it seemed impossible for him to conceive of himself as ever resting quietly content with a seat in a parliament. Herzen, Bakunin, and K. Aksakov, all had a poor opinion of European constitutionalism and parliamentarism. Residing in Europe, residing in England, their estimate of the European state was identical with Pestel's. Herzen, too, had shrewdly recognised that parliamentarism and constitutionalism were Protestant products, which had never been organically incorporated into their structure by the Catholic nations. Concerning the Latin world, Herzen wrote aptly that it had sufficient energy for a movement towards liberation, but lacked the strength requisite for the enjoyment of freedom. England, on the other hand, was possessed of the latter capacity. Herzen's views on the matter were not clearly thought out, but he touched the fringe of the problem. It is striking to note how energetically he insisted that the Russians would never become merely constitutionalist, would never become merely liberal, would never become merely Protestant. For Bakunin, in like manner, Protestantism is preeminently disillusionment, is essentially characterised by its lack of enthusiasm—for Bakunin never realised the extent to which he was prone to mistake excitement for enthusiasm. In our detailed psychological analysis of the Russian revolutionary, we have already shown how the lamb grew to become a tiger.
Bakunin's whole method, his fondness for sudden leaps, his desultoriness, his rashness, were characteristic of the habitual indeterminist, of the man who expects a miracle. Whilst Fourier was ever on the look out for the millionaire who should provide him with funds for the realisation of his plans, Bakunin lived in daily expectation of the miracle of revolution. Herzen said of him very truly, that despite his demand for a positivist philosophy of history, despite Hegel, Comte, Feuerbach, and Vogt, he ever retained his mystical faith in miracle, ever remained the indeterminist, the man who has utterly failed to grasp the reign of law in nature and history. Moreover, Bakunin's outlook was that of the aristocrat who has not yet learned to work, for work is continuous attention to detail, and for this the Russian great landowner has as yet no inclination. He only can be industrious in the proper sense of the term who has thoroughly acquired the determinist constancy of purpose associated with deliberate foresight, who has recognised the importance of thinking out ways and means. In Russia, as a
