Summary
Ivan confronts Smerdyakov in his shabby lodgings, demanding answers about cryptic threats made at the hospital. What follows is a psychological chess match where both men reveal their darkest thoughts. Smerdyakov coldly explains that he suspected Ivan wanted their father dead for the inheritance, especially since Fyodor might marry Grushenka and leave them nothing. He points out that Ivan's sudden trip to Tchermashnya—based on Smerdyakov's suggestion—looked like giving permission for murder. Ivan is horrified to realize his own ambiguous behavior could be interpreted as complicity. The confrontation turns physical when Smerdyakov suggests Ivan desired his father's death, but the servant maintains his innocence while implying Ivan shares moral responsibility. Shaken, Ivan flees to Katerina Ivanovna, confessing he might be complicit if Smerdyakov is the real killer. She responds by showing him Dmitri's drunken letter threatening to kill their father for money—the 'conclusive proof' of Dmitri's guilt. This evidence reassures Ivan temporarily, but a month later, when Katerina mentions visiting Smerdyakov herself, Ivan's doubts resurface violently. The chapter exposes how unspoken desires and moral cowardice can entangle us in others' crimes, even when we never explicitly participate.
Coming Up in Chapter 77
Ivan's rage propels him toward one final confrontation with Smerdyakov. This time, there will be no ambiguity—only the terrible truth that will shatter everything Ivan thought he knew about guilt, innocence, and his own soul.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
The Second Visit To Smerdyakov By that time Smerdyakov had been discharged from the hospital. Ivan knew his new lodging, the dilapidated little wooden house, divided in two by a passage on one side of which lived Marya Kondratyevna and her mother, and on the other, Smerdyakov. No one knew on what terms he lived with them, whether as a friend or as a lodger. It was supposed afterwards that he had come to stay with them as Marya Kondratyevna’s betrothed, and was living there for a time without paying for board or lodging. Both mother and daughter had the greatest respect for him and looked upon him as greatly superior to themselves. Ivan knocked, and, on the door being opened, went straight into the passage. By Marya Kondratyevna’s directions he went straight to the better room on the left, occupied by Smerdyakov. There was a tiled stove in the room and it was extremely hot. The walls were gay with blue paper, which was a good deal used however, and in the cracks under it cockroaches swarmed in amazing numbers, so that there was a continual rustling from them. The furniture was very scanty: two benches against each wall and two chairs by the table. The table of plain wood was covered with a cloth with pink patterns on it. There was a pot of geranium on each of the two little windows. In the corner there was a case of ikons. On the table stood a little copper samovar with many dents in it, and a tray with two cups. But Smerdyakov had finished tea and the samovar was out. He was sitting at the table on a bench. He was looking at an exercise‐book and slowly writing with a pen. There was a bottle of ink by him and a flat iron candlestick, but with a composite candle. Ivan saw at once from Smerdyakov’s face that he had completely recovered from his illness. His face was fresher, fuller, his hair stood up jauntily in front, and was plastered down at the sides. He was sitting in a parti‐colored, wadded dressing‐gown, rather dirty and frayed, however. He had spectacles on his nose, which Ivan had never seen him wearing before. This trifling circumstance suddenly redoubled Ivan’s anger: “A creature like that and wearing spectacles!” Smerdyakov slowly raised his head and looked intently at his visitor through his spectacles; then he slowly took them off and rose from the bench, but by no means respectfully, almost lazily, doing the least possible required by common civility. All this struck Ivan instantly; he took it all in and noted it at once—most of all the look in Smerdyakov’s eyes, positively malicious, churlish and haughty. “What do you want to intrude for?” it seemed to say; “we settled everything then; why have you come again?” Ivan could scarcely control himself. “It’s hot here,” he said, still standing, and unbuttoned his overcoat. “Take off your coat,” Smerdyakov conceded. Ivan took off his coat...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Implied Permission - How Silence Becomes Complicity
The process by which we become complicit in harmful acts through ambiguous behavior that others interpret as encouragement or consent.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to recognize when someone is trying to get you to act on their unspoken desires through hints and complaints.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when coworkers constantly complain about someone but never take direct action—they might be fishing for you to become their agent.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Moral complicity
Being partially responsible for wrongdoing even without directly participating. When your words, silence, or inaction help enable someone else's harmful behavior.
Modern Usage:
Like when you don't speak up about workplace harassment, or when your complaints about someone make others feel justified in treating them badly.
Psychological manipulation
Using someone's emotions, fears, or desires to control their behavior without them realizing it. Often involves planting suggestions and letting the other person think it was their idea.
Modern Usage:
Common in toxic relationships where one partner subtly influences the other's decisions through guilt, fear, or playing on their insecurities.
Plausible deniability
Arranging things so you can deny involvement or responsibility later. Keeping your hands clean on the surface while still getting what you want.
Modern Usage:
Politicians use this constantly - making suggestions without direct orders so they can claim they never told anyone to do anything wrong.
Class deference
The automatic respect and submission that lower social classes show to those they perceive as their betters. Often includes assuming the upper class person is naturally superior.
Modern Usage:
Still happens when working-class people automatically defer to doctors, lawyers, or managers, even when those professionals might be wrong.
Guilty conscience projection
When someone feels guilty about their own thoughts or desires, they assume others can see their guilt or share the same dark impulses.
Modern Usage:
Like when you're thinking about cheating on your partner and suddenly become suspicious that they're cheating on you.
