic light in which the fancy painted Fyodor Pavlovitch.
> «шут» — buffoon: A «шут» is a fool or buffoon — historically a court jester, here a clown who debases himself for effect. «злой шут» ('a spiteful buffoon') is the narrator's verdict, and buffoonery becomes Fyodor Pavlovitch's chosen mask through the novel.

Пикантное состояло еще и в том, что дело обошлось увозом, а это очень прельстило Аделаиду Ивановну.  
What gave the affair its extra piquancy was that it came off as an elopement, and this greatly captivated Adelaïda Ivanovna.
> Correlative «в том, что»: «состояло… в том, что…» = 'consisted in the fact that…'. The correlative «в том» (prepositional of «то») anticipates the «что»-clause that follows — a frequent bookish frame for introducing the substance of a statement.
> «увоз» — an elopement / abduction: «увоз» (from «увезти», to carry off) is a 'carrying-off' — an elopement, often with a whiff of romantic abduction. «дело обошлось увозом» (instrumental of manner) = 'the affair came off as an elopement', the very scandal that thrilled Adelaïda.

Федор же Павлович на все подобные пассажи был даже и по социальному своему положению весьма тогда подготовлен, ибо страстно желал устроить свою карьеру хотя чем бы то ни было; примазаться же к хорошей родне и взять приданое было очень заманчиво.  
As for Fyodor Pavlovitch, his social standing alone made him thoroughly primed for any such escapades at that time, for he passionately longed to make his career by whatever means came to hand; and to attach himself to good kindred and lay hold of a dowry was very tempting indeed.
> Particle «же» splitting the name: The topic-shifting particle «же» ('as for…') is wedged between «Федор» and «Павлович», its normal second-position slot. It pivots the narration from the bride to the groom — 'As for Fyodor Pavlovitch…'.
> «ибо» — archaic 'for, because': «ибо» is a solemn, archaic-bookish conjunction meaning 'for, because', felt as elevated and slightly biblical — the literary register's substitute for plain «потому что». Its use lends the narrator's reasoning a faint scriptural gravity.
> Concessive «чем бы то ни было»: «чем бы то ни было» = 'by whatever means / anything whatsoever' — a fixed concessive built from interrogative + «бы… ни» («что бы то ни было», «как бы то ни было»). The «бы… ни» frame makes it sweepingly indefinite: 'no matter what'.
> «примазаться» — to worm one's way in: «примазаться» (reflexive, literally 'to smear/stick oneself onto') is a colloquial, contemptuous verb: 'to attach oneself to, latch onto, worm one's way in' for advantage. It exactly captures Fyodor Pavlovitch's opportunism toward «хорошей родне» (good kindred).

Что же до обоюдной любви, то ее вовсе, кажется, не было — ни со стороны невесты, ни с его стороны, несмотря даже на красивость Аделаиды Ивановны.  
As for any mutual love, there seems to have been none at all — neither on the bride's side nor on his, in spite even of Adelaïda Ivanovna's beauty.
> Topic frame «что (же) до… то»: «Что же до обоюдной любви, то…» = 'As for mutual love, …' — the set topic-marking frame «что до X, то Y», which hoists a topic to the front and resumes with «то». The «же» adds the conversational 'now, as for…' nudge.
> Genitive of negation with «не было» and «ни… ни»: «ее… не было» negates existence, forcing the subject 'love' into the genitive «ее» ('of it there was none'). The doubled «ни… ни» ('neither… nor') is negative concord intensifying the «не»: not on the bride's side, nor on his.

Так что случай этот был, может быть, единственным в своем роде в жизни Федора Павловича, сладострастнейшего человека во всю свою жизнь, в один миг готового прильнуть к какой угодно юбке, только бы та его поманила.  
So this case was perhaps unique of its kind in the life of Fyodor Pavlovitch, the most voluptuous man all his life long, ready in an instant to cling to any skirt at all, if only it beckoned to him.
> «сладострастный» — voluptuous: «сладострастный» (literally 'sweet-passion', sweetness + lust) means 'voluptuous, sensual, lascivious'. Its synthetic superlative «сладострастнейшего» ('the most voluptuous') brands Fyodor Pavlovitch with the sensuality that the whole Karamazov line will be said to share.
> Conditional «только бы» of desire: «только бы та его поманила» = 'if only it would beckon to him' — the irrealis particle «бы» on a past-form verb expressing the sole condition. «только бы» ('if only, provided that') marks the minimal proviso, and «та» ('that one') points back to «юбке'.
> Idioms «какой угодно» and «юбка»: «какой угодно» = 'any… at all, whatever' (interrogative + «угодно», 'as one pleases'). «юбка» literally 'skirt' is here metonymy for any woman — 'to cling to any skirt at all' — a crude flourish fitting the narrator's contempt.

