He escaped from 追放する. He first 原因（となる）d comment when he appeared at the Second Party 議会, at which the 分裂（する） occurred. Trotsky evidently surprised people abroad by his eloquence, by his education, which was remarkable for a young man, and by his aplomb. An anecdote was told about him which is probably not true, but which is にもかかわらず characteristic, によれば which Vera Ivanovna Zasulich, with her usual expansiveness, having met Trotsky, exclaimed in the presence of Plekhanov: 'That young man is undoubtedly a genius'; the story goes that as Plekhanov left the 会合 he said to someone: 'I shall never 許す this of Trotsky.' It is a fact that Plekhanov did not love Trotsky, although I believe that it was not because the good Zasulich called him a genius but because Trotsky had attacked him during the 2nd 議会 with unusual heat and in 公正に／かなり uncomplimentary 条件. Plekhanov at the time regarded himself as a 人物／姿／数字 of 絶対 inviolable majesty in social-democratic circles; even 部外者s who 同意しないd with him approached him with 長，率いるs 明らかにするd and such cheekiness on Trotsky's part was bound to infuriate him. The Trotsky of those days undoubtedly had a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of juvenile bumptiousness. If the truth be told, because of his 青年 nobody took him very 本気で, but everybody 認める that he 所有するd remarkable talent as an orator and they sensed too, of course, that this was no chick but a young eagle.

I first met him at a comparatively late 行う／開催する／段階, in 1905, after the events of January. He had arrived, I forget where from, in Geneva and he and I were 予定 to speak at a big 会合 召喚するd as a result of this 大災害. Trotsky then was 異常に elegant, unlike the 残り／休憩（する） of us, and very handsome. This elegance and his nonchalant, condescending manner of talking to people, no 事柄 who they were, gave me an unpleasant shock. I regarded this young dandy with extreme dislike as he crossed his 脚s and pencilled some 公式文書，認めるs for the impromptu speech that he was to make at the 会合. But Trotsky spoke very 井戸／弁護士席 indeed.

He also spoke at an international 会合, where I spoke for the first time in French and he in German; we both 設立する foreign languages something of an 障害, but we somehow 生き残るd the ordeal. Then, I remember, we were 指名するd - I by the Bolsheviks, he by the Mensheviks - to some （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 on the 分割 of 共同の 基金s and there Trotsky 可決する・採択するd a distinctly curt and arrogant トン.

Until we returned to Russia after the first (1905) 革命 I did not see him again, nor did I see much of him during the course of the 1905 革命. He held himself apart not only from us but from the Mensheviks too. His work was 大部分は carried out in the Soviet of 労働者s' 副s and together with Parvus he 組織するd some 肉親，親類d of a separate group which published a very 交戦的な, very 井戸／弁護士席-edited small and cheap newspaper.

I remember someone 説 in Lenin's presence: 'Khrustalev's 星／主役にする is 病弱なing and now the strong man in the Soviet is Trotsky.' Lenin's 直面する darkened for a moment, then he said: '井戸／弁護士席, Trotsky has earned it by his brilliant and unflagging work.'

Of all the Mensheviks Trotsky was then the closest to us, but I do not remember him once taking part in the 公正に／かなり 非常に長い discussions between us and the Mensheviks on the 支配する of 再会させるing. By the Stockholm congress he had already been 逮捕（する）d.

His 人気 の中で the Petersburg proletariat at the time of his 逮捕（する） was tremendous and 増加するd still more as a result of his picturesque and heroic behaviour in 法廷，裁判所. I must say that of all the social-democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, にもかかわらず his 青年, to be the best 用意が出来ている. いっそう少なく than any of them did he 耐える the stamp of a 確かな 肉親，親類d of émigré narrowness of 見通し which, as I have said, even 影響する／感情d Lenin at that time. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to 行為／行う the political struggle on a 幅の広い, 国家の 規模. He 現れるd from the 革命 having acquired an enormous degree of 人気, 反して neither Lenin nor Martov had 効果的に 伸び（る）d any at all. Plekhanov had lost a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定, thanks to his 陳列する，発揮する of quasi-Kadet 傾向s. Trotsky stood then in the very 前線 階級.

During the second 移住 Trotsky took up 住居 in Vienna and in consequence my 遭遇（する）s with him were rare.

At the international 会議／協議会 in Stuttgart he behaved unassumingly and called upon us to do the same, considering that we had been knocked out of the saddle by the reaction of 1906 and were therefore incapable of 命令（する）ing the 尊敬（する）・点 of the congress.

