Nevertheless there was no reason to despair. Regarding Peter the Great as a strange combination of the genius and the tiger Herzen could only accept Peter's reforms with reservations; like the slavophils, he contrasted Moscow with St. Petersburg, the people with the bureaucracy.
Herzen reiterated what Čaadaev and the Rousseauist slavophils had said about the lack of civilisation in Russia. It was an enormous advantage for the Russian people to be free from the restricting traditions of Europe. Russia had not suffered from the three great scourges, Catholicism, Roman law, and the bourgeoisie. Feudalism, Protestantism and liberalism were merely developments of these three principles; feudalism derived from Catholicism and Roman law; Protestantism and liberalism were the ultimate phases of Catholicism; hence Russia knew nothing of feudalism, Protestantism, and liberalism. In the letter to Michelet (1851), in which Henzen, with ardent affection, defended the Russian people and the Russian character against westernist misunderstandings, he summarised his comparison between Russia and Europe in the following propositions: Russia will never be Protestant; Russia will never be juste-milieu; Russia will not make a revolution simply in order to get rid of Tsar Nicholas and to replace him by tsar-deputies, tsar-judges, and tsar-policemen.
Herzen now found himself able to explain certain undesirable historical facts quite in the slavophil manner.
Take tsarism, for example. Tsarism is not monarchy. European monarchy developed out of feudalism and Catholicism, and is animated by a peculiar social and religious ideal. The tsar is tsar for tsardom's sake. He is nothing more than an unlimited dictator. When the time comes and when the people is ready, the tsar will make way for the socialist republic and will become its president. In contrast with old and moribund Europe, young and vigorous Russia can offer two notable guarantees, the younger generation of the landowning aristocracy and the peasantry.
The aristocracy showed and tested its vigour in the decabrist revolt. Philosophically these Russian aristocrats have gone much further than Europeans in the negation of the old world. Above all, the successors of the decabrists no longer believe in their right to own land.
The Russian peasant on the other hand, believes in right to do so; he has a religious faith in his right to the