А между тем одна только эта женщина не произвела в нем со страстной стороны никакого особенного впечатления.  
And yet this one woman alone produced in him, on the side of passion, no particular impression whatever.
> Genitive of negation: Under negation the object shifts from accusative to genitive: «не произвела… никакого… впечатления» ('produced no… impression'). The negative determiner «никакого» and noun «впечатления» both take the genitive, with «никакого… не» showing negative concord.
> Contrastive opener «а между тем»: «А между тем» ('and yet, meanwhile') opens the sentence with the contrastive «а», pivoting against the previous claim. The fixed phrase «между тем» ('in the meantime / for all that') is one of the narrator's favourite hinges between observations.

Аделаида Ивановна, тотчас же после увоза, мигом разглядела, что мужа своего она только презирает и больше ничего.  
Adelaïda Ivanovna, the moment the elopement was over, saw in a flash that for her husband she felt only contempt and nothing more.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + fronted object: «мужа своего» ('her [own] husband') uses the reflexive possessive «свой», correctly pointing to the clause subject «она». Note too the fronting of the object «мужа своего' before the subject for focus — free word order weighting 'her husband' as the topic.
> «мигом» — in a flash: «мигом» is the frozen instrumental of «миг» ('instant') used adverbially: 'in a flash, in a trice'. Paired with «тотчас же» ('at once'), it stresses how instantly Adelaïda saw through her husband.

Таким образом, следствия брака обозначились с чрезвычайною быстротой.  
Thus the consequences of the marriage made themselves plain with extraordinary speed.
> Reflexive -ся as middle voice: «обозначились» ('became apparent, defined themselves') is the -ся middle of «обозначить»: no external agent, the consequences simply showed themselves. The reflexive turns a transitive 'to mark out' into an intransitive 'to take shape'.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «с чрезвычайною быстротой» shows the older feminine instrumental adjective ending «-ою» (for modern «-ой»): «чрезвычайною». This longer form is a period flavour of 19th-century literary Russian, metrically and stylistically weightier than the modern «-ой».

Несмотря на то что семейство даже довольно скоро примирилось с событием и выделило беглянке приданое, между супругами началась самая беспорядочная жизнь и вечные сцены.  
Although her family even came round to the event fairly soon and allotted the runaway her dowry, between the spouses there began the most disorderly life and endless scenes.
> Concessive «несмотря на то что»: «Несмотря на то что…» = 'despite the fact that, although' — the bookish concessive built on «несмотря на» ('not looking at') plus the correlative «то» and «что». It opens a subordinate clause of concession before the main 'but there began…' clause.
> Dative indirect object «беглянке»: «выделило беглянке приданое» = 'allotted the runaway her dowry': «приданое» is the direct object (accusative), «беглянке» the indirect object in the dative ('to the runaway'). The dative marks the recipient — to or for whom the dowry was given.
> «беглянка» — the runaway (f.): «беглянка» (from «бежать», to flee) is a feminine 'runaway, fugitive' — the -янк- suffix giving the female counterpart of «беглец». The narrator's tag for Adelaïda foreshadows her flight in segment s25.

