# The Brothers Karamazov, IV. The Third Son, Alyosha

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/third-son-alyosha. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/third-son-alyosha.json.


Было ему тогда всего двадцать лет (брату его Ивану шел тогда двадцать четвертый год, а старшему их брату, Дмитрию, — двадцать восьмой).  
He was only twenty years old at the time (his brother Ivan was then in his twenty-fourth year, and the eldest of them, Dmitri, in his twenty-eighth).
> Dative of age, no nominative subject: Russian states age impersonally: the person is in the dative («ему», to him) and there is no nominative subject — literally "to him there-was then in-all twenty years." The same pattern returns in «брату его Ивану шёл… двадцать четвёртый год».
> "The 24th year was going" — ordinals for age: To say someone is in his twenty-fourth year, Russian makes the ordinal year the subject of «идти» (to go): «шёл двадцать четвёртый год» — the year "was running." This is why the translation reads "was in his twenty-fourth year," i.e. twenty-three years complete.
> Genitive plural after the numeral: After «двадцать» (twenty) and all numbers from five up, the counted noun stands in the genitive plural — hence «двадцать лет» (twenty of-years), with the suppletive plural «лет» (from «лето»). The ordinals «двадцать четвёртый / двадцать восьмой» instead agree like adjectives with the understood «год».

Прежде всего объявляю, что этот юноша, Алеша, был вовсе не фанатик и, по-моему, по крайней мере, даже и не мистик вовсе.  
First of all, I declare that this youth, Alyosha, was not in the least a fanatic, and—at least to my mind—not even a mystic at all.
> The narrator's present "I declare" + reported clause: «объявляю» is the present tense of imperfective «объявлять» — the chatty, button-holing narrator addressing us directly. «что» then opens a subordinate clause of reported fact, set off by a comma as Russian always requires.
> Stacked negation for emphasis: «не» is the plain negator ("not a fanatic"), here reinforced by intensifiers «вовсе» ("at all") and «даже и» ("not even"). Russian piles such particles around «не» to weight the denial — "not in the least… not even… at all."
> Conversational hedges: «по-моему» means "to my mind, in my opinion" and «по крайней мере» "at least." The narrator tucks them in to soften his claim, a hallmark of the intimate, self-qualifying voice Dostoevsky gives him.

Заранее скажу мое полное мнение: был он просто ранний человеколюбец, и если ударился на монастырскую дорогу, то потому только, что в то время она одна поразила его и представила ему, так сказать, идеал исхода рвавшейся из мрака мирской злобы к свету любви души его.  
Let me give my full opinion in advance: he was simply an early lover of mankind, and if he set out upon the monastery road, it was only because at that time it alone struck him and held up for him, so to speak, the ideal of a way out for his soul, which was straining out of the darkness of worldly malice toward the light of love.
> "If… then only because" correlative: «если… то…» pairs the conditional «если» with the resumptive «то» ("then"), and «потому только, что» ("only because") opens the causal clause. The perfective past «ударился» frames setting out on the road as a single decisive act.
> «удариться» — to throw oneself headlong: Literally "struck himself onto the monastery road," the reflexive «удариться» here means to plunge or dash into something with sudden abandon. The idiom paints Alyosha's turn to the monastery as impulsive momentum, not calculation.
> «человеколюбец» — lover of mankind: A compound of «человек» (man) + «любить» (to love), "a lover of humanity" — a bookish, faintly ecclesiastical word (Christ is «Человеколюбец» in the liturgy). Calling Alyosha an "early" one frames his faith as innate charity rather than doctrine.
> Participial chain hung on "his soul": The whole phrase modifies «души его» (genitive, "of his soul"): «рвавшейся» is a past active participle of reflexive «рваться» (to strain, tear oneself) in the feminine genitive, agreeing with «души». Such a dense pre-posed participial cluster is classic 19th-century literary syntax, condensing a whole который-clause into a single bookish modifier.

И поразила-то его эта дорога лишь потому, что на ней он встретил тогда необыкновенное, по его мнению, существо — нашего знаменитого монастырского старца Зосиму, к которому привязался всею горячею первою любовью своего неутолимого сердца.  
And this road struck him only because along it he met, just then, a being who was in his eyes extraordinary—our celebrated monastery elder Zosima, to whom he attached himself with all the ardent first love of his insatiable heart.
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: Here «-то» is not the indefinite suffix but the emphatic clitic attached to the verb, underlining the known topic: "and as for striking him, this road did so only because…". It throws weight onto «поразила», a flavour English carries only by stress.
> «который» in the dative + instrumental of manner: The relative «к которому» takes the dative governed by «к» and the verb «привязаться к» (to become attached to). «всею горячею первою любовью» is instrumental of manner ("with all his ardent first love"); the long instrumental endings «-ею/-ою» are the older, bookish variant of «-ей/-ой».

Впрочем, я не спорю, что был он и тогда уже очень странен, начав даже с колыбели.  
I will not dispute, however, that even then he was already very strange—and had been so from the cradle on.
> Perfective past gerund «начав»: «начав» is the perfective past gerund (деепричастие) of «начать» — "having begun." It hangs an attendant clause on the main subject (Alyosha): he was strange, "having begun so even from the cradle." The form in «-в» marks a prior, completed action.
> «впрочем» — "however, then again": A favourite discourse hinge of the garrulous narrator, «впрочем» qualifies or partly retracts what was just said ("however / but then again"). It signals the self-correcting, conversational drift of Dostoevsky's storyteller.

Кстати, я уже упоминал про него, что, оставшись после матери всего лишь по четвертому году, он запомнил ее потом на всю жизнь, ее лицо, ее ласки, «точно как будто она стоит предо мной живая».  
By the way, I have already mentioned of him that, having lost his mother when he was barely in his fourth year, he remembered her ever afterward for the whole of his life—her face, her caresses—"exactly as if she were standing before me alive."
> Past gerund + "in his fourth year": «оставшись» is the perfective past gerund of «остаться» (to be left, remain) — "having been left [motherless]." «по четвёртому году» uses «по» with the dative of an ordinal to mean "in his fourth year," i.e. not yet four.
> Perfective «запомнил» — fixed in memory: Perfective «запомнить» means to retain something fixedly in memory (a single resultative event), against imperfective «помнить», to go on remembering. The objects «лицо, ласки» stand in the accusative as what was remembered.
> «ласки» — caresses, tendernesses: «ласка» is a caress, a show of tenderness or affection; the plural «ласки» gathers a mother's loving gestures. The word is warm and intimate, set deliberately against the "hysterics" that will fill the remembered scene.
> «точно как будто» + the bookish «предо»: «точно как будто» heaps two comparatives ("exactly" + "as if") for vividness. «предо мной» is the archaic/euphonic form of «передо мной» (before me); «живая» is a predicative long adjective in the feminine, "alive."

Такие воспоминания могут запоминаться (и это всем известно) даже и из более раннего возраста, даже с двухлетнего, но лишь выступая всю жизнь как бы светлыми точками из мрака, как бы вырванным уголком из огромной картины, которая вся погасла и исчезла, кроме этого только уголочка.  
Such memories can be retained (and everyone knows this) even from a still earlier age, even from the age of two, but only as if surfacing throughout one's whole life like points of light out of the darkness, like a corner torn from an enormous picture that has all faded and vanished save for this one little corner alone.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle/passive: «запоминаться» is the «-ся» form of «запоминать»: the memories "get retained" of themselves — a middle/passive reading where the thing remembered becomes the grammatical subject. Russian prefers this to a personal "one remembers."
> Instrumental of manner under «как бы»: «светлыми точками» and «вырванным уголком» are instrumentals expressing the manner of surfacing ("as if as points of light… as a torn corner"). «вырванным» is a past passive participle ("torn out"); «как бы» ("as it were") flags the image as figurative.
> Relative clause + genitive after «кроме»: «которая» (fem.) refers back to «картины», the picture that "faded and vanished"; both verbs are perfective past, single completed events. «кроме» (except) governs the genitive «этого… уголочка», and «уголочка» is itself a double diminutive of «угол» (corner).
> «уголочек» — a tender double diminutive: From «угол» (corner) → «уголок» → «уголочек»: a doubly-diminished "little corner." The caressing suffix matches the fragile, precious scrap of memory the narrator is describing.

Так точно было и с ним: он запомнил один вечер, летний, тихий, отворенное окно, косые лучи заходящего солнца (косые-то лучи и запомнились всего более), в комнате в углу образ, пред ним зажженную лампадку, а пред образом на коленях рыдающую как в истерике, со взвизгиваниями и вскрикиваниями, мать свою, схватившую его в обе руки, обнявшую его крепко до боли и молящую за него богородицу, протягивающую его из объятий своих обеими руками к образу как бы под покров богородице… и вдруг вбегает нянька и вырывает его у нее в испуге.  
So it was precisely with him: he remembered one evening, a summer one, quiet, an open window, the slanting rays of the setting sun (it was the slanting rays above all that stayed with him), an icon in the corner of the room, a lamp lit before it, and before the icon, on her knees, his mother, sobbing as if in hysterics, with shrieks and cries, who had snatched him up in both arms, hugging him so hard it hurt, and praying for him to the Mother of God, holding him out of her embrace with both hands toward the icon as if to place him under the protection of the Mother of God… when suddenly the nurse runs in and tears him away from her in fright.
> A cascade of participles all on «мать»: Five participles in the feminine accusative all agree with «мать свою» (his mother), the object of «запомнил»: present active «рыдающую, молящую, протягивающую» (sobbing, praying, holding out) and past active «схватившую, обнявшую» (having snatched, having embraced). This towering participial chain is the engine of Dostoevsky's single-breath sentence.
> Sudden shift to the historic present: After a long past-tense memory, Dostoevsky switches to the imperfective present «вбегает… вырывает» (runs in… tears away). This "historic present" makes the remembered instant flash into immediacy — a deliberate jolt of tense.
> Frequentative noise-nouns: «взвизгивание» (shrill little shrieks) and «вскрикивание» (sudden cries) are verbal nouns built on iterative verbs; the plurals convey repeated, broken outbursts. The thick consonant clusters mimic the hysterical sound itself.

Вот картина!  
There's a picture for you!
> Presentative «вот» as exclamation: «вот» points and presents ("here is / there's"); with no verb and an exclamation mark it becomes the narrator's own outburst — "There's a picture for you!" The bare nominative «картина» needs no copula in the present.

Алеша запомнил в тот миг и лицо своей матери: он говорил, что оно было исступленное, но прекрасное, судя по тому, сколько мог он припомнить.  
Alyosha remembered his mother's face too at that instant: he said it had been frenzied, but beautiful, so far as he was able to recall.
> Neuter agreement with «лицо»: «оно» and the long adjectives «исступлённое, прекрасное» are all neuter, agreeing with «лицо» (face, a neuter noun). The neuter -о endings are the visible thread of agreement running through the predicate.
> «исступлённый» — frenzied, beside oneself: From «исступление» (a state of being "out of" oneself, frenzy, ecstasy), this adjective fuses madness and rapture. Dostoevsky deliberately pairs it with «прекрасное» (beautiful) — the frenzy is also a kind of holy beauty.

Но он редко кому любил поверять это воспоминание.  
But he rarely cared to entrust this memory to anyone.
> Free word order, dative object fronted: Literally "rarely to-whom he-loved to-confide": «кому» is a dative object («поверять что кому», to entrust something to someone), pulled forward of the verb. The loose order lets «редко кому» (rarely to anyone) carry the focus.

В детстве и юности он был мало экспансивен и даже мало разговорчив, но не от недоверия, не от робости или угрюмой нелюдимости, вовсе даже напротив, а от чего-то другого, от какой-то как бы внутренней заботы, собственно личной, до других не касавшейся, но столь для него важной, что он из-за нее как бы забывал других.  
In childhood and youth he was not very effusive, and even not very talkative—not out of distrust, not out of shyness or sullen unsociability, indeed quite the opposite, but out of something else, some sort of inner preoccupation, properly his own and personal, of no concern to others, yet so important to him that on account of it he would as it were forget others.
> «не… не… а…» with genitive of cause: «от» + genitive gives the cause of a state ("out of distrust, out of shyness"); the strings of «не» reject one cause after another until «а» (the corrective "but") supplies the real one — "out of something else." «чего-то» shows the indefinite «-то» (something specific but unnamed).
> Past active participle of «касаться»: «касавшейся» is the past active participle of reflexive «касаться» (to concern, touch on), feminine genitive, agreeing with «заботы» (the preoccupation) — "a preoccupation not concerning others." The reflexive «-ся» is built into this verb's lexical meaning.
> «нелюдимость» — unsociableness: Built on «не-» + «люди» (people), «нелюдим» is one who shuns company; the abstract «нелюдимость» is that withdrawn temperament. The narrator names it only to deny it of Alyosha.

Но людей он любил: он, казалось, всю жизнь жил, совершенно веря в людей, а между тем никто и никогда не считал его ни простячком, ни наивным человеком.  
But people he did love: he seemed to live his whole life trusting people utterly, and yet no one ever took him for a simpleton or a naive man.
> Object first for contrastive topic: The accusative animate object «людей» (people) is fronted before the subject «он» to set up the contrast with the preceding sentence — "but people, he did love them." The animate genitive-like plural «людей» also shows declension: «люди» is suppletive for «человек».
> Negative concord, instrumental predicate: Classic negative concord: «никто… никогда… не… ни… ни…» — five negatives, one meaning ("no one ever took him for a simpleton or naive"). «считать кого кем» governs the instrumental, hence «простячком» (instrumental of the diminutive «простячок») and «наивным человеком».
> Imperfective present gerund «веря»: «веря» is the present gerund of imperfective «верить» — "believing / trusting," expressing the continuous manner in which he lived. The imperfective gerund in «-я» always marks an action simultaneous with the main verb.

Что-то было в нем, что говорило и внушало (да и всю жизнь потом), что он не хочет быть судьей людей, что он не захочет взять на себя осуждения и ни за что не осудит.  
There was something in him that said and persuaded (and did so all his life afterward) that he did not wish to be a judge of people, that he would not take condemnation upon himself, and that he would not condemn for anything in the world.
> Perfective futures of refusal: «захочет» and «осудит» are perfective forms with future meaning — he "will not want" and "will not condemn," projecting a settled future disposition. «ни за что» ("not for anything") and «не» again give negative concord around «осудит».
> Reflexive «себя» + genitive object: «взять на себя» is "to take upon oneself," with «себя» pointing back to the clause subject (Alyosha). The object «осуждения» (the act of condemning) is genitive — a partitive/abstract object especially natural under the negated «не захочет».