Subsequently Trotsky was attracted by the conciliationist line and by the idea of the まとまり of the Party. More than anyone else he bent his 成果／努力s to that end at さまざまな 本会議s and he 充てるd two-thirds of the work of his Vienna newspaper Pravda and of his group to the 完全に hopeless 仕事 of re-部隊ing the Party.

The only successful result which he 達成するd was the 総会 at which he threw the 'liquidators' out of the Party, nearly expelled the 'Forwardists' end even managed for a time to stitch up the gap - though with 極端に weak thread - between the Leninites and the Martovites. It was that Central 委員会 会合 which, の中で other things, 派遣（する）d comrade Kamenev as Trotsky's general 監視者 (Kamenev was, incidentally, Trotsky's brother-in-法律) but such a violent 不和 developed between Kamenev and Trotsky that Kamenev very soon returned to Paris. I must say here and now that Trotsky was 極端に bad at 組織するing not only the Party but even a small group of it. He had 事実上 no whole-hearted 支持者s at all; if he 後継するd in impressing himself on the Party, it was 完全に by his personality. The fact that he was やめる incapable of fitting into the 階級s of the Mensheviks made them 反応する to him as though he were a 肉親，親類d of social-democratic anarchist and his behaviour annoyed them 大いに. There was no question, at that time, of his total 身元確認，身分証明 with the Bolsheviks. Trotsky seemed to be closest to the Martovites and indeed he always 行為／法令／行動するd as though he were.

His colossal arrogance and an 無（不）能 or 不本意 to show any human 親切 or to be attentive to people, the absence of that charm which always surrounded Lenin, 非難するd Trotsky to a 確かな loneliness. One only has to 解任する that even a number of his personal friends (I am speaking, of course, of the political sphere) turned into his sworn enemies; this happened, for instance, in the 事例／患者 of his 長，指導者 中尉／大尉／警部補, Semkovsky, and it occurred later with the man who was 事実上 his favourite disciple, Skobeliev.

Trotsky had little talent for working within political 団体／死体s; however, in the 広大な／多数の／重要な ocean of political events, where such personal traits were 完全に unimportant, Trotsky's 完全に 肯定的な gifts （機の）カム to the fore.

I next （機の）カム together with Trotsky at the Copenhagen 議会. On arrival Trotsky for some 推論する／理由 saw fit to publish an article in Vorwärts in which, having indiscriminately run 負かす／撃墜する the entire ロシアの 代表, he 宣言するd that in 影響 they 代表するd nobody but a lot of émigrés. This infuriated both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. Plekhanov, who could not stand Trotsky, 掴むd the 適切な時期 to arraign Trotsky before a 肉親，親類d of 法廷，裁判所. This seemed to me 不正な and I spoke up 公正に／かなり energetically for Trotsky, and I was instrumental (together with Ryazanov) in 確実にするing that Plekhanov's 計画（する） （機の）カム to nothing.... Partly for that 推論する／理由, partly, perhaps more, by chance, Trotsky and I began to see more of each other during the congress: we took time off together, we talked a lot on many 支配するs, おもに political, and we parted on やめる good 条件.

Soon after the Copenhagen 議会 we Forwardists 組織するd our second party school in Bologna and 招待するd

Trotsky to come and run our practical training in journalism and to 配達する a course of lectures on, if I am not mistaken, the 議会の 策略 of the German and Austrian Social 民主党員s and on the history of the Social Democratic Party in Russia. Trotsky kindly agreed to this 提案 and spent nearly a month in Bologna. It is true that he 持続するd his own political line the whole time and tried to dislodge our pupils from their extreme left viewpoint and steer them その上の に向かって a 懐柔的な and middle-of-the-road 態度 - a position, incidentally, which he himself regarded as 堅固に 左派の（人）. Although this political game of his 証明するd fruitless, our pupils 大いに enjoyed his 高度に talented lectures and in general throughout his whole stay Trotsky was 異常に cheerful; he was brilliant, he was 極端に loyal に向かって us and he left the best possible impression of himself. He was one of the most 優れた 労働者s at our second party school

My final 会合s with Trotsky were even more 長引かせるd and more intimate. These took place in Paris in 1915. Trotsky joined the 編集（者）の board of Our Word, which was 自然に …を伴ってd by the usual intrigues and unpleasantness: someone was 脅すd by his joining us, afraid that such a strong personality might take over the newspaper altogether. But this 面 of the 事件／事情／状勢 was of minor importance. A much more 激烈な／緊急の 事柄 was that of Trotsky's 態度 to Martov. We 心から 手配中の，お尋ね者 to bring about, on a new basis of internationalism, the 完全にする 統一 of our Party 前線 all the way from Lenin to Martov. I spoke up for this course in the most energetic fashion and was to some degree the originator of the スローガン '負かす／撃墜する with the 'defeatists', long live the まとまり of all Internationalists!' Trotsky fully associated himself with this. It had long been his dream and it seemed to 正当化する his whole past 態度.