Рассказывали, что молодая супруга выказала при том несравненно более благородства и возвышенности, нежели Федор Павлович, который, как известно теперь, подтибрил у нее тогда же, разом, все ее денежки, до двадцати пяти тысяч, только что она их получила, так что тысячки эти с тех пор решительно как бы канули для нее в воду.  
It was told that the young wife showed in all this an incomparably greater nobility and loftiness of spirit than did Fyodor Pavlovitch, who, as is now known, filched from her at that very time, in one swoop, all her little funds, up to twenty-five thousand, the instant she received them, so that from then on those few thousands sank, for her, as if into water for good.
> Subjectless 'they say' plural: «Рассказывали, что…» ('it was told that, they recounted that') uses a bare third-person-plural verb with no subject — Russian's standard impersonal 'they/people say'. The narrator leans on this hearsay frame (cf. «говорят» in s37) to relay village gossip.
> Comparative «более… нежели»: The comparison uses periphrastic «более» ('more') intensified by «несравненно» ('incomparably'), with the archaic-bookish «нежели» for 'than' (modern «чем»). «нежели» is a literary register marker frequent in Dostoevsky.
> «подтибрить» — to pinch, filch: «подтибрить» is low colloquial slang for 'to swipe, pinch, filch' — petty thieving with a sly air. Using it of Fyodor Pavlovitch robbing his own wife's money strips any dignity from the act; we render it 'filched'.
> Dismissive diminutives «денежки», «тысячки»: «денежки» (from «деньги') and «тысячки» (from «тысячи') carry the -к- diminutive, here with a pitying-dismissive colour — 'her little money, her poor few thousands'. The endearing-belittling suffix dramatises how lightly so large a sum vanished.
> Idiom «как в воду кануть»: «как бы канули… в воду» echoes the idiom «как в воду кануть» ('to vanish as if into water', without a trace). The verb «кануть» is itself archaic-poetic for 'to sink, drop'. The money disappeared utterly, gone for good.

Деревеньку же и довольно хороший городской дом, которые тоже пошли ей в приданое, он долгое время и изо всех сил старался перевести на свое имя чрез совершение какого-нибудь подходящего акта и наверно бы добился того из одного, так сказать, презрения и отвращения к себе, которое он возбуждал в своей супруге ежеминутно своими бесстыдными вымогательствами и вымаливаниями, из одной ее душевной усталости, только чтоб отвязался.  
As for the small village and the fairly good town house that also came to her as part of the dowry, he tried for a long while and with all his might to have them transferred into his own name by drawing up some suitable deed, and he would surely have gained his end, out of the sheer contempt and revulsion toward himself, so to speak, that he aroused in his wife every minute of the day by his shameless extortions and beggings — out of her sheer spiritual exhaustion, just to be rid of him.
> Conditional «бы» without an 'if': «наверно бы добился» ('he would surely have achieved it') is the irrealis «бы» on a past-form perfective, the apodosis of an unspoken condition — he would have succeeded, had the family not intervened (s23). Russian lets the «бы»-clause stand while leaving the condition implicit.
> Relative «которые» and dative «ей»: «которые… пошли ей в приданое» — relative «которые» (nominative plural, subject) refers to «деревеньку… и дом»; «ей» is the dative recipient ('to her'), and «в приданое' an accusative-of-purpose ('as a dowry'). A compact lattice of cases inside one clause.
> Purpose «чтоб» with the irrealis past: «чтоб отвязался» = 'just so that he would leave [her] alone' — «чтоб(ы)» (the fused «что» + «бы») introduces purpose and demands the past-form verb «отвязался», Russian's irrealis after чтобы. The clipped «чтоб» for «чтобы' is colloquial.
> «чрез» — archaic «через»: «чрез» is the truncated, bookish form of the preposition «через» ('through, by means of'), here + accusative «совершение… акта» ('through the drawing-up of a deed'). The shortened «чрез» is a stock 19th-century literary spelling.
> «вымогательство», «вымаливание»: A telling pair: «вымогательства» 'extortions, blackmailing demands' and «вымаливания» 'wheedlings, begging-and-imploring' (from «вымаливать», to beg out of someone). Both share the вы- prefix of 'extracting'; together they sketch Fyodor Pavlovitch alternating threats with grovelling.

Но, к счастию, вступилось семейство Аделаиды Ивановны и ограничило хапугу.  
But, by good fortune, Adelaïda Ivanovna's family stepped in and reined the grasping fellow back.
> Dative «к счастию» (archaic ending): «к счастию» = 'fortunately' — «к» + dative of «счастье», with the older bookish dative ending «-ию» for modern «-ью/-ью» (счастию vs счастью). The phrase is a fixed sentence-adverbial, and the archaic ending is period flavour.
> Reflexive -ся 'to intervene': «вступилось» is the -ся form of «вступить» specialised to mean 'stepped in, intervened on behalf of' (cf. «вступиться за»). The reflexive shifts the plain 'to step in' toward 'to take someone's part', the family acting to protect Adelaïda.
> «хапуга» — a grasping grabber: «хапуга» (from «хапать», to grab/snatch greedily) is a contemptuous word for a rapacious money-grubber, 'a grasping fellow, a grabber'. The accusative «хапугу» (animate) names Fyodor Pavlovitch by his defining greed.