Circumstantial evidence
Facts that suggest someone is guilty without directly proving it. Evidence that relies on inference and interpretation rather than direct observation.
Modern Usage:
Most workplace drama and relationship conflicts rely on this - reading into people's behavior and drawing conclusions without hard proof.
Characters in This Chapter
Ivan Karamazov
Tormented intellectual
Confronts Smerdyakov seeking answers but discovers his own moral complicity. His philosophical discussions and behavior may have given Smerdyakov permission to commit murder.
Modern Equivalent:
The smart coworker who complains about the boss so much that someone else feels justified taking action
Smerdyakov
Cunning manipulator
Coldly explains how he interpreted Ivan's words and actions as encouragement for murder. Uses psychological warfare to make Ivan question his own innocence.
Modern Equivalent:
The quiet employee who listens to everyone's complaints and then acts on what they think people really want
Katerina Ivanovna
Evidence provider
Shows Ivan the letter that seems to prove Dmitri's guilt, temporarily relieving Ivan's conscience about his own potential complicity.
Modern Equivalent:
The friend who always has receipts and documentation to prove someone else is the real problem
Marya Kondratyevna
Deferential landlady
Represents the lower class's automatic respect for those they see as superior. Treats Smerdyakov as above her station despite his servant background.
Modern Equivalent:
The person who's always impressed by anyone with a little education or money
Key Quotes & Analysis
"You wanted it yourself, you wanted it yourself!"
Context: When Ivan denies wanting their father dead
This reveals how Smerdyakov interpreted Ivan's intellectual complaints as actual wishes. It shows how dangerous it can be when our private thoughts align with someone else's capacity for action.
In Today's Words:
You know you wanted this to happen, even if you won't admit it.
"I am not a murderer! I did not urge you on!"
Context: Ivan's desperate denial when confronted with his complicity
Shows Ivan's horror at realizing his words and actions could be interpreted as encouragement for murder. His protest reveals both his guilt and his genuine shock.
In Today's Words:
I never told you to do this! I'm not responsible for what you did!
"You went to Tchermashnya then, so you must have expected something from me."
Context: Explaining why Ivan's trip looked like giving permission for murder
Demonstrates how our actions can be read as signals by others, even when we don't intend them that way. Shows the power of suggestion and interpretation.
In Today's Words:
You left town right when this was going to happen - that told me you were okay with it.
Thematic Threads
Moral Cowardice
In This Chapter
Ivan's inability to face his own desires for his father's death, leading to ambiguous behavior that Smerdyakov interprets as permission
Development
Building from earlier hints about Ivan's philosophical detachment from moral responsibility
In Your Life:
You might find yourself dropping hints about what you want others to do instead of taking direct action yourself.
Class Manipulation
In This Chapter
Smerdyakov, as a servant, reads the subtle cues of his social superior and acts on what he believes Ivan wants
Development
Continuation of the servant's complex relationship with the family hierarchy
In Your Life:
You might find yourself either giving or receiving subtle signals based on workplace or social power dynamics.
Plausible Deniability
In This Chapter
Both Ivan and Smerdyakov maintain they never explicitly discussed murder, yet both understand what was implied
Development
New theme exploring how people avoid direct responsibility while achieving desired outcomes
In Your Life:
You might catch yourself creating situations where others do your dirty work while you maintain innocence.
Psychological Projection
In This Chapter
Ivan projects his guilt onto Dmitri through Katerina's letter, desperately seeking evidence that someone else is the real villain
Development
Evolution of Ivan's need to avoid confronting his own moral failures
In Your Life:
You might find yourself eagerly accepting evidence that someone else is to blame when you feel guilty about your own actions.
Evidence Manipulation
In This Chapter
Katerina's letter becomes 'proof' of Dmitri's guilt, but it mainly serves to ease Ivan's conscience about his own complicity
Development
New exploration of how we use selective evidence to support the conclusions we need to believe
In Your Life:
You might find yourself seizing on information that supports what you want to believe while ignoring contradictory evidence.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
How does Smerdyakov interpret Ivan's behavior as giving permission for murder, even though Ivan never explicitly said to kill their father?
analysis • surface - 2
Why is Ivan so horrified when he realizes his ambiguous actions could be seen as complicity? What does this reveal about his self-image?
analysis • medium - 3
Where do you see this pattern of implied permission in workplaces, families, or social groups today? How do people create plausible deniability for their desires?
application • medium - 4
When someone tries to pull you into being their agent for something they won't directly request, how would you respond to protect yourself?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter teach us about the difference between legal guilt and moral responsibility? Can you be complicit in something without breaking any laws?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Decode the Unspoken Message
Think of a situation where someone complained to you repeatedly about a problem but never directly asked for help. Write down what they actually said versus what they seemed to want you to do. Then identify the hints, implications, and emotional cues they used to communicate their real request without taking responsibility for it.
Consider:
- •Notice the difference between direct requests and emotional manipulation
- •Consider how plausible deniability protects the person making implied requests
- •Think about why someone might prefer hints over direct communication
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you found yourself doing something for someone who never directly asked you to do it. How did they communicate their wants without taking responsibility? How did you feel when you realized the dynamic?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 77: The Final Confession
The coming pages reveal guilt and complicity can bind people together in destructive ways, and teach us the difference between intellectual responsibility and moral culpability. These discoveries help us navigate similar situations in our own lives.