We had no 不一致s with the Bolsheviks, but with the Mensheviks things were going 不正に. Trotsky tried by every means to 説得する Martov to break his links with the Defencists. The 会合s of the 編集（者）の board turned into 非常に長い discussions, during which Martov, with astounding mental agility, almost with a 肉親，親類d of cunning sophistry, 避けるd a direct answer to the question whether he would break with the Defencists, and at times Trotsky attacked him 極端に 怒って. 事柄s reached the point of an almost total break between Trotsky and Martov - whom, by the way, Trotsky always 尊敬（する）・点d as a political intellect - and at the same time a break between all of us left Internationalists and the Martov group.

At this period there （機の）カム to be so many political points of 接触する between Trotsky and myself that we were, I think, at our closest; it fell to me to 代表する his viewpoint in all discussions with the other editors and theirs with him. He and I very often spoke on the same 壇・綱領・公約 at さまざまな émigré student 集会s, we 共同で edited Party 布告／宣言s; in short we were in very の近くに 同盟.

I have always regarded Trotsky as a 広大な／多数の／重要な man. Who, indeed, can 疑問 it? In Paris he had grown 大いに in stature in my 注目する，もくろむs as a 政治家 and in the 未来 he grew even more. I do not know whether it was because I knew him better and he was better able to 論証する the 十分な 手段 of his 力／強力にするs when working on a grander 規模 or because in fact the experience of the 革命 and its problems really did 円熟した him and 大きくする the sweep of his wings.

The agitational work of spring 1917 does not 落ちる within the 範囲 of these memoirs but I should say that under the 影響（力） of his tremendous activity and blinding success 確かな people の近くに to Trotsky were even inclined to see in him the real leader of the ロシアの 革命. Thus for instance the late M. S. Uritsky, whose 態度 to Trotsky was one of 広大な／多数の／重要な 尊敬（する）・点, once said to me and I think to Manuilsky: 'Now that the 広大な／多数の／重要な 革命 has come one feels that however intelligent Lenin may be he begins to fade beside the genius of Trotsky.' This estimation seemed to me incorrect, not because it 誇張するd Trotsky's gifts and his 軍隊 of character but because the extent of Lenin's political genius was then still not obvious. Yet it is true that during that period, after the

thunderous success of his arrival in Russia and before the July days, Lenin did keep rather in the background, not speaking often, not 令状ing much, but 大部分は engaged in directing 組織の work in the Bolshevik （軍の）野営地，陣営, whilst Trotsky 雷鳴d 前へ／外へ at 会合s in Petrograd.

Trotsky's most obvious gifts were his talents as an orator and as a writer. I regard Trotsky as probably the greatest orator of our age. In my time I have heard all the greatest 議会人s and popular tribunes of 社会主義 and very many famous orators of the bourgeois world and I would find it difficult to 指名する any of them, except Jaurès (Bebel I only heard when he was an old man), whom I could put in the same class as Trotsky.

His impressive 外見, his handsome, 広範囲にわたる gestures, the powerful rhythm of his speech, his loud but never 疲労，（軍の）雑役ing 発言する／表明する, the remarkable coherence and literary 技術 of his phrasing, the richness of imagery, scalding irony, his 急に上がるing pathos, his rigid logic, （疑いを）晴らす as polished steel - those are Trotsky's virtues as a （衆議院の）議長. He can speak in lapidary phrases, or throw off a few 異常に 井戸／弁護士席-目的（とする）d 軸s and he can give a magnificent 始める，決める-piece political speech of the 肉親，親類d that 以前 I had only heard from Jaurès. I have seen Trotsky speaking for two and a half to three hours in 前線 of a 全く silent, standing audience listening as though spellbound to his monumental political treatise. Most of what Trotsky had to say I knew already and 自然に every 政治家，政治屋 often has to repeat the same ideas again and again in 前線 of new （人が）群がるs, yet every time Trotsky managed to 着せる／賦与する the same thought in a different form. I do not know whether Trotsky made so many speeches when he became War 大臣 of our 広大な／多数の／重要な 共和国 during the 革命 and civil war: it is most probable that his 組織の work and tireless 旅行ing from end to end of the 広大な 前線 left him little time for oratory, but even then Trotsky was above all a 広大な／多数の／重要な political agitator. His articles and 調書をとる／予約するs are, as it were, frozen speech - he was literary in his oratory and an orator in literature.