Казалось даже, что он всё допускал, нимало не осуждая, хотя часто очень горько грустя.  
It even seemed that he admitted everything, condemning nothing in the least, though often grieving very bitterly.
> Two simultaneous gerunds: Both «осуждая» (condemning) and «грустя» (grieving) are imperfective present gerunds, painting two ongoing attendant states around «всё допускал» (he admitted everything). «нимало не» is an emphatic "not in the least."

Мало того, в этом смысле он до того дошел, что его никто не мог ни удивить, ни испугать, и это даже в самой ранней своей молодости.  
More than that, in this respect he reached such a point that no one could either astonish him or frighten him, and this even in his very earliest youth.
> «до того… что» result clause: «до того… что…» means "to such a degree that…". The result clause again runs on negative concord: «никто не мог ни удивить, ни испугать» — no one could either astonish or frighten him. «удивить/испугать» are perfective infinitives (a single achieved effect).

Явясь по двадцатому году к отцу, положительно в вертеп грязного разврата, он, целомудренный и чистый, лишь молча удалялся, когда глядеть было нестерпимо, но без малейшего вида презрения или осуждения кому бы то ни было.  
Arriving in his twentieth year at his father's—into what was positively a den of filthy debauchery—he, chaste and pure, would merely withdraw in silence when it became unbearable to look on, yet without the slightest air of scorn or condemnation toward anyone whatever.
> Bookish gerund «явясь»: «явясь» is the perfective past gerund of «явиться» (to appear, present oneself) — "having arrived." The «-сь» form (rather than «явившись») is the older, more literary variant, and «по двадцатому году» again means "in his twentieth year."
> Imperfective of habit; «молча» as gerund-adverb: «удалялся» is imperfective past (he "would withdraw," repeatedly), describing a habit rather than one event. «молча» (silently) is a frozen gerund of «молчать» now used as an adverb of manner.
> «вертеп» — a den (and a Nativity cave): «вертеп» means a den or low haunt of vice, but the word also denotes the cave of Christ's Nativity and a folk Nativity puppet-theatre. Calling his father's house a «вертеп грязного разврата» (a den of filthy debauchery) carries a faint, bitter sacred echo beneath the squalor.
> «целомудренный» — chaste, of whole-minded purity: A compound of «цело-» (whole) + «мудр-» (wise/minded), literally "whole-minded" — chaste, pure in an integral, almost sacred sense. It is a markedly elevated word for the virtue that will define and torment Alyosha among the schoolboys.

Отец же, бывший когда-то приживальщик, а потому человек чуткий и тонкий на обиду, сначала недоверчиво и угрюмо его встретивший («много, дескать, молчит и много про себя рассуждает»), скоро кончил, однако же, тем, что стал его ужасно часто обнимать и целовать, не далее как через две какие-нибудь недели, правда с пьяными слезами, в хмельной чувствительности, но видно, что полюбив его искренно и глубоко и так, как никогда, конечно, не удавалось такому, как он, никого любить…  
His father, on the other hand—once a hanger-on himself, and therefore a man keen and sensitive to any slight—who had at first met him distrustfully and sullenly ("he keeps silent a great deal, the fellow, and reasons a great deal to himself"), soon ended, however, by taking to embracing and kissing him terribly often, no later than within some two weeks, with drunken tears, it is true, in a maudlin tenderness, but plainly having come to love him sincerely and deeply, and in a way that of course someone like him had never managed to love anyone before…
> «приживальщик» — a hanger-on: A «приживальщик» is a poor dependent who "lives in" on a wealthy household — tolerated, fed, and made to amuse, a stock figure of Russian gentry life. Fyodor Pavlovich's own past as one explains why he is «чуткий и тонкий на обиду», raw and quick to any slight.
> Participles and gerund framing one long subject: The subject «отец» trails a past active participle «встретивший» (who had met him) and the predicate «бывший… приживальщик» (once a hanger-on), then resolves into the perfective gerund «полюбив» (having come to love). The whole architecture — participle, parenthetical quotation, gerund — is Dostoevsky's signature long period.
> «стать» + imperfective infinitive — began doing: Perfective «стал» (began) plus the imperfective infinitives «обнимать… целовать» expresses the onset of a repeated, ongoing action — he "took to embracing and kissing him." The imperfective is essential: the hugging becomes habitual, not a single act.
> «дескать» — "so to speak," reported with a sneer: «дескать» is a reportative particle flagging that the words are someone else's, often with irony or mimicry — here Fyodor Pavlovich quoting his own grumbling opinion. It has no English equivalent beyond a knowing "the fellow, you see."

Да и все этого юношу любили, где бы он ни появился, и это с самых детских даже лет его.  
And indeed everyone loved this youth, wherever he appeared, and this from his very earliest childhood years.
> «где бы… ни» — concessive "wherever": The frame «где бы… ни + past-form verb» means "no matter where, wherever": «где бы он ни появился» = "wherever he appeared." The particle «бы» makes it hypothetical/generalizing and «ни» supplies the concessive force — a fixed irrealis construction.
> «да и» + animate accusative object fronted: «Да и» opens with an additive "and indeed." The animate object «этого юношу» (this youth) takes its accusative = genitive shape for an animate masculine noun, and is placed before the verb for emphasis, the new information falling on «любили».

Очутившись в доме своего благодетеля и воспитателя, Ефима Петровича Поленова, он до того привязал к себе всех в этом семействе, что его решительно считали там как бы за родное дитя.  
Finding himself in the house of his benefactor and guardian, Yefim Petrovich Polenov, he so endeared himself to everyone in that family that they decidedly regarded him there as a child of their own.
> Gerund «очутившись» + reflexive «свой»: «очутившись» is the perfective past gerund of «очутиться» (to find oneself somewhere, as if by chance). «своего благодетеля» uses the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause subject — "his own benefactor."
> «считать за» + accusative: Beside «считать кого кем» (instrumental), Russian also has the colloquial «считать за кого» ("to regard as"), with «за» + accusative — here «за родное дитя» (as a child of their own). «дитя» is an old neuter noun for "child."

А между тем он вступил в этот дом еще в таких младенческих летах, в каких никак нельзя ожидать в ребенке расчетливой хитрости, пронырства или искусства заискать и понравиться, уменья заставить себя полюбить.  
And yet he had entered that house while still at such an infant age, at which one can hardly expect in a child any calculating cunning, any wiliness or art of ingratiating oneself and being liked, any knack of making oneself loved.
> Correlative «таких… каких» + dative-impersonal «нельзя»: «в таких летах, в каких…» is a correlative "at such an age, at which…", «каких» being the relative «какой» in the prepositional plural. «нельзя ожидать» is an impersonal construction ("one cannot expect"); «летах» is the prepositional plural of the suppletive «лета» (years).
> Vocabulary of ingratiation: «пронырство» is sly, wriggling cunning (from «проныра», a wheedler who "bores through" anywhere); «заискать» / «заискивать» is to fawn and curry favour. The narrator heaps these unflattering nouns up only to deny them of the child Alyosha.

Так что дар возбуждать к себе особенную любовь он заключал в себе, так сказать, в самой природе, безыскусственно и непосредственно.  
So that the gift of arousing a particular love for himself he carried within him, so to speak, in his very nature, artlessly and immediately.
> Object first, reflexive «себя» twice: The object phrase «дар… любовь» is fronted before subject «он» for emphasis. «к себе» and «в себе» both contain the reflexive «себя» referring to Alyosha — the gift of arousing love "toward himself," which he held "within himself."
> "Artlessly and immediately": «безыскусственно» (without artifice, from «без» + «искусство») and «непосредственно» (directly, without intermediary) are abstract adverbs of the bookish register. They name the un-self-conscious naturalness that is the heart of Alyosha's charm.

То же самое было с ним и в школе, и, однако же, казалось бы, он именно был из таких детей, которые возбуждают к себе недоверие товарищей, иногда насмешки, а пожалуй, и ненависть.  
It was the same with him at school too, and yet one would think he was precisely the kind of child who arouses in his comrades distrust, sometimes mockery, and perhaps even hatred.
> «казалось бы» + correlative «таких… которые»: «казалось бы» is the conditional of «казаться» with «бы» — "one would think." «из таких детей, которые…» is the correlative "the kind of children who…", with «которые» (nom. plural) heading the relative clause and «возбуждают» in the generalizing imperfective present.

Он, например, задумывался и как бы отъединялся.  
He would, for instance, fall into thought and, as it were, set himself apart.
> Two reflexive imperfectives of habit: «задумывался» (fell to brooding) and «отъединялся» (set himself apart) are imperfective past reflexives describing recurrent behaviour — "he would." The «-ся» on «отъединяться» marks the middle/intransitive: he "separated himself off."

Он с самого детства любил уходить в угол и книжки читать, и, однако же, и товарищи его до того полюбили, что решительно можно было назвать его всеобщим любимцем во всё время пребывания его в школе.  
From his very childhood he liked to go off into a corner and read his books, and yet even his comrades grew so fond of him that one could decidedly call him the universal favorite throughout the whole time of his stay at school.
> Result clause + instrumental predicate: «до того… что» again gives the degree-result frame. «назвать его всеобщим любимцем» governs the instrumental of the predicate noun — to call him "the universal favorite," the role assigned by the verb «назвать».
> «книжки» — "little books," fondly: The diminutive of «книга» (book), «книжки» suggests the small, beloved books a boy reads in his corner. The affectionate suffix colours the image of the bookish, withdrawn child warmly rather than belittling it.

Он редко бывал резв, даже редко весел, но все, взглянув на него, тотчас видели, что это вовсе не от какой-нибудь в нем угрюмости, что, напротив, он ровен и ясен.  
He was seldom boisterous, even seldom merry, but everyone, glancing at him, saw at once that this came not from any gloominess in him, that, on the contrary, he was even-tempered and serene.
> Perfective gerund of prior action: «взглянув» is the perfective past gerund of «взглянуть» (to glance) — "having glanced, they saw at once." The gerund marks the completed glance preceding the seeing; both share the subject «все» (everyone).
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «ровен» and «ясен» are short-form adjectives (from «ровный», even-tempered, and «ясный», clear/serene), usable only as predicates. The short form carries a slightly bookish, absolute quality — he simply is even and serene.

Между сверстниками он никогда не хотел выставляться.  
Among his peers he never wished to put himself forward.
> Negative concord + reflexive «выставляться»: «никогда… не» is the doubled negation ("never"). «выставляться» is the reflexive of «выставлять» (to put out / display) used in the middle sense "to show oneself off, put oneself forward."

Может, по этому самому он никогда и никого не боялся, а между тем мальчики тотчас поняли, что он вовсе не гордится своим бесстрашием, а смотрит как будто и не понимает, что он смел и бесстрашен.  
Perhaps for this very reason he was never afraid of anyone, and yet the boys understood at once that he was not at all proud of his fearlessness, but looked as though he did not even realize that he was brave and unafraid.
> Reflexive «гордиться» + instrumental object: «гордиться» (to be proud) is a «-ся» verb that takes its object in the instrumental — «своим бесстрашием» (of his own fearlessness), with the reflexive possessive «свой». The instrumental marks the thing one is proud "by/with."
> Short adjectives in a reported clause: «смел» and «бесстрашен» are short-form predicate adjectives (from «смелый», bold, and «бесстрашный», fearless) inside the «что»-clause — stating, with bookish finality, that he "was brave and fearless."

Обиды никогда не помнил.  
An offense he never remembered.
> Object first; genitive under negation: The object «обиды» (an offense / slight) opens the sentence for emphasis, before the negated verb. Under «не помнил» the object naturally takes the genitive of negation — «обиды» here genitive singular, "of an offense he kept no memory."

Случалось, что через час после обиды он отвечал обидчику или сам с ним заговаривал с таким доверчивым и ясным видом, как будто ничего и не было между ними вовсе.  
It would happen that an hour after the offense he would answer the offender, or strike up a conversation with him himself, with such a trusting and serene look as though nothing whatever had passed between them.
> Impersonal «случалось» + imperfective of habit: «случалось, что…» is impersonal ("it would happen that…"), heading repeated events. «отвечал» and «заговаривал» are imperfective past, marking habitual, recurring action rather than single events.
> Genitive subject of negated «не было»: In «ничего… не было» the negated existential «не было» (was-not) takes its subject in the genitive — «ничего» (nothing). The whole «как будто» clause means "as though nothing at all had been between them."

И не то чтоб он при этом имел вид, что случайно забыл или намеренно простил обиду, а просто не считал ее за обиду, и это решительно пленяло и покоряло детей.  
And it was not as if he had the air, in doing so, of having forgotten the offense by chance or pardoned it on purpose; he simply did not count it as an offense, and this decidedly captivated and won over the children.
> «не то чтоб… а…» contrastive frame: «не то чтоб(ы)… а…» means "it was not that… but rather…". The «чтоб» here is the reduced «чтобы» pulling the past-tense «имел» into a quasi-irrealis clause; «а просто» supplies the true state of affairs.
> «пленять» / «покорять» — to captivate and subdue: «пленять» is literally "to take captive" (from «плен», captivity) and «покорять» "to subdue, conquer" — both used figuratively of winning hearts. The pair casts Alyosha's effect on the children in the warm language of a gentle conquest.

Была в нем одна лишь черта, которая во всех классах гимназии, начиная с низшего и даже до высших, возбуждала в его товарищах постоянное желание подтрунить над ним, но не из злобной насмешки, а потому, что это было им весело.  
There was in him just one trait that, in every form of the high school, from the lowest right up to the highest, aroused in his comrades a constant urge to tease him—yet not out of spiteful mockery, but because it amused them.
> Existential inversion + relative «которая»: The verb «была» is fronted in an existential inversion ("there was in him one trait"), with the subject «черта» following. «которая» (fem.) heads the relative clause and agrees with «черта» in gender, while taking nominative as its clause's subject.
> «подтрунить над» — to tease good-naturedly: «подтрунить (над кем)» is to poke gentle fun at someone, governing «над» + instrumental. The narrator carefully distinguishes it from «злобная насмешка» (spiteful mockery): the teasing here is affectionate.