Положительно известно, что между супругами происходили нередкие драки, но, по преданию, бил не Федор Павлович, а била Аделаида Ивановна, дама горячая, смелая, смуглая, нетерпеливая, одаренная замечательною физическою силой.  
It is positively known that frequent brawls broke out between the spouses, but, by tradition, it was not Fyodor Pavlovitch who beat the other but Adelaïda Ivanovna who did the beating — a hot-tempered lady, bold, dark-complexioned, impatient, endowed with remarkable physical strength.
> Contrastive «не… а» with fronted verbs: The sharp antithesis «бил не X, а била Y» ('it was not X who beat but Y who did the beating') uses «не… а» ('not… but') and fronts the gendered past verbs «бил» (m.) / «била» (f.) for emphasis, the agreement itself spotlighting who struck whom.
> Short/past passive participle «одаренная»: «одаренная» is the past passive participle of «одарить» (to endow), here long-form attributive, with the agent's gift «силой» in the instrumental ('endowed with strength'). The string of feminine adjectives «горячая, смелая, смуглая, нетерпеливая» agrees with «дама».
> «смуглый» — dark-complexioned: «смуглая» means 'swarthy, dark-skinned, olive-complexioned'. In the catalogue of Adelaïda's traits it signals a fiery, southern-looking vigour, of a piece with «горячая» (hot-tempered) and her «замечательная физическая сила».

Наконец она бросила дом и сбежала от Федора Павловича с одним погибавшим от нищеты семинаристом-учителем, оставив Федору Павловичу на руках трехлетнего Митю.  
At last she abandoned the house and fled from Fyodor Pavlovitch with a seminary-student-turned-schoolmaster who was perishing of poverty, leaving Fyodor Pavlovitch with little three-year-old Mitya on his hands.
> Perfective gerund «оставив»: «оставив» is the perfective past gerund («деепричастие») of «оставить' (to leave): 'having left'. It names a completed action attendant on the main verbs «бросила… и сбежала», sharing their subject — she fled, leaving Mitya behind. The idiom «на руках» = 'on [his] hands, in [his] care'.
> Past active participle «погибавшим»: «погибавшим» is the imperfective past active participle of «погибать» (to perish), instrumental to agree with «семинаристом» after «с». The imperfective stem gives 'who was [in the process of] perishing of poverty' — an ongoing state, not a completed event.
> «Митя» — diminutive of Dmitri: «Митю» (accusative of «Митя») is the affectionate diminutive of «Дмитрий» — the eldest son Dmitri Fyodorovitch. The intimate nickname for the abandoned three-year-old quietly invites our sympathy; Russian names ladder from Дмитрий to Митя to Митенька by warmth.

Федор Павлович мигом завел в доме целый гарем и самое забубённое пьянство, а в антрактах ездил чуть не по всей губернии и слезно жаловался всем и каждому на покинувшую его Аделаиду Ивановну, причем сообщал такие подробности, которые слишком бы стыдно было сообщать супругу о своей брачной жизни.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch promptly set up a whole harem in the house and the most riotous drinking, and in the intervals drove about nearly the entire province, tearfully complaining to anyone and everyone of Adelaïda Ivanovna, who had forsaken him, all the while disclosing such details as it would be far too shameful for a husband to tell about his married life.
> Mixed aspect: perfective onset, imperfective habit: «завел» (perfective, 'set up') marks a single completed act, then the imperfectives «ездил» ('kept driving about') and «жаловался» ('went on complaining') paint the ongoing, repeated aftermath. The aspect switch sets one event against a standing background of behaviour.
> Past active participle «покинувшую»: «покинувшую» is the perfective past active participle of «покинуть» (to forsake), accusative feminine agreeing with «Аделаиду Ивановну» after «на» — 'about Adelaïda Ivanovna, who had forsaken him'. The participle compresses a который-clause and is placed, bookishly, before its noun.
> «забубённый» — riotous, devil-may-care: «забубённое пьянство» — «забубённый» is a vivid colloquial-folk epithet for wild, reckless, devil-may-care abandon ('riotous, headlong'). It belongs to the same expressive register as the drinking and 'whole harem' it describes.

