1G0xxeB

1 3 2 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 2conception, which “makes man dependent on any error in the social organization,”Dostoyevsky opposes his Orthodox Christian conception, which, “fullyrecognizing the pressure of the milieu, and which having proclaimed mercyfor him who has sinned, nevertheless makes it a moral duty for man to struggleagainst his environment.” 49 Although highly unlikely, the change of the socialenvironment is nevertheless possible, but it can only be the byproduct of thereunited moral efforts, in Christ, of all persons, who are all “guilty” for “allcreatures and all things,” as humanity is a living organism where individualactions, whether bad or good, affect the whole and therefore all the otherindividuals. 50 In opposition to Machiavelli’s thought, Dostoyevsky’s thoughtis therefore marked by what can be called a “utopian” dimension of Christianextraction, although this coexists with a profound awareness of man’s sinfulcondition, this ambivalent vision of man being the key characteristic of Dostoyevsky’scomplex anthropology. 51 On the other hand, Dostoyevsky arguesthat “making man dependent on any error in the social organization,” andtherefore denying his freedom, “the environmental doctrine reduces man toabsolute impersonality…, to a state of the most miserable slavery that can beconceived,” 52 delivering him into the hands of social engineers whose ancestor,according to Strauss, is Machiavelli. For, Strauss argues, Machiavelli is thefirst of a series of Enlightenment thinkers who share the belief “in the almostinfinite malleability of man.” 53 Dostoyevsky’s Christian critique of Machiavellianisminevitably brings us to Machiavelli’s critique of Christianity, or to his“anti-theological ire,” 54 which, according to Strauss, represents the foundationof Machiavelli’s political revolution.4. Machiavelli’s Critique of ChristianityWhen analyzing Machiavelli’s critique of Christianity, the first aspect thatshould be taken into account is his reinterpretation of the cosmic order, andmore precisely, the fact that despite some ambiguous formulations meantown society” (Dostoyevsky, Demons, trans. Robert A. Maguire [London: Penguin Books, 2008], 452).49Dostoyevsky, Diary, 1:13.50Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov, 216.51As stressed by Jean Drouilly, for Dostoyevsky, man is “neither beast nor angel” precisely becausehe is “beast and angel at the same time” (Jean Drouilly, La pensée politique et religieuse de F. M. Dostoievski[Paris: Librairie de Cinq Continents, 1971], 124; my translation).52Dostoyevsky, Diary, 1:13.53Strauss, “What Is Political Philosophy?,” 43.54Ibid., 44.