and joints, so to speak, of the social economic process. Their presence is irrelevant to the death and birth of new forms of society.
Proof? As far as great men are concerned, not even an attempt at proof except in the writings of Plechanov and Leon Trotsky. Plechanov we have already considered. We turn now to Trotsky whose effort, despite its ultimate failure, is a truly remarkable intellectual feat which makes a permanent contribution to the scientific understanding of history. His explicit treatment of the theme will be found in his History of the Russian Revolution.
Trotsky’s thesis is that the occurrence, development, and climax of the Russian Revolution were inevitable. Since that Revolution was made by men, one of his problems is to investigate the relation between the characters of individuals and the historic process. Naturally it is the character of individuals in strategic situations or positions of leadership and power which is his first concern. He offers to show that the traits of character displayed in crucial historic actions have, so to speak, “been grafted, or more directly imposed, on a person by the mighty force of conditions.”
As evidence he presents a brief case study of the personalities of Nicholas II. and his queen, and of the way they met the rising tide of revolutionary sentiment which broke over them in February, 1917. Relying upon diaries and memoirs of court attendants, he paints a picture of Nicholas II., confirmed by other analysts, as a weak, silent man, completely immersed in the trivial affairs of the day while his world was openly crumbling into ruins, suspicious of his own ministers, vindictive when crossed, and, although absolute autocrat of the largest state in the world, making an impression of complete helplessness on everyone who came into contact with him.
We then have portraits of Louis XVI. and Charles I., likewise absolute monarchs confronted by revolutionary crises. Even allowing for certain elements of exaggeration, Trotsky is able to establish an astonishing similarity in their personality patterns, especially as manifested in their treatment of the events that culminated in the loss of their troubles and lives. There is even a striking similarity between the behaviour, words, and attitudes of Marie Antionette and Alexandra Feodorovna. Here we have important characters with great authority acting historic roles that seem to have been written for them.
“ ‘He did not know how to wish: that was his chief trait of