Черта эта в нем была дикая, исступленная стыдливость и целомудренность.  
This trait in him was a wild, frenzied bashfulness and chastity.
> Demonstrative after the noun: «Черта эта» places the demonstrative «эта» after its noun «черта» — a common topic-resuming order ("this trait, then…"). The long predicate adjectives «дикая, исступлённая» agree in the feminine nominative with «стыдливость».
> «стыдливость» — bashful modesty: «стыдливость» (from «стыд», shame) is shyness, a quick capacity to be ashamed or to blush; paired with «целомудренность» (chastity), it names a trembling, almost painful modesty. «исступлённая» (frenzied) again pushes the virtue to the pitch of fever.

Он не мог слышать известных слов и известных разговоров про женщин.  
He could not bear to hear certain words and certain conversations about women.
> Genitive object under negation: Negated «не мог слышать» pulls its object into the genitive — «известных слов… разговоров» (certain words… conversations). The genitive of negation is especially natural here with the abstract, non-specific objects.

Эти «известные» слова и разговоры, к несчастию, неискоренимы в школах.  
These "certain" words and conversations are, unhappily, ineradicable in schools.
> Short-form predicate + present passive participle: «неискоренимы» is the short plural form of «неискоренимый» (ineradicable), itself a present passive participle in «-мый» («не-» + «искоренить», to root out). The short form makes it a flat predicate — these words "are ineradicable."

Чистые в душе и сердце мальчики, почти еще дети, очень часто любят говорить в классах между собою и даже вслух про такие вещи, картины и образы, о которых не всегда заговорят даже и солдаты, мало того, солдаты-то многого не знают и не понимают из того, что уже знакомо в этом роде столь юным еще детям нашего интеллигентного и высшего общества.  
Boys pure in soul and heart, still almost children, very often love to talk in class among themselves, and even aloud, about such things, pictures, and images as not even soldiers would always speak of; more than that, there is much in this line that soldiers neither know nor understand which is already familiar to the very young children of our educated and upper society.
> Relative «о которых» + perfective future-generalizing: «о которых» is the relative «который» in the prepositional plural after «о» (about which). «заговорят» is a perfective form with generalizing future force — "would [even] begin to speak of," a hypothetical "would."
> Emphatic «-то» + genitive of negation: The clitic «-то» on «солдаты» marks the contrastive topic ("the soldiers, mind you…"). «многого не знают» puts the negated object «многого» (much) in the genitive — the genitive of negation again.

Нравственного разврата тут, пожалуй, еще нет, цинизма тоже нет настоящего, развратного, внутреннего, но есть наружный, и он-то считается у них нередко чем-то даже деликатным, тонким, молодецким и достойным подражания.  
Moral depravity is perhaps not yet present here, nor real cynicism—the depraved, inward kind—but there is the outward kind, and among them it is often reckoned something even refined, subtle, dashing, and worthy of imitation.
> Genitive subject of «нет»: «нет» (there is no) obligatorily takes its logical subject in the genitive: «цинизма… нет» — "there is no cynicism." The qualifier «настоящего» is genitive too, agreeing with «цинизма», and is split off after «нет» for emphasis.
> Reflexive-passive «считается» + instrumental: «считается» is the «-ся» passive of «считать»: "is reckoned / counted as." Its complement «чем-то деликатным, тонким…» stands in the instrumental, the case of the predicate role; the clitic «-то» on «он» again marks the contrastive topic.
> «молодецкий» — dashing, swaggeringly manly: From «молодец» (a fine young fellow, a daredevil), «молодецкий» means dashing, gallant, bravado-laden. The boys mistake outward cynicism for this admirable swagger — "something dashing and worthy of imitation."

Видя, что «Алешка Карамазов», когда заговорят «про это», быстро затыкает уши пальцами, они становились иногда подле него нарочно толпой и, насильно отнимая руки от ушей его, кричали ему в оба уха скверности, а тот рвался, спускался на пол, ложился, закрывался, и всё это не говоря им ни слова, не бранясь, молча перенося обиду.  
Seeing that "Alyoshka Karamazov," the moment they began talking "about that," quickly stopped up his ears with his fingers, they would sometimes plant themselves around him on purpose in a crowd and, prying his hands forcibly from his ears, shout filth into both his ears, while he struggled, slid down to the floor, lay there, covered himself up—and all this without saying a word to them, without scolding, silently bearing the offense.
> Present gerund + imperfective of habit: «Видя» is the imperfective present gerund of «видеть» (seeing), framing the simultaneous circumstance. «становились» is imperfective past — the boys "would" gather around him, a repeated action; «толпой» is instrumental of manner ("in a crowd").
> Gerund of manner + the demonstrative «тот» as "he": «отнимая» (present gerund, "prying away") gives the manner of «кричали». The narrative then names Alyosha by the demonstrative «тот» ("the latter, that one") rather than «он» — a common way to shift the subject pointer back to him after the boys.
> Three negated gerunds in a row: A triple gerund close: «не говоря» (not saying), «не бранясь» (not scolding, reflexive «браниться»), «молча перенося» (silently bearing). «ни слова» is genitive after the negation ("not a single word"), with «ни» intensifying.
> Diminutive forms of names: Russian names take many affectionate or dismissive diminutives. From Алексей come the warm Алёша (Alyosha) and the rougher, teasing Алёшка (Alyoshka) — the schoolboys' nickname here. The «-ка» suffix can sound playful or contemptuous depending on tone.

Под конец, однако, оставили его в покое и уже не дразнили «девчонкой», мало того, глядели на него в этом смысле с сожалением.  
Toward the end, however, they left him in peace and no longer teased him as a "little girl"; what is more, in this respect they looked upon him with pity.
> Perfective vs imperfective; instrumental of the name: Perfective «оставили» marks the single resolving act ("they left him in peace") against imperfective «не дразнили» for the ceased habit ("no longer teased"). «дразнить кого кем» takes the instrumental «девчонкой» for what they called him.
> «девчонка» — a girl, with a edge: «девчонка» is a colloquial, slightly disparaging diminutive of «девочка/девка» — "a little girl, a lass." As a taunt at a boy it stings; the narrator notes the boys eventually drop it, turning instead to pity.

Кстати, в классах он всегда стоял по учению из лучших, но никогда не был отмечен первым.  
Incidentally, in his classes he always stood among the best in his studies, but was never marked as the first.
> Periphrastic passive + instrumental: «был отмечен» is the periphrastic passive: «быть» plus the short past passive participle «отмечен» (marked, from perfective «отметить»). The predicate «первым» is instrumental — never "marked as first."

Когда умер Ефим Петрович, Алеша два года еще пробыл в губернской гимназии.  
When Yefim Petrovich died, Alyosha spent two more years at the provincial high school.
> Two perfectives sequencing events: Both «умер» (died) and «пробыл» (spent/remained for a time) are perfective past, moving the narrative forward as single completed events. «пробыть» with the prefix «про-» specifically means to spend a stretch of time through to its end — "two more years."

Неутешная супруга Ефима Петровича, почти тотчас же по смерти его, отправилась на долгий срок в Италию со всем семейством, состоявшим всё из особ женского пола, а Алеша попал в дом к каким-то двум дамам, которых он прежде никогда и не видывал, каким-то дальним родственницам Ефима Петровича, но на каких условиях, он сам того не знал.  
The inconsolable widow of Yefim Petrovich, almost immediately after his death, set off for a long stay in Italy with her whole family, which consisted entirely of persons of the female sex, while Alyosha ended up in the house of two ladies he had never even seen before, some distant relatives of Yefim Petrovich's, though on what terms he himself did not know.
> Past active participle agreeing in instrumental: «состоявшим» is the past active participle of «состоять» (to consist), in the neuter instrumental to agree with «семейством» (with her family, which consisted…). «из особ» takes the genitive plural after «из»; «особа» is a slightly formal word for a person/female personage.
> Iterative «видывал» under negation: «видывал» is an iterative (frequentative) imperfective of «видеть» — "used (ever) to see," common in 19th-century prose for habitual past. Negated with «никогда и не», it means "had never once even seen," and the animate relative «которых» is accusative=genitive.

Характерная тоже, и даже очень, черта его была в том, что он никогда не заботился, на чьи средства живет.  
It was a characteristic trait of his too—and very much so—that he never troubled himself about whose means he was living on.
> Negative concord + interrogative «чей»: «никогда… не заботился» gives the doubled negation ("never troubled himself"); «заботиться» is a «-ся» verb. The embedded question uses the possessive interrogative «чей» in «на чьи средства» — "on whose means."

В этом он был совершенная противоположность своему старшему брату, Ивану Федоровичу, пробедствовавшему два первые года в университете, кормя себя своим трудом, и с самого детства горько почувствовавшему, что живет он на чужих хлебах у благодетеля.  
In this he was the perfect opposite of his elder brother, Ivan Fyodorovich, who had struggled through his first two years at the university supporting himself by his own labor, and who had from his very childhood felt bitterly that he was living on the bread of a benefactor.
> Dative governed by "opposite of": «противоположность» (the opposite) governs the dative of what one is opposite to — «своему старшему брату» (to his elder brother). The reflexive possessive «свой» ties the brother to the subject Alyosha; «Ивану Фёдоровичу» is the respectful name-and-patronymic in the dative.
> Participle + gerund + reflexive «себя»: «пробедствовавшему» is a past active participle (dative, agreeing with «брату») of «пробедствовать» — "who had struggled in poverty through" his first years. «кормя себя» is a present gerund with the reflexive object «себя» — "feeding himself by his own labour."
> «на чужих хлебах» — living on another's bread: A set idiom: «жить на чужих хлебах» means to live at someone else's expense, as a dependent. «чужой» (another's, alien) sharpens the shame Ivan feels — he is fed on bread not his own, the very lot Fyodor Pavlovich once knew as a hanger-on.

Но эту странную черту в характере Алексея, кажется, нельзя было осудить очень строго, потому что всякий чуть-чуть лишь узнавший его тотчас, при возникшем на этот счет вопросе, становился уверен, что Алексей непременно из таких юношей вроде как бы юродивых, которому попади вдруг хотя бы даже целый капитал, то он не затруднится отдать его, по первому даже спросу, или на доброе дело, или, может быть, даже просто ловкому пройдохе, если бы тот у него попросил.  
But this strange trait in Alexei's character could hardly, it seems, be judged very severely, because anyone who came to know him even the slightest bit became at once convinced, the moment the question arose, that Alexei was undoubtedly one of those young men of the holy-fool sort, who, were a whole fortune suddenly to fall to him, would not hesitate to give it away at the very first request—either for some good cause, or perhaps even simply to a clever swindler, should the man ask him for it.
> Imperative «попади» as conditional: «попади» looks like an imperative of «попасть» but here serves as a vivid conditional: "should a whole fortune suddenly fall to him…". This imperative-for-conditional is a lively folk/colloquial turn; «которому» is the dative relative ("to whom").
> True conditional with «если бы»: The closing clause is a textbook irrealis: «если бы» + the past-form «попросил» = "if he were to ask / should he ask." «у него попросил» uses «у» + genitive for the person asked, «попросить» being the perfective "to make a request."
> «пройдоха» — a sly rogue: «пройдоха» (from «пройти», to get through/around) is a wily operator, a slippery cheat who "gets through" anywhere; «ловкий» adds "deft, smooth." The contrast is biting: Alyosha would give his fortune as readily to a swindler as to a good cause.

Да и вообще говоря, он как бы вовсе не знал цены деньгам, разумеется не в буквальном смысле говоря.  
And indeed, generally speaking, it was as if he had no notion at all of the value of money—not, of course, in the literal sense.
> Genitive object + dative "of": «не знал цены» negates the object into the genitive «цены» (the value); «деньгам» is the dative governed by «цена» ("price/value to money"). «как бы» ("as it were") and «вовсе» ("at all") soften and intensify the claim at once.

Когда ему выдавали карманные деньги, которых он сам никогда не просил, то он или по целым неделям не знал, что с ними делать, или ужасно их не берег, мигом они у него исчезали.  
When they gave him pocket money, which he himself never asked for, he would either go for whole weeks not knowing what to do with it, or be terribly careless of it, so that in a flash it vanished from his hands.
> Genitive relative under negation: The relative «которых» (referring to «деньги», money) stands in the genitive plural — partly as the object of negated «не просил», partly because «просить чего» (to ask for something abstract) regularly takes the genitive. «сам» intensifies: he himself never asked.
> Imperfective habit + «или… или»: Both «не знал» and «не берёг» (from «беречь», to take care of, guard) are imperfective past of habit — what he "would" repeatedly do. «или… или» (either… or) coordinates the two recurring outcomes.
> «мигом» — in a flash: An instrumental adverb frozen from «миг» (an instant): "in a twinkling, in a flash." Dostoevsky will repeat «мигом» insistently in Miüsov's aphorism a few lines on; its first appearance here quietly prepares that drumbeat.

Петр Александрович Миусов, человек насчет денег и буржуазной честности весьма щекотливый, раз, впоследствии, приглядевшись к Алексею, произнес о нем следующий афоризм: «Вот, может быть, единственный человек в мире, которого оставьте вы вдруг одного и без денег на площади незнакомого в миллион жителей города, и он ни за что не погибнет и не умрет с голоду и холоду, потому что его мигом накормят, мигом пристроят, а если не пристроят, то он сам мигом пристроится, и это не будет стоить ему никаких усилий и никакого унижения, а пристроившему никакой тягости, а, может быть, напротив, почтут за удовольствие».  
Pyotr Alexandrovich Miüsov, a man exceedingly punctilious on the score of money and bourgeois honesty, once, later on, having observed Alexei closely, pronounced about him the following aphorism: "Here, perhaps, is the one man in the world whom you could suddenly leave alone and penniless in the square of an unknown city of a million inhabitants, and who would not for anything perish or die of hunger and cold, because in a flash he would be fed, in a flash he would be taken in, and if he were not taken in, then in a flash he would settle himself in, and this would cost him no effort and no humiliation whatever, and the one who took him in no burden at all—on the contrary, they might well count it a pleasure."
> Gerund of prior action + dative after «приглядеться»: «приглядевшись» is the perfective past gerund of «приглядеться к» (to look closely at, get a good look at), which governs the dative «к Алексею». "Having observed Alexei closely, he pronounced…" — the gerund marks the completed prior act.
> Imperative «оставьте» inside a relative clause: Within Miüsov's aphorism the relative «которого» is followed by a vivid 2nd-person imperative «оставьте» (leave!), a rhetorical "suppose you leave him…". «без денег» takes the genitive after «без»; «одного» is the animate accusative of «один» agreeing with «которого».
> Perfective futures + indefinite-subject "they": A run of perfective futures: «не погибнет, не умрёт» (will not perish/die) and «накормят, пристроят» (will feed, will take in). The plural verbs «накормят/пристроят» have no stated subject — the indefinite "they," Russian's standard impersonal "one would feed him."
> Substantivized participle + genitive of negation: «пристроившему» is a past active participle of «пристроить» used as a noun in the dative — "to the one who took him in." «никакой тягости» is genitive after the implied «не было» (no burden whatever), the negation pulling «тягость» into the genitive.