Главное, ему как будто приятно было и даже льстило разыгрывать пред всеми свою смешную роль обиженного супруга и с прикрасами даже расписывать подробности о своей обиде.  
The main thing was that he seemed actually pleased, and even flattered, to play out before everyone his absurd role of the wronged husband, and even to embroider, with trimmings, the particulars of his grievance.
> Dative-experiencer with impersonal predicate: «ему… приятно было» is the impersonal-experiencer pattern: «ему» in the dative, «приятно» an invariable predicative, «было» neuter — 'it was pleasant to him'. The parallel «льстило» ('it flattered [him]') is likewise subjectless, with the infinitive «разыгрывать» as the logical subject.
> Archaic «пред» for «перед»: «пред всеми» ('before everyone') uses the truncated bookish «пред» for modern «перед» (+ instrumental). Like «чрез» and «чрез», these clipped prepositions are markers of the 19th-century literary register.
> «прикрасы» — embellishments: «прикрасы» (from «прикрасить', to prettify) are 'embellishments, fancy trimmings, decorative exaggerations'. «расписывать… с прикрасами» = to paint up his grievance with added flourishes — Fyodor Pavlovitch improving on his own humiliation for the audience.

«Подумаешь, что вы, Федор Павлович, чин получили, так вы довольны, несмотря на всю вашу горесть», — говорили ему насмешники.  
"One would think, Fyodor Pavlovitch, that you had been given a promotion, you are so content, in spite of all your sorrow," the scoffers would say to him.
> «подумаешь» — generalised 'you': «Подумаешь, что…» uses the second-person singular «подумаешь» ('one would think') as an impersonal, generalised 'you' — Russian's way of saying 'anyone would suppose'. It is colloquial and dismissive in tone, fitting the mocking speakers.
> Short adjective predicate «довольны»: «довольны» is the short (predicative) form of «довольный», used here as the predicate 'you are content/satisfied'. Short adjectives can only predicate, never attribute, and carry a flavour of a present, particular state — apt for the scoffers' jab.

Многие даже прибавляли, что он рад явиться в подновленном виде шута и что нарочно, для усиления смеха, делает вид, что не замечает своего комического положения.  
Many even added that he was glad to appear in the freshened-up guise of a buffoon, and that, on purpose, to heighten the laughter, he pretended not to notice his own comic situation.
> Two reported «что»-clauses: «прибавляли, что… и что…» strings two parallel «что»-clauses of reported fact under «прибавляли». «что» (plain reporting 'that') contrasts with «чтобы» (purpose/willed) seen elsewhere — here it simply relays what people claimed.
> Past passive participle «подновленном»: «подновленном» is the past passive participle of «подновить» (to freshen up, renew), prepositional agreeing with «виде» after «в» — 'in a freshened-up guise'. The participle works as an ordinary adjective once it agrees in case, gender, and number.
> Idiom «делать вид, что»: «делает вид, что не замечает» = 'pretends not to notice'. The set idiom «делать вид, что…» ('to make the appearance that, to feign') is the standard Russian way to say 'pretend'; «вид» here is 'outward appearance, semblance'.

Кто знает впрочем, может быть, было это в нем и наивно.  
Who knows, though — perhaps in his case it was even done in all naïveté.
> Interrogative «кто» as rhetorical 'who knows': «Кто знает» ('who knows') uses the interrogative pronoun «кто», which always takes masculine singular agreement, as a rhetorical opener. With «впрочем» ('though, however') it marks the narrator stepping back to qualify his own surmise.
> Impersonal «было… наивно»: «было это… наивно» is an impersonal/neuter construction: «это» refers vaguely to his behaviour, «наивно» is an invariable predicative ('done in naïveté'), «было» neuter. The little «и» before «наивно» ('even, after all') softens the concession.

Наконец ему удалось открыть следы своей беглянки.  
At last he managed to track down his runaway.
> Dative «ему удалось» + infinitive: «ему удалось открыть» = 'he managed/succeeded in tracking down'. The construction is impersonal: «удалось» (neuter -ся verb) with the person in the dative «ему» and an infinitive — success framed as something that befell him, not an achievement he owns.
> Reflexive possessive «своей»: «своей беглянки» ('his [own] runaway') uses the reflexive possessive «свой» in the genitive (object of «открыть следы»), pointing back to the clause subject — his runaway. «беглянка» recurs as the narrator's wry epithet for Adelaïda.

