BOOKS
157
by 1928 some of the exiled Trotskyists had begun to ponder the
notion that Stalin might after all incarnate the Robespierrist in–
heritance, in which case it was
they
who were the potential Ther–
midorians! This thought alarmed them to such a degree that they
promptly made their peace with him! Clearly there were alterna–
tive ways of deciphering the riddle of the historical Sphinx. It
speaks for Mr. Deutscher's good sense that in the end he discards
these analogies- albeit a trifle reluctantly-on the grounds that
Jacobinism and Bolshevism were after all separated by an entire
epoch. What he does not quite explain is how Trotsky rationalized
his decision to oppose a current which on his reading of the facts
was irresistible.
In psychological terms, the answer doubtless is that he was
both a revolutionary and a historian. In his chosen political role
he had no option but to continue struggling against what, in
his
in–
tellectual capacity, he regarded as destiny. This obscure rift in his
personality debilitated him and sapped even his physical powers.
There is evidence that he tended to fall ill at critical moments:
always a bad sign. It seems plain that Stalin, by contrast, benefited
not merely from his control of the machine--which he owed to
Lenin-but from his lack of imagination.
He
never. worried about
his place in history, until he had won and could have the history–
books rewritten to suit his purpose. Objectionable though this pro–
cedure doubtless is, it was of considerable help to him politically;
whereas Trotsky was hampered by trying to fill two roles at once.
This is not to suggest that with a different attitude he might have
won, but that his failure was not simply pre-determined by "objec–
tive" circumstances: he contributed his share to the defeat of his
faction, and then a:bused Stalin for carrying out the Opposition's
program. This was natural behavior, but it disclosed an impractical
streak, about which his biographer is not indeed silent, but which
he does not stress sufficiently.
This reticence is in keeping with Mr. Deutscher's belief--dis–
creetly voiced in his preface--that we are now witnessing the first
dawn of a post-Stalinist age, when justice will at last be done, of–
fICially and publicly, to Trotsky's true role in the Revolution. This