В гимназии своей он курса не кончил; ему оставался еще целый год, как он вдруг объявил своим дамам, что едет к отцу по одному делу, которое взбрело ему в голову.  
He did not finish his course at his high school; he still had a whole year left when he suddenly announced to his ladies that he was going to his father about a certain matter that had taken it into his head.
> Genitive of negation + dative experiencer: «курса не кончил» negates the object «курс» into the genitive («курса»). The next clause is impersonal-experiencer: «ему оставался… год» — "there remained to him a whole year," the person in the dative, the year as nominative subject.
> «взбрести в голову» — to pop into one's head: A vivid idiom: «взбрести (кому) в голову» means an idea "wanders / climbs into one's head" — a whim seizing one suddenly. «взбрести» is a quirky perfective of «брести» (to plod, wander), used almost only in this expression.

Те очень жалели его и не хотели было пускать.  
They were very sorry for him and did not at first want to let him go.
> The particle «было» of the abandoned action: «было» here is not the past of «быть» but the special particle marking an action begun or intended, then checked or reversed: "were about to / did not at first want to let him go." It signals that the ladies' reluctance came to nothing.

Проезд стоил очень недорого, и дамы не позволили ему заложить свои часы — подарок семейства благодетеля пред отъездом за границу, а роскошно снабдили его средствами, даже новым платьем и бельем.  
The fare was very cheap, and the ladies would not let him pawn his watch—a gift from the benefactor's family before their departure abroad—but lavishly supplied him with means, even with new clothes and linen.
> Dative person + reflexive «свои»: «позволить кому что сделать» takes the dative of the person — «ему» (to let him). «свои часы» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» agreeing with the plurale tantum «часы» (watch/clock), referring back to its owner Alyosha.
> Contrastive «а» + instrumental of means: «а» is the mild contrastive "but/and" pivoting from what they refused to what they did. «снабдить кого чем» governs the instrumental: «средствами… платьем и бельём» — they supplied him "with means, clothes, and linen."

Он, однако, отдал им половину денег назад, объявив, что непременно хочет сидеть в третьем классе.  
He, however, gave half the money back to them, declaring that he absolutely wished to travel third class.
> Dative recipient + perfective gerund: «отдал им» — the recipient «им» (to them) in the dative, the standard indirect-object case with «отдать» (to give back). «объявив» is the perfective gerund of «объявить» ("declaring / having declared"), tacking his stated reason onto the act.

Приехав в наш городок, он на первые расспросы родителя: «Зачем именно пожаловал, не докончив курса?» — прямо ничего не ответил, а был, как говорят, не по-обыкновенному задумчив.  
On arriving in our little town, to his parent's first questions—"Why exactly have you turned up before finishing your course?"—he gave no direct answer at all, but was, as they say, uncommonly pensive.
> Gerund + the diminutive «городок»: «Приехав» is the perfective past gerund of «приехать» (to arrive by vehicle), a prefixed verb of motion — "on arriving." «городок» is the affectionate diminutive of «город», the narrator's fond "our little town."
> «пожаловать» — to deign to come (here ironic): «пожаловать» is an old, ceremonious verb for arriving or being so good as to come. In the father's mouth — «Зачем именно пожаловал?» — it drips mock-courtly irony: "why exactly have you graced us?"

Вскоре обнаружилось, что он разыскивает могилу своей матери.  
Soon it came to light that he was searching for his mother's grave.
> Reflexive «обнаружилось» + reported (relative) present: «обнаружилось» is the «-ся» middle of «обнаружить» — "it came to light / revealed itself," with the «что»-clause as its logical subject. Inside, «разыскивает» is imperfective present for an ongoing search ("was searching").

Он даже сам признался было тогда, что затем только и приехал.  
He even admitted himself at the time that he had come for that purpose alone.
> «было» again + emphatic «и»: «признался было» uses the particle «было» of the checked/qualified action — "he did admit (though only then)." In «затем только и приехал», the emphatic «и» reinforces «только»: "he had come for that alone, and nothing else."

Но вряд ли этим исчерпывалась вся причина его приезда.  
But it is unlikely that this exhausted the whole reason for his coming.
> «вряд ли» + reflexive-passive «исчерпывалась»: «вряд ли» means "hardly, scarcely (likely)" — a dubitative built on the particle «ли». «исчерпывалась» is the «-ся» passive of «исчерпывать» (to exhaust), with «этим» (instrumental, "by this") as the means — "the whole cause was hardly exhausted by this."

Всего вероятнее, что он тогда и сам не знал и не смог бы ни за что объяснить: что именно такое как бы поднялось вдруг из его души и неотразимо повлекло его на какую-то новую, неведомую, но неизбежную уже дорогу.  
Most probably he himself did not know then, and could not for anything have explained, just what it was that had as it were suddenly risen up out of his soul and irresistibly drawn him onto some new road, unknown but already inevitable.
> Conditional «не смог бы»: «не смог бы объяснить» is the conditional: perfective past «смог» plus «бы» = "could not have explained." The mobile particle «бы» leans here right after the verb, and «ни за что» (not for anything) intensifies the impossibility.
> Two perfectives for a single surge: «поднялось» (rose up, reflexive «подняться») and «повлекло» (drew, dragged) are perfective past — one welling-up and one pull, told as completed events. The neuter «что… такое» is the elusive "something" that did the rising; «как бы» keeps it half-figurative.
> A chain of bookish «не-» adjectives: «неотразимо» (irresistibly), «неведомую» (unknown, bookish for «неизвестную»), «неизбежную» (inevitable) — three elevated «не-» formations stacked for incantatory weight. «неведомый» especially belongs to the higher literary register, lending the soul's road a fated solemnity.

Федор Павлович не мог указать ему, где похоронил свою вторую супругу, потому что никогда не бывал на ее могиле, после того как засыпали гроб, а за давностью лет и совсем запамятовал, где ее тогда хоронили…  
Fyodor Pavlovich could not point out to him where he had buried his second wife, because he had never once visited her grave after the coffin was covered over, and with the passage of years had quite forgotten where they had buried her then…
> Dative + reflexive «свою»: «указать ему» — the dative «ему» as the person shown. «свою вторую супругу» uses reflexive «свой» ("his own second wife") and the animate accusative; «супруга» is the formal, somewhat elevated word for "spouse/wife."
> Iterative «бывал» under negation: «бывал» is the iterative imperfective of «быть» — "used to be / would visit," for repeated or habitual presence. Negated with «никогда… не», it states he had never once been there. Contrast plain «был» (was, once).
> «запамятовать» — to clean forget (archaic-folksy): «запамятовать» is an old, colloquial-bookish verb for forgetting, more flavoursome than plain «забыть» — "to have quite forgotten, to let slip from memory." Its dusty quality suits Fyodor Pavlovich's careless dismissal of where his wife lies buried.

К слову о Федоре Павловиче.  
A word about Fyodor Pavlovich.
> Verbless phrase + prepositional case: «К слову» ("by the way, while we're on the subject") opens a verbless aside. «о Фёдоре Павловиче» is the prepositional case after «о» (about), the case used only with prepositions; the patronymic «Павлович» declines along with the name.

Он долгое время пред тем прожил не в нашем городе.  
For a long time before this he had lived away from our town.
> Accusative of duration + bookish «пред тем»: «долгое время» is an accusative of duration ("for a long time"). «пред тем» is the elevated/archaic form of «перед тем» (before that); «прожил» is perfective «прожить» — to live through a span. The litotes «не в нашем городе» ("not in our town") gently means elsewhere.

Года три-четыре по смерти второй жены он отправился на юг России и под конец очутился в Одессе, где и прожил сряду несколько лет.  
Some three or four years after the death of his second wife he set off for the south of Russia and ended up at last in Odessa, where he lived for several years on end.
> Approximate number by inversion: Putting the noun «года» before the numeral «три-четыре» signals approximation — 'some three or four years' rather than an exact count. Russian routinely flips noun and numeral for this 'roughly' sense, where the plain order «три-четыре года» would state a count.
> Bookish «по» + prepositional = 'after': Here «по» governs the prepositional «смерти» in the archaic temporal sense 'after, upon' — 'after the death'. This is a literary, somewhat dated usage distinct from the everyday «после» + genitive.
> A chain of perfective events: Three perfective past verbs march the narrative forward step by step — set off, ended up, lived through. The perfective views each as a single completed whole, the engine of plot against an imperfective background.
> «сряду» — on end, in a row: A folksy adverb meaning 'consecutively, on end' (modern «подряд»). Paired with «несколько лет» it stresses unbroken duration — several years running.

Познакомился он сначала, по его собственным словам, «со многими жидами, жидками, жидишками и жиденятами», а кончил тем, что под конец даже не только у жидов, но «и у евреев был принят».  
He made acquaintance at first, in his own words, "with many Yids, little Yids, Yiddy ones, and Yiddikins," and ended by being received toward the close not only among the Yids but "among the Hebrews" as well.
> Expressive suffixes stacked for contempt: The belittling -ишк- of «жидишками» and the pejorative-young -ёнок/-ята of «жиденятами» (lit. 'Yid-cubs') show Russian's expressive suffixes used not for affection but for scorn. The suffix, not the root, carries the insult's escalation.
> «кончить тем, что…» — to end by doing: The idiom «кончить тем, что» ('to end up by [doing]') uses the instrumental «тем» as a correlative pointing forward to the «что»-clause. «был принят» is a periphrastic passive: short past passive participle plus the verb 'to be'.

Надо думать, что в этот-то период своей жизни он и развил в себе особенное уменье сколачивать и выколачивать деньгу.  
One must suppose that it was precisely in this period of his life that he developed in himself that special knack for scraping together and squeezing out money.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «этот» underlines a known, pointed topic — 'it was precisely in this period'. Unlike the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то», this clitic spotlights something already in view.
> Reflexive «себя» as object: «в себе» ('in himself') is the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional, pointing back to the clause subject. Note it is a full pronoun governed by «в», distinct from the verbal clitic -ся.
> «сколачивать / выколачивать» — to amass and to wring out: A vivid coupled idiom: «сколачивать» (lit. 'to knock together') means to scrape money into a pile, «выколачивать» ('to beat out') to extract it from others by pressure. The colloquial collective «деньгу» (sg. for 'money, dough') adds a low, grasping flavour.

Воротился он снова в наш городок окончательно всего только года за три до приезда Алеши.  
He returned for good to our little town only some three years before Alyosha's arrival.
> «городок» — our little town: The diminutive of «город» conveys not just smallness but the narrator's familiar, slightly fond tone toward 'our little town'. The possessive «наш» reinforces the intimate, local point of view.
> «за … до» — measuring time before an event: The frame «за» + accusative span + «до» + genitive event means 'so long before [an event]' — here 'three years before Alyosha's arrival'. «приезда» stands in the genitive after «до».

Прежние знакомые его нашли его страшно состарившимся, хотя был он вовсе еще не такой старик.  
His former acquaintances found him terribly aged, though he was by no means yet such an old man.
> Past active participle in the instrumental: «состарившимся» is the past active participle of the -ся verb «состариться» ('to age'), here in the instrumental because «найти кого-то каким» ('to find someone [in some state]') takes an instrumental predicate. It packs 'who had grown aged' into one agreeing word.
> Negation softened by «вовсе… не»: «вовсе не» intensifies the negation ('not at all, by no means'), and «такой» here means 'such [an old man]'. The «хотя»-clause concedes against the main clause's claim that others found him aged.

Держал же он себя не то что благороднее, а как-то нахальнее.  
He carried himself not so much more nobly as somehow more insolently.
> Particle «же» + fronted verb: The verb «держал» is fronted for emphasis and tagged with «же», which insists on a contrast with what precedes ('he carried himself, though…'). «себя» is the reflexive object: «держать себя» = to conduct oneself.
> «не то что…, а…» comparative contrast: The frame «не то что X, а Y» means 'not so much X as rather Y'. Both predicates are comparatives in -ее («благороднее» nobler, «нахальнее» more insolent), the invariable predicative comparative form.

Явилась, например, наглая потребность в прежнем шуте — других в шуты рядить.  
There appeared, for instance, in the former buffoon a brazen need to dress others up as buffoons.
> Verb-first existential word order: Beginning with the verb «Явилась» ('there appeared') and placing the subject «потребность» after it is the standard Russian way to introduce something new onto the scene — comment-then-topic, presenting fresh information.
> «рядить в шуты» — to dress others up as fools: «рядить» means to dress/deck out; «в шуты» (animate accusative plural taking the nominative-like form in this set phrase) means 'into the role of jesters'. The idiom is to make buffoons of others — a key Karamazov theme of the buffoon who shames everyone around him.

Безобразничать с женским полом любил не то что по-прежнему, а даже как бы и отвратительнее.  
Behaving disgracefully with the female sex he relished not as before, but even, as it were, more loathsomely.
> «безобразничать» — to behave outrageously: From «безобразие» ('disgrace, ugliness', lit. 'without form'), this imperfective verb means to misbehave grossly, to make a scandal. It is a defining Karamazov word — Fyodor Pavlovich's signature mode of being.
> Hedging «как бы» with a comparative: «как бы» ('as it were, kind of') softens the narrator's claim, and «отвратительнее» is again a predicative comparative ('more loathsomely'). The fronting of the infinitive «Безобразничать» topicalises the activity itself.