Бедняжка оказалась в Петербурге, куда перебралась с своим семинаристом и где беззаветно пустилась в самую полную эмансипацию.  
The poor thing turned out to be in Petersburg, where she had moved with her seminarist and where she had flung herself, without reserve, into the fullest emancipation.
> «куда» (whither) vs «где» (where): Russian distinguishes direction from location: «куда перебралась» ('whither she had moved', motion) and «где… пустилась» ('where she flung herself', static). English collapses both into 'where'; Russian keeps the goal-of-motion «куда» apart from the locative «где».
> «бедняжка» — poor little thing: «бедняжка» is «бедная» ('poor woman') with the affectionate-pitying diminutive -яжк-: 'poor thing, poor dear'. After all the contempt, the narrator's sudden tenderness toward the doomed Adelaïda is carried entirely by this suffix.

Федор Павлович немедленно захлопотал и стал собираться в Петербург, — для чего? — он, конечно, и сам не знал.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch at once bestirred himself and began making ready to go to Petersburg — for what purpose? — he, of course, did not himself know.
> Inceptive perfectives «захлопотал», «стал»: Both verbs are perfective inceptives marking the start of activity: «захлопотал» (за- 'began bustling') and «стал собираться» ('began to make ready', phase verb «стать» + imperfective infinitive). Together they snap the narration into sudden motion.
> Intensifier «сам» + negation: «он… и сам не знал» = 'he didn't even know himself'. The intensive pronoun «сам» ('himself, oneself') reinforces the subject, and «и… не» ('not even') heightens the negation. The dash-set rhetorical question «для чего?» is the narrator voicing Fyodor Pavlovitch's own bafflement.

Право, может быть, он бы тогда и поехал; но, предприняв такое решение, тотчас же почел себя в особенном праве, для бодрости, пред дорогой, пуститься вновь в самое безбрежное пьянство.  
Truly, he might perhaps have gone then; but, having undertaken such a resolve, he immediately reckoned himself within his special rights — for courage, before the road — to plunge anew into the most boundless drinking.
> Conditional «бы» of the unrealised: «он бы… и поехал» ('he might perhaps have gone') is the irrealis «бы» on a past perfective, naming an outcome that did not happen — he was about to go, but the drinking intervened. The «бы» leans on the early «он» rather than the verb, as it often does.
> Perfective gerund «предприняв»: «предприняв» is the perfective past gerund of «предпринять» (to undertake): 'having undertaken'. It expresses an action completed before the main verb «почел», sharing the subject — having resolved, he then reckoned himself entitled to drink.
> «почесть» — archaic 'to deem': «почел» is the perfective past of the bookish «почесть» (to deem, account, consider) — 'he reckoned himself within his rights'. The verb is archaic-literary (cf. «честь», to esteem); modern Russian would use «счёл». «пред дорогой» again shows the archaic «пред».

И вот в это-то время семейством его супруги получилось известие о смерти ее в Петербурге.  
And it was at just this time that his wife's family received the news of her death in Petersburg.
> Reflexive-passive «получилось»: «получилось известие» ('the news was received') is the -ся middle/passive of «получить»: the news arrived as if of itself, with the recipient «семейством» in the instrumental (the agent of a passive). The subject «известие» is nominative — what was received.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» in «это-то»: «в это-то время» = 'at just this time'. The hyphenated clitic «-то» here is the emphatic topic-marker (distinct from the indefinite -то of «кто-то»), spotlighting the precise moment — exactly then, of all times, the death-news came.

Она как-то вдруг умерла, где-то на чердаке, по одним сказаниям — от тифа, а по другим — будто бы с голоду.  
She had somehow died all at once, somewhere in a garret, by some accounts of typhus, and by others, as it were, of starvation.
> Indefinite «-то»: «как-то», «где-то»: «как-то» ('somehow') and «где-то» ('somewhere') are interrogatives + the indefinite clitic «-то», marking a manner and place that are real but unknown to the narrator. The vagueness — somehow, somewhere in a garret — heightens the squalid mystery of Adelaïda's death.
> «по» + dative for 'according to': «по одним сказаниям… по другим» = 'by some accounts… by others'. The preposition «по» governs the dative «сказаниям / другим», here in its 'according to' sense. The «а» between the clauses contrasts the two rival versions.
> «будто бы» and «с голоду»: «будто бы» ('as it were, supposedly') flags hearsay the narrator won't vouch for. «с голоду» = 'of hunger/starvation' — note the special partitive-genitive ending «-у» (голоду, not голода) that survives in such fixed causal phrases (умереть с голоду).

