1G0xxeB

1 5 6 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 2pated from religious authority—Machiavellian political science—proves thatin this world, which functions according to the laws of Euclidean geometry,the rational distribution of bread, and with it, the pacification of mankind,cannot occur unless the absolute authority that distributes the bread is thesame absolute authority that controls men’s consciences. And if free thought,as the expression of freedom of conscience, can only lead to an unendingdispute, then political necessity requires the inquisitorial annihilation of thefree conscience, annihilation otherwise secretly desired by man’s tormentedheart. “After centuries of the excesses of the free intellect” and science leadthe rebellious creatures, who try to construct “their Tower” by themselves,to “anthropophagy,” prophesies the Inquisitor, an exhausted humanity willfinally cry out to him: “save us from ourselves.” 160 Thus, the Tower will befinished only when the popes “shall be Caesars,” after which they “shall givethought to the universal happiness of human beings.” 1617. ConclusionDostoyevsky and Strauss interpret modernity in ways that are strikinglysimilar, and this fact is reflected in the similarities that characterize theMachiavellian project, as viewed by Strauss, and the project attributed byDostoyevsky to his Grand Inquisitor. Defined by a deliberate “loweringof the standards of social action,” the purpose of which is to reduce man’sdependence on chance, the modern revolution is driven, according to bothauthors, by “antitheological ire,” and is directed against a utopianism which,according to Strauss, characterizes not only the biblical tradition but alsothe classical tradition that Dostoyevsky otherwise ignores when articulatinghis Christian critique of modernity. If Dostoyevsky and Strauss share theintuition of a connection between Christianity, intellectual honesty, and themodern democratic idea, they locate the origins of the modern revolutiondifferently, despite the fact that they identify its spirit in the same way. Thus,for one the modern revolution begins with Machiavelli and is directed againstthe Catholic Church, while for the other, the modern revolution begins withthe separation of the Western church from the Eastern one and is directedagainst the authentic spirit of the Gospel. A careful analysis of Machiavelli’sthought shows, however, that the main target of his attacks is not the otherwiseMachiavellian practice of the church hierarchy, but the utopian and160Ibid., 336–37.161Ibid., 335.