Вскорости он стал основателем по уезду многих новых кабаков.  
Before long he became the founder, throughout the district, of many new taverns.
> Instrumental predicate after «стать»: «стать» ('to become') takes its predicate noun in the instrumental, hence «основателем» rather than nominative «основатель». The instrumental frames the role as one newly assumed.

Видно было, что у него есть, может быть, тысяч до ста или разве немногим только менее.  
It was evident that he had, perhaps, as much as a hundred thousand, or only a little less.
> Possession with «у» + genitive: Russian expresses 'to have' as «у него есть» — literally 'by him there is'. The owner stands in the genitive after «у»; what is owned is the grammatical subject.
> «до» + genitive for an upper estimate: «до ста» means 'up to a hundred', and «тысяч» is genitive plural after the numeral — so 'up to a hundred thousand'. Putting «тысяч» first lends the approximating, guessing tone matched by «может быть».

Многие из городских и из уездных обитателей тотчас же ему задолжали, под вернейшие залоги разумеется.  
Many of the town and district inhabitants at once fell into debt to him, on the surest of securities, naturally.
> Dative of the creditor: «задолжать кому-то» ('to fall into debt to someone') puts the creditor in the dative — «ему», 'to him'. The dative marks the person toward whom the obligation runs.
> Superlative in -ейший: «вернейшие» is the bookish synthetic superlative of «верный» ('the surest'), formed with the suffix -ейш-. This single-word superlative is more elevated than the everyday «самый верный».
> «залог» — pledge, security: A «залог» is collateral pledged against a loan. The narrator's dry «разумеется» ('naturally') hints that the usurer Fyodor Pavlovich lent only against ironclad security.

В самое же последнее время он как-то обрюзг, как-то стал терять ровность, самоотчетность, впал даже в какое-то легкомыслие, начинал одно и кончал другим, как-то раскидывался и всё чаще и чаще напивался пьян, и если бы не всё тот же лакей Григорий, тоже порядочно к тому времени состарившийся и смотревший за ним иногда вроде почти гувернера, то, может быть, Федор Павлович и не прожил бы без особых хлопот.  
In the very latest period, however, he had somehow grown bloated, had somehow begun to lose his composure and self-control, had even fallen into a kind of frivolity, beginning one thing and finishing with another, somehow scattering himself, and ever more and more often drinking himself drunk; and had it not been for that same lackey Grigory—himself by then considerably aged and looking after him at times almost like a tutor—Fyodor Pavlovich might well not have gotten by without some special troubles.
> A long imperfective decline: After the perfective «обрюзг» (grew bloated, a result) the sentence shifts into imperfectives — «начинал… кончал… раскидывался… напивался» — to paint habitual, repeated dissolution rather than single events. «всё чаще и чаще» ('more and more often') reinforces the iterative reading.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: This is a contrary-to-fact conditional: «если бы не» ('had it not been for') in the protasis, and the past-tense verb plus «бы» — «не прожил бы» — in the apodosis. The doubled «бы» is the standard irrealis frame.
> Two past active participles describing Grigory: «состарившийся» (having aged) and «смотревший» (who looked after) are past active participles agreeing with «лакей Григорий», each compressing a который-clause into an adjective. Such participial pile-ups are a hallmark of Dostoevsky's long periods.

Приезд Алеши как бы подействовал на него даже с нравственной стороны, как бы что-то проснулось в этом безвременном старике из того, что давно уже заглохло в душе его: «Знаешь ли ты, — стал он часто говорить Алеше, приглядываясь к нему, — что ты на нее похож, на кликушу-то?»  
Alyosha's arrival seemed to affect him even on the moral side, as if something had awakened in this prematurely aged man out of what had long since died down in his soul: "Do you know," he took to saying often to Alyosha, peering at him, "that you resemble her, the shrieker?"
> «как бы» — 'as if' framing: Repeated «как бы» ('as if, as though') marks the narrator's tentative, hedged psychology — he will not assert outright that something awakened, only that it seemed to. This guarded interiority is typical of Dostoevsky's narration.
> Gerund of attendant action: «приглядываясь» is an imperfective present gerund ('peering at him') expressing an action simultaneous with «стал говорить» and sharing its subject. The construction «стал говорить» ('took to saying') with an imperfective infinitive names a newly habitual act.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Знаешь ли ты» fronts the verb and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to form a literary yes/no question, more formal and pointed than mere question intonation — fitting Fyodor Pavlovich's mock-solemn approach.
> «кликуша» — the shrieker: A «кликуша» was a woman subject to fits of hysterical screaming, popularly believed to be possessed and often associated with church settings. Fyodor Pavlovich's cruel pet name for Alyosha's dead mother; the «-то» clitic gives it a familiar, jabbing emphasis.

Так называл он свою покойную жену, мать Алеши.  
So he called his late wife, Alyosha's mother.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою» refers the possession back to the clause's own subject (he) — 'his own late wife'. Using «его» instead would suggest someone else's wife; «свой» keeps the reference inside the clause.
> «покойный» — the late, the deceased: The adjective «покойный» (from «покой», 'rest, peace') is the standard respectful word for a dead person — 'the late [wife]'. It contrasts pointedly with the mocking «кликуша» he uses elsewhere.

Могилку «кликуши» указал наконец Алеше лакей Григорий.  
It was the lackey Grigory who at last pointed out the "shrieker's" little grave to Alyosha.
> Object-first word order: The object «могилку» opens the sentence, throwing the new information — that it was Grigory who pointed it out — to the stressed end position. Free case endings let Russian rearrange for this topic-comment emphasis.
> «могилка» — the little grave: The diminutive of «могила» ('grave') is tender here — 'the poor little grave' — coloring the neglected resting place with pathos. Russian readily uses diminutives for the small, pitied, and beloved.

Он свел его на наше городское кладбище и там, в дальнем уголке, указал ему чугунную недорогую, но опрятную плиту, на которой была даже надпись с именем, званием, летами и годом смерти покойницы, а внизу было даже начертано нечто вроде четырехстишия из старинных, общеупотребительных на могилах среднего люда кладбищенских стихов.  
He took him to our town cemetery and there, in a far corner, showed him a cast-iron slab, inexpensive but tidy, on which there was even an inscription with the name, rank, age, and year of death of the deceased, and below it there had even been carved something like a quatrain of those old, commonly used graveyard verses for people of the middling sort.
> Instrumental of accompaniment after «с»: «с» ('with') governs the instrumental, here a list — «именем, званием, летами, годом» — all in the instrumental, naming what the inscription bore. «летами» is the old instrumental plural of «лето» used for 'years (of age)'.
> «звание» — rank, station: «звание» denotes one's official rank, title, or social estate — a marker of place in the rigid Imperial hierarchy. That a humble cast-iron slab still records it shows how rank followed a person even into death.
> «начертать» — to inscribe (elevated): «начертано» (short past passive participle of bookish «начертать», 'to inscribe, trace out') is solemnly elevated for what is carved on a gravestone. «четырехстишие» is a quatrain — four lines of the stock cemetery verse.

К удивлению, эта плита оказалась делом Григория.  
To one's surprise, this slab turned out to be Grigory's doing.
> Instrumental predicate after «оказаться»: «оказаться» ('to turn out [to be]') links its subject to a predicate in the instrumental — «делом» ('the doing/work [of]'). Like «стать» and «быть», it frames the predicate as instrumental, not nominative.

Это он сам воздвиг ее над могилкой бедной «кликуши» и на собственное иждивение, после того когда Федор Павлович, которому он множество раз уже досаждал напоминаниями об этой могилке, уехал наконец в Одессу, махнув рукой не только на могилы, но и на все свои воспоминания.  
He had set it up himself over the poor "shrieker's" little grave, and at his own expense, after Fyodor Pavlovich—whom he had pestered any number of times with reminders about this little grave—had at last gone off to Odessa, washing his hands not only of the graves but of all his memories as well.
> Topic «Это» + emphatic «сам»: Fronted «Это» and the intensifier «сам» ('himself, on his own') throw all the weight onto Grigory's agency — he, of all people, raised it. The pronoun «он» is kept though redundant, sharpening the contrast with the absent father.
> Relative «которому» in the dative: «которому» agrees with its antecedent «Федор Павлович» in gender and number but takes the dative its own clause demands, since «досаждать» ('to pester, annoy') governs the dative. The clause is fenced off by commas around the main verb «уехал».
> Perfective gerund «махнув»: «махнув» is a perfective past gerund ('having waved') sharing the subject of «уехал» and expressing a coordinate act. «махнуть рукой на что-то» is the idiom 'to give up on, wash one's hands of'.
> «иждивение» — at one's own expense: «на собственное иждивение» is a formal, bookish phrase meaning 'at his own cost, out of his own means'. Its officialese tone heightens the quiet dignity of the servant paying for his mistress's gravestone.

Алеша не выказал на могилке матери никакой особенной чувствительности; он только выслушал важный и резонный рассказ Григория о сооружении плиты, постоял понурившись и ушел, не вымолвив ни слова.  
Alyosha showed no particular feeling at his mother's little grave; he only listened to Grigory's grave and reasoned account of the setting up of the slab, stood a while with bowed head, and went away without uttering a word.
> Genitive of negation with «никакой»: Under negation the object shifts to the genitive — «никакой … чувствительности» rather than accusative — and negative concord requires «никакой» ('no… whatever') alongside the «не» on the verb. Two negatives, one meaning.
> Perfective verbs framing two gerunds: A run of perfective verbs (heard out, stood, went away) is laced with gerunds: «понурившись» (having bowed his head) and the negated «не вымолвив ни слова» (without uttering a word). The gerunds add the manner; «ни слова» is genitive of negation.
> «резонный» — reasoned, sensible: From French raison, «резонный» means 'reasonable, well-grounded'. Applied to Grigory's «важный и резонный рассказ» it marks his account as weighty and sober — the servant speaks with grave good sense.

С тех пор, может быть даже во весь год, и не бывал на кладбище.  
After that, perhaps for the whole year even, he did not once visit the cemetery.
> Iterative «бывать» under negation: «бывал» is the iterative-imperfective of «быть» ('to be [repeatedly], to frequent'); negated, «не бывал» means 'did not [ever] go, was never there' across the whole stretch of time. The subject is dropped — recoverable from context as Alyosha.

Но на Федора Павловича этот маленький эпизод тоже произвел свое действие, и очень оригинальное.  
But upon Fyodor Pavlovich this little episode too produced its effect, and a very original one.
> «произвести действие на» + accusative: «произвести действие на кого-то» ('to have an effect on someone') puts the affected party in the accusative after «на» (motion/direction sense). «свое» is the reflexive possessive — its own effect.

Он вдруг взял тысячу рублей и свез ее в наш монастырь на помин души своей супруги, но не второй, не матери Алеши, не «кликуши», а первой, Аделаиды Ивановны, которая колотила его.  
He suddenly took a thousand rubles and carried it off to our monastery for the repose of his wife's soul—not the second one, not Alyosha's mother, not the "shrieker," but the first, Adelaida Ivanovna, the one who used to beat him.
> Numeral phrase and a feminine pronoun: «тысячу рублей»: «тысячу» is accusative, «рублей» genitive plural after the high numeral. The pronoun «ее» then refers back to feminine «тысяча» — 'carried it (the thousand) off'.
> Relative «которая» + imperfective of habit: «которая» agrees with feminine «Аделаида Ивановна» as subject of its clause; the imperfective past «колотила» ('used to beat') names a repeated, habitual action — she would thrash him regularly.

Ввечеру того дня он напился пьян и ругал Алеше монахов.  
That evening he drank himself drunk and abused the monks to Alyosha.
> «ввечеру» — toward evening (archaic): A fused, archaic-poetic adverb 'in the evening, toward evening' (modern «вечером»). The old form lends a faintly literary, period cadence to the line.
> Dative of the addressee with «ругать»: Unusually, «ругал монахов» (accusative object, 'abused the monks') is paired with the dative «Алеше» — the one to whom he ranted. The dative marks the listener at whom the tirade is directed.

Сам он был далеко не из религиозных людей; человек никогда, может быть, пятикопеечной свечки не поставил пред образом.  
He himself was far from being among religious people; the man had perhaps never set so much as a five-kopeck candle before an icon.
> «из» + genitive for 'among/one of': «из религиозных людей» ('of/among religious people') uses «из» + genitive plural to assign him to a class, here denied: «далеко не» means 'far from'. The zero-copula present ('он [был] не из…') leans on the past «был».
> Genitive of negation, object «свечки»: The would-be object «свечку» appears as genitive «свечки» under negation, with «никогда» reinforcing via negative concord — 'never set so much as a candle'. The perfective «не поставил» denies a single completed act.

Странные порывы внезапных чувств и внезапных мыслей бывают у этаких субъектов.  
Strange impulses of sudden feelings and sudden thoughts do come over such types.
> Iterative «бывают» of general truth: «бывают» (iterative present of «быть») states a general fact — such impulses 'do happen, do come over' such types. Possession is again framed with «у» + genitive «субъектов».
> «этакий» and «субъект» — colloquial scorn: «этакий» is a folksy, slightly contemptuous 'such, that sort of' (vs neutral «такой»), and «субъект» here means 'character, type, specimen' with a dismissive edge. Together they generalise Fyodor Pavlovich into a recognisable low type.

Я уже говорил, что он очень обрюзг.  
I have already said that he had grown very bloated.
> «обрюзгнуть» — to grow bloated and flabby: The perfective «обрюзг» (past of «обрюзгнуть») describes a face and body grown puffy, sagging, dissipated. The narrator's repetition — 'I have already said he had grown very bloated' — fixes it as the keynote of the physical portrait that follows.

Физиономия его представляла к тому времени что-то резко свидетельствовавшее о характеристике и сущности всей прожитой им жизни.  
His physiognomy by that time presented something that bore sharp witness to the character and essence of the whole life he had lived through.
> Past active participle modifying «что-то»: «свидетельствовавшее» is a past active participle ('that bore witness'), neuter to agree with «что-то», compressing a relative clause into a modifier. «свидетельствовать о чём» governs the prepositional («о характеристике и сущности»).
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «прожитой» is a past passive participle ('lived-through'), and the agent appears in the instrumental «им» ('by him') — 'the whole life lived through by him'. Naming the agent in the instrumental is the standard pattern with passive participles.