Федор Павлович узнал о смерти своей супруги пьяный; говорят, побежал по улице и начал кричать, в радости воздевая руки к небу: «Ныне отпущаеши», а по другим — плакал навзрыд как маленький ребенок, и до того, что, говорят, жалко даже было смотреть на него, несмотря на всё к нему отвращение.  
Fyodor Pavlovitch learned of his wife's death while drunk; they say he ran down the street and began to shout, raising his hands to heaven in joy, "Now lettest Thou depart," while by other accounts he wept aloud like a little child, and so much so that, they say, it was pitiful even to look at him, for all the revulsion felt toward him.
> Church-Slavonic 2nd-person «-ши»: «отпущаеши» ('Thou lettest depart') carries the Church-Slavonic second-person singular ending «-ши» (modern Russian «отпускаешь»), plus the Slavonic stem «отпущ-». Such forms instantly mark a register as sacred and liturgical — the language of prayer, not of the street.
> Depictive secondary predicate «пьяный»: «узнал… пьяный» — the nominative adjective «пьяный» agrees with the subject and describes his state while acting: 'learned of it [while] drunk'. This depictive use (predicate adjective doubling as an adverbial of state) is common where English needs 'while drunk'.
> Imperfective gerund «воздевая»: «воздевая» is the imperfective present gerund of the archaic-Slavonic «воздевать» (to raise up, lift): 'raising [his hands]'. It expresses an action simultaneous with «начал кричать», sharing the subject. The lofty «воздевать руки' (cf. plain «поднимать») heightens the mock-liturgical gesture.
> «навзрыд» — sobbing aloud: «навзрыд» is an adverb meaning 'with loud sobs, breaking into open weeping' (from «рыдать», to sob). «плакал навзрыд как маленький ребенок» — wept aloud like a small child — paints the second, opposite account of Fyodor Pavlovitch's reaction.

Очень может быть, что было и то, и другое, то есть что и радовался он своему освобождению, и плакал по освободительнице — всё вместе.  
Very possibly both were true — that is, that he both rejoiced at his deliverance and wept for her who had delivered him — all together.
> Correlative «и… и» ('both… and'): The repeated «и… и» ('both… and') yokes the two contradictory truths — «и радовался… и плакал» — that he both rejoiced and wept. The closing «всё вместе» ('all together') insists Dostoevsky's signature point: opposite feelings held at once.
> «освободительница» — she who freed him: «освободительнице» (dative of «освободительница') is the feminine agent-noun 'female liberator/deliverer', formed with -тельниц-. Calling the dead wife the one who 'delivered' him by dying is bitter irony — «плакал по освободительнице» ('wept for his liberatress').

В большинстве случаев люди, даже злодеи, гораздо наивнее и простодушнее, чем мы вообще о них заключаем.  
In the majority of cases people, even villains, are far more naïve and simple-hearted than we generally conclude about them.
> Comparatives «наивнее», «простодушнее»: «наивнее» and «простодушнее» are the predicative comparatives in -ее ('more naïve', 'more simple-hearted'), intensified by «гораздо» ('far, much') and completed by «чем» ('than'). These invariable -ее forms are the everyday way to compare in the predicate.
> «злодей» — villain, evildoer: «злодеи» (nominative plural of «злодей», from «зло» evil + «деять» to do) are 'evildoers, villains'. The narrator's claim that even villains are 'more naïve than we suppose' is a thesis statement for the novel's whole moral psychology.

Да и мы сами тоже.  
And so, for that matter, are we ourselves.
> «да и» + intensifier «сами»: «Да и мы сами тоже» = 'And we ourselves, for that matter, too'. The opener «да и» adds and amplifies ('and indeed'), «сами» is the intensive 'ourselves', and «тоже» 'also' — three small words turning the verdict on villains back onto the reader. The verb is left out, carried over from the previous sentence.
---

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.