Кроме длинных и мясистых мешочков под маленькими его глазами, вечно наглыми, подозрительными и насмешливыми, кроме множества глубоких морщинок на его маленьком, но жирненьком личике, к острому подбородку его подвешивался еще большой кадык, мясистый и продолговатый, как кошелек, что придавало ему какой-то отвратительно сладострастный вид.  
Besides the long, fleshy pouches under his small eyes—forever insolent, suspicious, and mocking—and besides the multitude of deep little wrinkles on his small but plump little face, there hung from his sharp chin a large Adam's apple, fleshy and elongated like a purse, which lent him a kind of repulsively voluptuous look.
> Fronted «кроме»-phrases delaying the subject: Two heavy «кроме … » ('besides…') genitive phrases load the front of the sentence before the main clause finally arrives at «подвешивался … кадык». This deliberate suspension and inverted weight is signature 19th-century literary syntax.
> A cluster of diminutives: «мешочки» (little pouches), «морщинки» (little wrinkles), and especially «жирненькое личико» ('plump little face') stack diminutives whose effect here is not endearment but grotesque, almost mocking miniaturisation of a repellent face.
> Middle -ся verb: «подвешивался» (imperfective with the -ся clitic) here is intransitive/middle — the Adam's apple 'hung, dangled' rather than was actively hung by anyone. The -ся turns a transitive 'hang [something]' into a state of the subject.
> «кадык» like a purse: «кадык» is the Adam's apple; the simile 'fleshy and elongated like a purse' («кошелёк») fuses the bodily and the monetary — appropriate to this money-grubbing man, and capped by the oxymoron «отвратительно сладострастный» (repulsively voluptuous).

Прибавьте к тому плотоядный, длинный рот, с пухлыми губами, из-под которых виднелись маленькие обломки черных, почти истлевших зубов.  
Add to that a carnivorous, long mouth, with plump lips, from beneath which showed little stumps of black, almost decayed teeth.
> Imperative addressing the reader: «Прибавьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «прибавить» ('to add'), the narrator inviting the reader to 'add to that…'. Direct address to the reader is a recurring device of this chatty, intrusive narrator.
> Compound preposition «из-под» + relative: «из-под» ('from under') is a compound preposition governing the genitive «которых», a relative pronoun pointing back to the lips. «виднелись» is a middle -ся verb, 'showed, were visible'.
> «плотоядный» — carnivorous, fleshly: Literally 'flesh-eating', «плотоядный» applied to a mouth is bookish and loaded — suggesting both predatory appetite and «плоть» (the flesh, sensuality). It keys the whole portrait of fleshly corruption.

Он брызгался слюной каждый раз, когда начинал говорить.  
He sprayed saliva every time he began to speak.
> -ся verb + instrumental of means: «брызгаться» (with -ся, 'to spray, splatter') takes the instrumental «слюной» ('with saliva') for what is sprayed. The -ся here gives an intransitive, habitual 'he sprayed [spittle about]'.
> Imperfective for repeated occasion: «каждый раз, когда» ('every time that') with the imperfective «начинал говорить» frames a habitual, recurring situation — each time he began to speak. Imperfective is obligatory for such iteration.

Впрочем, и сам он любил шутить над своим лицом, хотя, кажется, оставался им доволен.  
He himself, however, liked to make jokes about his own face, though, it seems, he remained pleased with it.
> Short adjective + instrumental complement: «доволен» is the short (predicative) form of «довольный» ('pleased'), and «доволен чем» governs the instrumental «им» ('with it'). Short adjectives appear only as predicates and carry a bookish, stative flavour.
> Concessive hedging: «Впрочем» ('however, then again') and «хотя… кажется» ('though, it seems') stack the narrator's qualifications, the conversational backtracking that gives this voice its garrulous, self-correcting texture.

Особенно указывал он на свой нос, не очень большой, но очень тонкий, с сильно выдающеюся горбиной: «Настоящий римский, — говорил он, — вместе с кадыком настоящая физиономия древнего римского патриция времен упадка».  
He pointed in particular to his nose, not very large but very thin, with a strongly protruding hump: "A genuine Roman one," he would say, "together with the Adam's apple, the very physiognomy of an ancient Roman patrician of the age of decline."
> Present active participle in old instrumental: «выдающеюся» is the present active participle of «выдаваться» ('to protrude'), agreeing with feminine «горбиной» in the instrumental after «с». The ending «-еюся» is the older/longer instrumental feminine form, common in 19th-c. prose for modern «-ейся».
> Imperfective «говорил» for a repeated saying: Inside the quotation frame «говорил он» the imperfective marks this as something he 'would say' habitually, not once — consistent with «стал часто говорить» earlier. The inverted verb-subject order is the standard quotative tag.

Этим он, кажется, гордился.  
Of this, it seems, he was proud.
> Instrumental object of «гордиться»: «гордиться» ('to be proud of') is a -ся verb that governs the instrumental — «этим» ('of this'). Fronting «Этим» makes the object the topic, the new comment being his pride.

И вот довольно скоро после обретения могилы матери Алеша вдруг объявил ему, что хочет поступить в монастырь и что монахи готовы допустить его послушником.  
And so, fairly soon after the finding of his mother's grave, Alyosha suddenly announced to him that he wished to enter the monastery and that the monks were ready to admit him as a novice.
> Reported speech with «что»: Two parallel «что»-clauses report Alyosha's announcement as plain fact ('that he wished… and that the monks were ready…'). «что» introduces a stated fact, in contrast to the willed «чтобы».
> Instrumental of role: «допустить кого послушником» ('to admit someone as a novice') puts the role «послушником» in the instrumental — the case for capacities and roles one is admitted to or takes on.

Он объяснил при этом, что это чрезвычайное желание его и что испрашивает он у него торжественное позволение как у отца.  
He explained, moreover, that this was his extraordinary wish, and that he was begging of him, as of a father, his solemn permission.
> «у» + genitive for the source of a request: «испрашивать у кого» ('to beg/request of someone') marks the person asked with «у» + genitive — «у него… как у отца» ('of him… as of a father'). The bookish «испрашивает» heightens the solemnity of the petition.
> «испрашивать» — to petition humbly: A formal, elevated verb for requesting permission of a superior, with a churchly-bureaucratic ring. Its solemnity matches Alyosha's «торжественное позволение» — a 'solemn permission' sought 'as of a father'.

Старик уже знал, что старец Зосима, спасавшийся в монастырском ските, произвел на его «тихого мальчика» особенное впечатление.  
The old man already knew that the elder Zosima, living in salvation in the monastery hermitage, had made a particular impression on his "quiet boy."
> Past active participle of an -ся verb: «спасавшийся» is the past-imperfective active participle of «спасаться» ('to be working out one's salvation, to live ascetically'), agreeing with «старец Зосима». It folds 'who was living in salvation' into one modifier.
> Animate accusative after «на»: «произвести впечатление на кого» ('to make an impression on someone') takes «на» + accusative; «тихого мальчика» shows animate masculine accusative borrowing the genitive ending («-ого»). The phrase is Fyodor Pavlovich's own pet name for Alyosha, in quotation marks.

— Этот старец, конечно, у них самый честный монах, — промолвил он, молчаливо и вдумчиво выслушав Алешу, почти совсем, однако, не удивившись его просьбе.  
"That elder is of course the most honest monk among them," he pronounced, having heard Alyosha out silently and thoughtfully, yet almost without being at all surprised at his request.
> Two perfective gerunds: «выслушав» (having heard out) and the negated «не удивившись» (without being surprised) are perfective past gerunds sharing the subject 'he', framing the manner of his pronouncement. «удивиться чему» governs the dative «просьбе».
> «промолвить» — to utter: «промолвил» (perfective) is a slightly bookish, deliberate verb of speaking — 'pronounced, let fall a word'. It lends weight to Fyodor Pavlovich's pause-laden, half-drunk delivery.

— Гм, так ты вот куда хочешь, мой тихий мальчик!  
"Hm, so that's where you want to go, my quiet boy!"
> «вот куда» — directional emphasis: «куда» ('to where, whither') fronted with the deictic «вот» ('so that's where…') captures spoken surprise. The infinitive after «хочешь» is left unspoken — 'so that's where you want [to go]' — a natural conversational ellipsis.
> Address by possessive + epithet: The vocative-like address «мой тихий мальчик» ('my quiet boy') uses the nominative for direct address (modern Russian has no full vocative case). It is half-tender, half-mocking, the father's recurring tag for Alyosha.

— Он был вполпьяна и вдруг улыбнулся своею длинною, полупьяною, но не лишенною хитрости и пьяного лукавства улыбкою.  
He was half-drunk and suddenly smiled his long, half-drunken smile, not devoid, however, of cunning and tipsy slyness.
> «вполпьяна» — half-drunk: A fused, colloquial adverb 'half-drunk' (в + пол- + пьяна), here standing as a predicate after «был». Russian builds many such в-prefixed adverbs of degree and manner; this one sets the tone for the whole tipsy scene.
> Cognate instrumental, archaic ending: «улыбнулся… улыбкою» pairs the verb with its cognate noun in the instrumental ('smiled his… smile'), a figura etymologica. The ending «-ою» (for «-ой») is the older long instrumental feminine, common in literary 19th-c. prose. «не лишенною» is the LONG (full) form of the past passive participle «лишённый», instrumental feminine, agreeing attributively with «улыбкою»; its genitive complement is «хитрости».
> «лукавство» — slyness, guile: «лукавство» (slyness, cunning) carries a faint biblical shadow — «лукавый» is 'the Evil One' in the Lord's Prayer. Coupling it with «хитрость» paints the drunken smile as knowingly, almost diabolically sly.

— Гм, а ведь я так и предчувствовал, что ты чем-нибудь вот этаким кончишь, можешь это себе представить?  
"Hm, and you know, I had a presentiment that you would end up with something just like this—can you imagine that?"
> Particles «ведь» and «так и»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('you know, after all'); «так и» reinforces that the thing happened just as expected ('I just knew it, I had a regular presentiment'). These tiny modal words carry the speaker's whole attitude.
> Non-specific «-нибудь» + perfective future: «чем-нибудь» ('with something or other') is the non-specific indefinite — any such thing, unspecified. «кончишь» is a perfective verb in present-form endings, hence future: 'you will end up'.

Ты именно туда норовил.  
"That was precisely where you were headed."
> «норовить» — to be bent on, aim for: «норовить» (imperfective) means to keep striving or angling toward something, often with a sly or stubborn determination. «Ты именно туда норовил» — 'that's exactly where you were always angling to go'. «именно» ('precisely') sharpens the point.

Ну что ж, пожалуй, у тебя же есть свои две тысчоночки, вот тебе и приданое, а я тебя, мой ангел, никогда не оставлю, да и теперь внесу за тебя что там следует, если спросят.  
"Well, why not—you do have your own two little thousands, there's a dowry for you, and I, my angel, will never abandon you; and I'll pay in for you now whatever's due there, if they ask."
> Possession, particle «же», numeral phrase: «у тебя есть» frames possession with «у» + genitive; «же» insists ('you do have'). «две … тысчоночки» takes the genitive-singular-like «тысчоночки» after «две» — and the playful diminutive «тысчоночка» (for «тысяча») makes the sum sound cosy and small.
> Perfective future under negation: «не оставлю» is the perfective future of «оставить» negated ('I will never abandon'), with «никогда» giving negative concord. The simple future sits in the ending, no auxiliary needed.
> «приданое» — a dowry: A «приданое» is the dowry a bride brings to marriage. Fyodor Pavlovich's grotesque joke casts Alyosha's little nest-egg as a 'dowry' for his betrothal to the monastery — sacred vocation reduced to a transaction.

Ну, а если не спросят, к чему нам навязываться, не так ли?  
"And, well, if they don't ask, why should we go thrusting it on them, eh?"
> Dative subject in an impersonal question: «к чему нам навязываться» ('why should we go thrusting [it] on them') has no nominative subject: «нам» is the dative experiencer and «навязываться» an infinitive. The -ся on «навязываться» gives 'to impose oneself, foist oneself'.
> Tag question with «ли»: «не так ли» ('isn't that so? eh?') is a fixed tag built on the interrogative particle «ли», inviting the listener's agreement. It is markedly conversational and coaxing.

Ведь ты денег, что канарейка, тратишь, по два зернышка в недельку…  
"After all, you spend money like a canary, two little grains a week…"
> Appeal-particle «ведь» + genitive object: «Ведь» ('after all, you see') opens with an appeal to shared understanding. «денег» (genitive) is partitive after «тратишь» ('spend some money') — money spent in indefinite quantity takes the genitive.
> «как канарейка» + diminutives of pittance: Here «что» = «как» ('like'), in a folksy simile: you spend money like a canary, 'two little grains a week'. The diminutives «зёрнышко» (tiny grain) and «неделька» (little week) make the sum touchingly trifling — affectionate mockery of Alyosha's frugality.

Гм.  
"Hm."

Знаешь, в одном монастыре есть одна подгородная слободка, и уж всем там известно, что в ней одни только «монастырские жены» живут, так их там называют, штук тридцать жен, я думаю…  
"You know, by one monastery there's a little settlement just outside the town, and everyone there knows that only the 'monastery wives' live in it—that's what they're called there—some thirty wives, I should think…"
> Short adjective predicate + «что»-clause: «известно» is the short neuter form of «известный» ('known'), used impersonally with a dative-ish 'to all' («всем») and a «что»-clause as logical subject — 'it is known to everyone that…'. Short forms are the norm in such impersonal predicates.
> «слободка» and the 'monastery wives': A «слобода/слободка» was a settlement just outside a town, often of a particular trade or class. The euphemism «монастырские жены» ('monastery wives') — women of easy virtue clustered near a monastery — is the old man's leering joke, marked off in quotation marks.
> Approximating «штук» + inverted numeral: «штук» (lit. 'pieces', genitive plural) is a coarse counter for objects (and here, crudely, for people), and putting it before «тридцать» signals approximation — 'some thirty or so wives'. «жен» is genitive plural after the numeral.

Я там был, и, знаешь, интересно, в своем роде разумеется, в смысле разнообразия.  
"I've been there, and, you know, it's interesting—in its own way, of course, in the sense of variety."
> Impersonal predicate «интересно»: «интересно» ('it's interesting') is an invariable neuter predicative used impersonally, with no subject. The interjected «знаешь» ('you know') is buttonholing filler — the rambling, confiding voice of a half-drunk talker.

Скверно тем только, что русизм ужасный, француженок совсем еще нет, а могли бы быть, средства знатные.  
"The only bad thing is that the Russianness is dreadful—there aren't any Frenchwomen at all yet, though there might well be, the means are handsome."
> Conditional «бы» — 'there could be': «могли бы быть» (past «могли» + «бы» + infinitive) is the irrealis: 'there might / could well be [Frenchwomen]'. The mobile «бы» here leans on the modal verb to mark the unrealised possibility.
> «русизм» and «знатные средства»: His mock-connoisseur complaint: «русизм» here is a jocular coinage for oppressive 'Russianness', and «средства знатные» means the 'means/resources are splendid' («знатный» colloquially = excellent, considerable). Crude libertine bravado dressed as cosmopolitan taste.

Проведают — приедут.  
"Once they get wind of it, they'll come."
> Asyndetic perfective futures: Two bare perfective verbs in future meaning, set side by side with no conjunction: «Проведают — приедут» ('[once they] get wind of it — they'll come'). The juxtaposition itself carries a conditional 'if/when… then…' sense, terse and colloquial.

Ну, а здесь ничего, здесь нет монастырских жен, а монахов штук двести.  
"Well, but here it's nothing of the sort—there are no monastery wives here, but a couple of hundred monks."
> «нет» + genitive of absence: «нет» (there is not) obligatorily takes the genitive for what is absent — «монастырских жен» (genitive plural). This genitive of negation is the standard way to deny existence.
> Approximate count, again with «штук»: Mirroring the 'thirty wives', he counts monks crudely too: «штук двести» ('a couple of hundred, give or take'), «монахов» genitive plural after the high numeral. The parallel coarse counter equates monks and prostitutes — his blasphemous joke.

Честно.  
"Honest fellows."

Постники.  
"Fasters."
> «постник» — a faster: A «постник» is one who keeps the fasts — from «пост», the Orthodox fast. As a one-word, grudging concession ('Fasters.'), it acknowledges the monks' ascetic discipline even as Fyodor Pavlovich mocks them.

Сознаюсь…  
"I'll grant that…"
> Middle/reflexive «-ся» verb: «сознаюсь» ('I admit, I confess') is a -ся verb (here -сь after a vowel) with no separate object — the clitic makes it intransitive 'to own up'. The trailing ellipsis leaves the confession dangling, a drunken half-thought.

Гм.  
"Hm."

Так ты к монахам хочешь?  
"So you want to join the monks?"
> «к» + dative of destination (to people): «к монахам» ('to [join] the monks') uses «к» + dative, the case for motion toward a person or group. The infinitive 'to go/join' is again dropped after «хочешь» — colloquial ellipsis.

А ведь мне тебя жаль, Алеша, воистину, веришь ли, я тебя полюбил…  
"And yet I'm sorry for you, Alyosha, truly—will you believe it, I've come to love you…"
> Dative-subject construction «мне жаль»: «мне тебя жаль» is impersonal: «мне» (dative) is the one feeling, «жаль» an invariable predicative ('it is a pity'), and «тебя» (genitive/accusative) the object pitied. There is no nominative — a textbook dative-experiencer pattern.
> Inceptive perfective «полюбил»: The prefix по- on «любить» gives the perfective «полюбить» — to come to love, to begin loving (an inceptive sense). So «я тебя полюбил» = 'I have grown to love you', a completed entering-into-love, not mere 'I loved'. «веришь ли» is the «ли» question again.
> «воистину» — verily, truly: «воистину» is a solemn, Church-Slavonic-flavoured 'verily, in truth' — famous from the Paschal greeting «Воистину воскресе» ('Truly He is risen'). In the mouth of the scoffing father it rings with mock-pious gravity.

Впрочем, вот и удобный случай: помолишься за нас, грешных, слишком мы уж, сидя здесь, нагрешили.  
"Still, here's a convenient occasion: you'll pray for us sinners—too much we have sinned, sitting here."
> Future perfective + «за» of intercession: «помолишься» is perfective future ('you'll pray'); «за нас» ('for us') uses «за» + accusative for the persons interceded for. «грешных» ('us sinners') is in apposition, an animate accusative borrowing the genitive form.
> Particle «уж» + intensive prefix на-: «уж» (a worn form of «уже») here intensifies rather than means 'already' — 'we've sinned too much, really'. «нагрешили» uses the accumulative prefix на- on «грешить»: to have committed a heap of sins. Fronting «слишком» throws the emphasis on excess.

Я всё помышлял о том: кто это за меня когда-нибудь помолится?  
"I've kept brooding on this: who is it that will ever pray for me?"
> Correlative «о том» + embedded question: «помышлял о том» ('kept brooding on this') sets up the correlative «о том» (prepositional after «о») pointing forward to the embedded question «кто… помолится». «кто» is the interrogative; «помолится» perfective future.
> «помышлять» — to muse, ponder: «помышлять» (imperfective) is a somewhat elevated, bookish 'to think on, contemplate, brood', weightier than plain «думать». It suits a sudden moment of genuine, uncharacteristic gravity in the buffoon.

Есть ли в свете такой человек?  
"Is there such a person anywhere in the world?"
> Existential question with «ли»: «Есть ли… такой человек?» ('Is there such a person?') fronts «есть» and tags «ли» for a literary yes/no existential question. The sentence-initial existential «есть» asks after bare existence.
> «свет» — the world: «свет» here means 'the world, this earthly life' (cf. «на этом свете», 'in this world') rather than 'light'. The prepositional «в свете» asks whether anywhere in the whole world such a person exists.

Милый ты мальчик, я ведь на этот счет ужасно как глуп, ты, может быть, не веришь?  
"My dear boy, you see, on that score I'm terribly stupid—perhaps you don't believe it?"
> Pronoun woven into the address: Inserting «ты» between adjective and noun — «Милый ты мальчик» ('you dear boy') — is a warm, intimate spoken pattern of direct address, the nominative serving for the lost vocative. It conveys genuine, if fleeting, tenderness.
> Short adjective «глуп» + «ведь» + «ужасно как»: «глуп» is the short predicative form of «глупый» ('stupid'), stating a frank self-assessment. «ведь» appeals to the listener ('you see'), and «ужасно как» ('terribly, awfully') is a colloquial intensifier — 'I'm terribly stupid on that score'.
> Statement-as-question, dropped pronoun norm: The tag «может быть, не веришь?» turns an assertion into a tentative question by intonation alone (no «ли» here), with «ты» kept for the personal appeal. Coupled with «ведь» it begs Alyosha's belief — the buffoon suddenly afraid he won't be taken seriously.

Ужасно.  
It is dreadful.
> A one-word impersonal predicate: «Ужасно» here is not the adverb 'horribly' modifying a verb but a neuter predicative — an impersonal 'it is dreadful', with no nominative subject and the copula 'to be' left silent in the present. Such bare evaluative words («страшно», «стыдно», «холодно») are the heart of Russian's subjectless inner-state syntax.

Видишь ли: я об этом, как ни глуп, а всё думаю, всё думаю, изредка, разумеется, не всё же ведь.  
You see: stupid as I am, I keep thinking about it, keep thinking, now and then, of course — not all the time, mind you.
> «ли» softening a conversational opener: «Видишь ли» — 'you see, you understand' — uses the enclitic «ли» after the focused verb not as a true yes/no question but as a buttonholing discourse hinge, drawing the listener in. It is a hallmark of the confiding, performative speech Dostoevsky gives Fyodor.
> Concessive «как ни» — 'however stupid I am': «как ни глуп» packs a concession into three words: 'no matter how stupid (I am)'. The «ни» here is not negation proper but the concessive intensifier that pairs with question-words («как ни», «что ни», «кто ни») to mean 'however / whatever'. «глуп» is a bare short-form adjective serving as predicate.
> Imperfective «думаю» for habitual brooding: The imperfective present «думаю», doubled and reinforced by «всё» ('keep on, all the time'), paints thought as an ongoing, repeated process rather than a finished act — exactly the obsessive churning Fyodor describes. The repetition is iconic of the looping itself.
> Stacked particles «же… ведь»: «не всё же ведь» piles two modal particles onto the qualifier: «же» insists and corrects ('not all the time, mind'), «ведь» appeals to the listener's understanding ('after all, you know'). English can only render this freight with intonation; in Russian it is the very texture of coaxing speech.

Ведь невозможно же, думаю, чтобы черти меня крючьями позабыли стащить к себе, когда я помру.  
Surely, I think to myself, it cannot be that the devils will forget to drag me off to their place with their hooks when I die.
> «чтобы» + past-form for a denied possibility: After the impersonal «невозможно» ('it is impossible'), the clause runs «чтобы… позабыли» — «чтобы» with the past-tense verb form, the irrealis pattern Russian uses for willed, feared, or hypothetical outcomes rather than asserted facts. Here it frames a possibility Fyodor is anxiously trying to rule out.
> Two perfectives: 'forget to drag off': «позабыли стащить» chains two perfectives — «позабыть» (forget, completed) governing the perfective infinitive «стащить» (drag off in one go). The perfectives view both forgetting and dragging as single bounded events, the grim comedy of a once-and-for-all damnation that the devils might just slip up on.
> «крючья» — the hooks of folk hell: «крючья» (instrumental «крючьями») is the irregular plural of «крюк», a hook or grappling-iron. The image of devils hauling sinners off with iron hooks is drawn straight from Russian Orthodox folk eschatology and the painted Last-Judgement icons; Fyodor's literal-minded fixation on it is the joke.
> «помру» — the blunt, low word for dying: «помру» is the perfective future of «помереть», a colloquial, earthy verb for 'to die' (beside neutral «умереть»). Its rough register fits Fyodor's buffoonish, peasant-flavoured self-mockery far better than any solemn word would.

Ну вот и думаю: крючья?  
So here is what I think: hooks?
> Colloquial scaffolding «ну вот и»: «Ну вот и» is a cluster of speech particles — «ну» (well), «вот» (here/so), «и» (and then) — that carries no propositional content but stages the next thought, mimicking live talk. Dostoevsky's dialogue leans constantly on such fillers to voice a speaking presence.

А откуда они у них?  
And where do they get them?
> «у них» — the 'have' construction: «откуда они у них» literally asks 'whence are they at-them', using «у» + genitive «них», the standard Russian way of expressing possession ('the devils have them'). There is no verb 'to have'; existence-plus-«у» does the work, here with the verb itself elided in rapid speech.

Из чего?  
Made of what?
> «из» + genitive «чего» — made of what: «Из чего?» is the genitive of «что» governed by «из» ('out of, from'), the standard frame for the material something is made of. The whole staccato catechism — «Из чего? Железные? Где куют?» — is built from such bare case-marked fragments, no verbs needed.

Железные?  
Of iron?
> A long-form adjective standing alone: «Железные?» ('[are they] iron ones?') is a full long-form adjective, plural, agreeing with the unspoken «крючья», doing the work of a whole sentence with the noun and copula dropped. The ending alone tells you it modifies the hooks.

Где же их куют?  
And where do they forge them?
> Impersonal «куют» — 'where do they forge them': «куют» is a third-person-plural verb with no stated subject — the indefinite 'they/people', Russian's ordinary way of saying 'where are they forged?' without a passive. «же» again presses the question ('where on earth?'), and «их» is the accusative object.

Фабрика, что ли, у них какая там есть?  
Have they got some sort of factory down there, or what?
> «что ли» — tentative 'or what?': «что ли» is a fixed colloquial tag tacked onto a guess or surmise — 'or something?', 'I suppose?' — softening the question into musing speculation. It is pure spoken Russian and signals Fyodor thinking aloud rather than really asking.
> Word order: topic fronted, comment trailing: «Фабрика, что ли, у них какая там есть?» front-loads the topic «фабрика» and lets «какая… есть» ('some kind of… there is') trail as the comment, the scattered order of unplanned speech. «какая» here is an indefinite 'some sort of', not the interrogative 'which'.

Ведь там в монастыре иноки, наверно, полагают, что в аде, например, есть потолок.  
Why, over at the monastery the monks no doubt suppose that hell, for instance, has a ceiling.
> «инок» — the elevated word for a monk: «иноки» (sing. «инок») is a bookish, Church-flavoured word for monks, from «иной» ('other') — one who has set himself apart from the world. It is loftier than the everyday «монах», and Fyodor's reaching for it amid his crude joking is part of the mock-solemn texture.
> Locative «в аде» after «в»: «в аде» ('in hell') shows «в» governing the prepositional case for location. Note the archaic/bookish ending «-е» on «ад»; the everyday locative is «в аду», one of those masculine nouns with a stressed -у́ locative — Dostoevsky's «в аде» is the more literary variant.

А я вот готов поверить в ад только чтобы без потолка; выходит оно как будто деликатнее, просвещеннее, по-лютерански то есть.  
But I, for my part, am ready to believe in hell — only without a ceiling; it comes out somehow more refined, more enlightened, more Lutheran, that is.
> Comparatives in the predicate: «деликатнее, просвещеннее»: «деликатнее, просвещеннее» are invariable predicative comparatives in «-ее» ('more refined, more enlightened'), stacked for ironic effect. The form is the same regardless of gender or number — a bare 'more X' that here mocks the pretension of a tasteful, ceilingless hell.
> «по-лютерански» — 'in the Lutheran way': «по-лютерански» is an adverb of manner built with the «по-…-ски» frame ('in the manner of'), here 'Lutheran-style'. Fyodor's quip equates a tidy, demythologised hell with Protestant rationalism — a typical Russian-Orthodox jab at the cool abstraction of Western confession.

А в сущности ведь не всё ли равно: с потолком или без потолка?  
And in essence, is it not all the same: with a ceiling or without one?
> The fixed idiom «всё равно» negated and questioned: «не всё ли равно» — 'is it not all the same?' — wraps the set phrase «всё равно» ('all the same, no matter') in the interrogative «ли» and the negator «не», producing a rhetorical question expecting agreement. The «ли» follows the focused «всё».

Ведь вот вопрос-то проклятый в чем заключается!  
There — that is the cursed question, that is what it all comes down to!
> The topic-marking clitic «-то»: «вопрос-то» attaches the unstressed clitic «-то» to single out 'the question' as the known thing now under the spotlight ('the question, you see'). This is the emphatic topic «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то»; it is a flavour of intimate, insistent speech.
> Reflexive «-ся» middle: «заключается»: «заключается» ('consists in, comes down to') carries the clitic «-ся» that here forms an intransitive middle — the verb «заключать» (to enclose, conclude) turned reflexive to mean 'is contained / lies in'. «в чём» is the prepositional governed by «в».

Ну, а коли нет потолка, стало быть, нет и крючьев.  
Well, and if there is no ceiling, then it follows there are no hooks either.
> «коли» — folksy 'if': «коли» is an archaic, popular conditional conjunction equivalent to «если» ('if'), giving Fyodor's mock-syllogism a homespun, peasant ring. It belongs to the same old colloquial layer as «стало быть» in the same breath.
> «стало быть» — 'therefore, it follows': «стало быть» is a fixed inferential phrase ('so, consequently, ergo'), literally 'it has become to be'. Its slightly clownish, syllogistic flavour drives Fyodor's parody of theological logic about hooks and ceilings.

А коли нет крючьев, стало быть, и всё побоку, значит, опять невероятно: кто же меня тогда крючьями-то потащит, потому что если уж меня не потащат, то что ж тогда будет, где же правда на свете?  
And if there are no hooks, then it all falls apart, which means once again it is unbelievable: for then who is going to drag me off with the hooks, because if they do not drag me off, then what will become of things, where is the justice in this world?
> Perfective future «потащит» as future result: «потащит» is a perfective verb conjugated with present-tense endings to yield the simple future ('who will drag me off'). Russian sews the future into the ending here, no auxiliary — the single completed dragging Fyodor both dreads and, comically, needs to exist.
> Negated future + the particle «уж»: «если уж… не потащат» couples the conditional «если» with the indefinite-they perfective future «потащат» under negation «не», while «уж» ('once, after all') adds resigned emphasis. The whole run-on chains «если… потому что… то…» in a single breathless self-interrogation.
> «же» in a cri de coeur: «где же правда на свете?» ('where then is the truth/justice in the world?') uses «же» to wring the rhetorical question into a genuine outcry. «правда» here carries both 'truth' and 'justice', and «на свете» is the locative idiom for 'in the world'.
> «всё побоку» — 'it all goes by the wayside': «побоку» is a colloquial adverbial-predicate meaning 'aside, to the devil with it, out the window' (from «по боку», 'along the side'). «всё побоку» — 'then it's all off' — is exactly the slangy dismissiveness that makes Fyodor's metaphysics sound like a tavern argument.

Il faudrait les inventer, эти крючья, для меня нарочно, для меня одного, потому что если бы ты знал, Алеша, какой я срамник!..  
Il faudrait les inventer — those hooks, on purpose for me, for me alone, because if you only knew, Alyosha, what a wretch I am!..
> Conditional «если бы… знал»: «если бы ты знал» is the irrealis conditional: «если бы» plus the past-tense form «знал» yields 'if (only) you knew'. The particle «бы», fused into «если бы», marks the whole clause as contrary-to-fact wishing — a register Fyodor slides into for theatrical pathos.
> «срамник» — a shameless wretch: «срамник» is a richly pejorative noun from «срам» (shame, disgrace) — one who lives in shamelessness, a disgrace of a man. The «-ник» agent-suffix and the self-aware relish with which Fyodor flings it at himself capture his glee in his own depravity.

— Да, там нет крючьев, — тихо и серьезно, приглядываясь к отцу, выговорил Алеша.  
"Yes, there are no hooks there," Alyosha brought out quietly and gravely, studying his father.
> Imperfective gerund «приглядываясь»: «приглядываясь» is a present (imperfective) деепричастие in «-ясь» — 'while peering at, studying' — naming an action simultaneous with the main verb «выговорил» and sharing its subject (Alyosha). It also carries reflexive «-сь». «к отцу» is dative governed by «к».
> «выговорить» — to bring out, utter with effort: «выговорил» (perfective of «выговаривать») means to get words out, articulate them — often with care or difficulty. Paired with «тихо и серьёзно», it signals that Alyosha's quiet 'there are no hooks' is deliberate and weighed, not casual.

— Так, так, одни только тени крючьев.  
"Just so, just so — only the shadows of hooks.
> «Так, так» — 'just so, quite so': Repeated «так» is an affirming, taking-it-up interjection ('right, right; just so'). Doubled, it conveys eager agreement that immediately spins into Fyodor's next riff — 'only the shadows of hooks'.
> «одни» as 'only / nothing but': «одни только тени» uses «одни» (plural of «один») not to count but to mean 'merely, nothing but' — reinforced by «только». «тени крючьев» pairs nominative «тени» with genitive «крючьев» ('shadows of hooks'), the genitive of 'of'.

Знаю, знаю.  
I know, I know.
> Dropped subject, doubled imperfective: «Знаю, знаю» — 'I know, I know' — drops the pronoun «я» entirely, since the first-person ending «-ю» already carries it, and doubles the imperfective present for emphatic, knowing reassurance. Subject-dropping like this is the default in lively speech.

Это как один француз описывал ад: «J’ai vu l’ombre d’un cocher, qui avec l’ombre d’une brosse frottait l’ombre d’un carrosse».  
It is the way a certain Frenchman described hell: "J'ai vu l'ombre d'un cocher, qui avec l'ombre d'une brosse frottait l'ombre d'un carrosse".
> Imperfective «описывал» for a remembered manner: «описывал» is imperfective past — 'was describing / used to describe' — fitting because Fyodor cites the manner of a description rather than a single completed act. «один француз» uses «один» as the indefinite article 'a certain Frenchman'.

Ты, голубчик, почему знаешь, что нет крючьев?  
But you, my dear, how do you know there are no hooks?
> «голубчик» — 'my little dove', a term of endearment: «голубчик» is the affectionate diminutive of «голубь» (dove), used as a coaxing form of address — 'my dear, my darling'. Coming from Fyodor it is half tenderness, half ingratiating manipulation, the expressive suffix doing the emotional work.
> Genitive of negation: «нет крючьев»: «нет крючьев» — 'there are no hooks' — puts the absent thing in the genitive plural after «нет», the obligatory genitive-of-negation in existential denials. The reported clause hangs on «что» ('that').

Побудешь у монахов, не то запоешь.  
Spend some time among the monks, and you will sing a different tune.
> Perfective future «побудешь» — 'spend a while': «Побудешь» is the perfective future of «побыть» (to stay/spend some time), the «по-» prefix delimiting a bounded stretch of being. Used here in a virtual conditional sense — 'once you've spent time among the monks' — it sets up the consequence «не то запоёшь».
> «запоёшь» — 'you'll sing a different tune': «запоёшь» is the perfective future of «запеть» (to start singing), the «за-» marking the onset of the action; «не то» means 'otherwise, a different sort'. The idiom 'you'll sing differently' threatens a change of conviction once experience bites.

А впрочем, ступай, доберись там до правды, да и приди рассказать: всё же идти на тот свет будет легче, коли наверно знаешь, что там такое.  
Still, go on, get to the bottom of the truth out there, and then come and tell me of it: at least the journey to the other world will be easier if one knows for certain what awaits there.
> A run of imperatives: «ступай… доберись… приди рассказать» strings together commands: «ступай» (go, set off), «доберись» (get to, reach), «приди» (come). «доберись» and «приди» are perfective imperatives in «-и», urging single completed acts, while «ступай» is an old, slightly folksy imperative of motion.
> «на тот свет» — 'to the other world': «тот свет» (literally 'that light/world') is the fixed Russian euphemism for the world of the dead, the afterlife — opposed to «этот свет», the living world. Going «на тот свет» is to die; the demonstrative «тот» ('that, the far one') does the deictic pointing beyond the grave.
> Conditional «коли» with present «знаешь»: «коли… знаешь» is the folksy conditional 'if you know for sure', the present imperfective «знаешь» giving a general, ongoing condition. «наверно» here keeps its older sense 'for certain, reliably', not the modern hedging 'probably'.

Да и приличнее тебе будет у монахов, чем у меня, с пьяным старикашкой да с девчонками… хоть до тебя, как до ангела, ничего не коснется.  
And it will be more seemly for you among the monks than here with me, with a drunken old codger and the little wenches… though nothing can touch you, as it would not touch an angel.
> Dative experiencer + comparative «приличнее… чем»: «приличнее тебе будет» frames the judgement impersonally: the predicative comparative «приличнее» ('more seemly') with the dative «тебе» ('for you') as experiencer and no nominative subject. The comparison «чем» ('than') opposes life among the monks to life with Fyodor.
> «старикашка» — pejorative 'wretched old man': «старикашка» (here instrumental «старикашкой») is «старик» fitted with the contemptuous-diminutive «-ашк-» suffix: not a kindly 'little old man' but a self-deprecating, belittling 'shabby old codger'. Fyodor wields the suffix to paint himself as a disreputable old reprobate.
> «девчонки» — 'wenches, hussies': «девчонки» (instr. «девчонками») carries the «-онк-» suffix, here colouring 'girls' with a coarse, dismissive or risqué tint — the loose women of Fyodor's household. The instrumental after «с» ('with') lists the company Alyosha is better off leaving.
> Negative concord: «ничего не коснётся»: «ничего не коснётся» — 'nothing will touch (you)' — shows obligatory double negation: the negative pronoun «ничего» (genitive of «ничто», required by the verb «коснуться» + genitive) still co-occurs with «не» on the verb. Two negatives, one denial.

Ну авось и там до тебя ничего не коснется, вот ведь я почему и дозволяю тебе, что на последнее надеюсь.  
Well, perhaps nothing will touch you out there either — which is the very reason I am letting you go, because I am pinning my hope on that last thing.
> «авось» — that untranslatable Russian 'maybe': «авось» is the famous particle of hopeful, fatalistic chance — 'perhaps, with luck, God willing it'll turn out'. It encodes a whole national attitude of trusting to fortune, and Fyodor leans on it to rationalise letting Alyosha go.
> Particle pile-up «вот ведь… и»: «вот ведь я почему и дозволяю» crowds together «вот» (here's), «ведь» (you see, after all), and resumptive «и», fronting the explanation for emphasis ('this, you see, is the very reason I allow it'). The scrambled word order is expressive, not grammatical disorder.
> «дозволять» — the formal, old word for 'permit': «дозволяю» ('I permit, allow') is a more elevated, slightly archaic and officious synonym of «разрешаю/позволяю». Its solemn ring sits comically against Fyodor's tearful self-justification.

Ум-то у тебя не черт съел.  
It was no devil that ate up your wits.
> Emphatic «-то» and fronted object: «Ум-то… не чёрт съел» literally 'the wits — it was not a devil that ate them'. «Ум» (accusative, fronted as topic) carries the focusing clitic «-то», and «не чёрт» negates specifically the subject 'devil' — i.e. 'you're no fool'. The marked order throws the weight onto 'devil'.

Погоришь и погаснешь, вылечишься и назад придешь.  
You will burn awhile and burn out, you will cure yourself and come back.
> Four perfective futures in a prophecy: «Погоришь… погаснешь… вылечишься… придёшь» line up four perfective futures, each a bounded event in a foretold sequence — burn, burn out, get cured, come back. The perfective's once-and-done logic turns the line into a confident little prophecy. «вылечишься» also carries reflexive «-ся» ('cure yourself').
> Reflexive «-ся»: 'cure yourself': «вылечишься» is «вылечить» (to cure) plus «-ся», forming the reflexive/middle 'get cured, cure oneself'. The clitic turns a transitive verb inward onto its own subject — Alyosha's faith treated, mockingly, as a passing fever he'll recover from.

А я тебя буду ждать: ведь я чувствую же, что ты единственный человек на земле, который меня не осудил, мальчик ты мой милый, я ведь чувствую же это, не могу же я это не чувствовать!..  
And I will wait for you: for I do feel that you are the one man on earth who has not condemned me, my dear boy — I do feel it, surely I cannot help but feel it!.."
> Both «ведь» and «же» on one verb: «ведь я чувствую же» loads the verb with two particles at once: «ведь» appeals to shared truth ('after all'), «же» insists ('I really do feel'). The combination, repeated through the sentence, is the very signature of Fyodor's wheedling, emotional climax.
> Relative clause with «который»: «человек… который меня не осудил» attaches a «который»-clause: «который» agrees with masculine singular «человек» but takes nominative as the subject of its own clause. «осудил» is perfective past ('has condemned'), under «не» — 'the one man who has not condemned me'.
> Double negative + particle: 'I cannot not feel it': «не могу… не чувствовать» stacks two «не» across the modal and the infinitive — Russian's standard 'cannot but / cannot help but' (negation of an impossibility). «же» again presses the emotion. The result is an emphatic affirmation dressed as a double denial.
> «мальчик ты мой милый» — fractured tenderness: The scrambled order 'boy you my dear' is an affectionate vocative-like address, the pronoun «ты» wedged inside the noun phrase the way Russian endearments fold the addressee in. It is the warm, sentimental register that the narrator will undercut two lines later.

И он даже расхныкался.  
And he even broke into a whimper.
> «расхныкаться» — to dissolve into whimpering: «расхныкался» is «хныкать» (to snivel, whimper) prefixed with «рас-» and suffixed with «-ся» to mean breaking out into and working oneself up to a fit of blubbering. The expressive morphology makes the verb itself drip with the contemptible self-pity it describes.

Он был сентиментален.  
He was sentimental.
> Short-form predicate adjective «сентиментален»: «сентиментален» is the short (predicative) form of «сентиментальный», used after «был» to state a characterising quality. Short adjectives like this are markedly bookish and lend the narrator's verdict a crisp, definitional finality.

Он был зол и сентиментален.  
He was wicked and sentimental.
> Two short forms, the narrator's clinching judgement: The line repeats the previous sentence and prefixes «зол» — the short form of «злой» ('wicked, malicious') — so two short-form predicates now yoke 'wicked' and 'sentimental' together. The bare, balanced short adjectives deliver the chapter's cold, aphoristic last word on Fyodor.
---

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.