It is thus obvious why Trotsky was also an 優れた publicist, although of course it frequently happened that the （一定の）期間-binding 質 of his actual speech was somewhat lost in his 令状ing.

As regards his inner 質s as a leader Trotsky, as I have said, was clumsy and ill-ふさわしい to the small-規模 work of Party organization. This defect was to be glaringly evident in the 未来, since it was above all the work in the 違法な 地下組織の of such men as Lenin, Chernov and Martov which later enabled their parties to 競う for hegemony in Russia and later, perhaps, all over the world. Trotsky was 妨害するd by the very 限定された 制限s of his own personality.

Trotsky as a man is prickly and overbearing. However, after Trotsky's 合併 with the Bolsheviks, it was only in his 態度 to Lenin that Trotsky always showed - and continues to show - a tactful pliancy which is touching. With the modesty of all truly 広大な／多数の／重要な men he 認めるs Lenin's primacy.

On the other 手渡す as a man of political counsel Trotsky's gifts are equal to his rhetorical 力／強力にするs. It could hardly be さもなければ, since however skilful an orator may be, if his speech is not illuminated by thought he is no more than a sterile virtuoso and all his oratory is as a tinkling cymbal. It may not be やめる so necessary for an orator to be 奮起させるd by love, as the apostle Paul 持続するs, for he may be filled with hate, but it is 必須の for him to be a thinker. Only a 広大な／多数の／重要な 政治家，政治屋 can be a 広大な／多数の／重要な orator, and since Trotsky is 主として a political orator, his speeches are 自然に the 表現 of political thinking.

It seems to me that Trotsky is incomparably more 正統派の than Lenin, although many people may find this strange. Trotsky's political career has been somewhat tortuous: he was neither a Menshevik nor a Bolshevik but sought the middle way before 合併するing his brook in the Bolshevik river, and yet in fact Trotsky has always been guided by the 正確な 支配するs of 革命の Marxism. Lenin is both masterful and creative in the realm of political thought and has very often 明確に表すd 完全に new lines of 政策 which subsequently 証明するd 高度に 効果的な in 達成するing results. Trotsky is not remarkable for such boldness of thought: he takes 革命の Marxism and draws from it the 結論s applicable to a given 状況／情勢. He is as bold as can be in …に反対するing liberalism and 半分-社会主義, but he is no innovator.

At the same time Lenin is much more of an opportunist, in the profoundest sense of the word. This may again sound 半端物 - was not Trotsky once associated with the Mensheviks, those 悪名高い opportunists? But the Mensheviks' opportunism was 簡単に the political flabbiness of a petty-bourgeois party. I am not referring to this sort of opportunism; I am referring to that sense of reality which leads one now and then to alter one's 策略, to that tremendous sensitivity to the 需要・要求するs of the time which 誘発するs Lenin at one moment to sharpen both 辛勝する／優位s of his sword, at another to place it in its sheath.

Trotsky has いっそう少なく of this ability; his path to 革命 has followed a straight line. These 異なるing 特徴 showed up in the famous 衝突／不一致 between the two leaders of the 広大な／多数の／重要な ロシアの 革命 over the peace of Brest-Litovsk.

It is usual to say of Trotsky that he is ambitious. This, of course, is utter nonsense. I remember Trotsky making a very 重要な 発言／述べる in 関係 with Chernov's 受託 of a 大臣の 大臣の地位: 'What despicable ambition - to abandon one's place in history in 交流 for the untimely 申し込む／申し出 of a 大臣の 地位，任命する.' In that, I think, lay all of Trotsky. There is not a 減少（する） of vanity in him, he is 全く indifferent to any 肩書を与える or to the trappings of 力／強力にする; he is, however, boundlessly jealous of his own 役割 in history and in that sense he is ambitious. Here he is I think as sincere as he is in his natural love of 力／強力にする.

Lenin is not in the least ambitious either. I do not believe that Lenin ever steps 支援する and looks at himself, never even thinks what posterity will say about him - he 簡単に gets on with his 職業. He does it through the 演習 of 力／強力にする, not because he finds 力／強力にする 甘い but because he is 納得させるd of the rightness of what he is doing and cannot 耐える that anyone should 害（を与える） his 原因（となる）. His ambitiousness 茎・取り除くs from his colossal certainty of the rectitude of his 原則s and too, perhaps, from an 無（不）能 (a very useful trait in a 政治家，政治屋) to see things from his 対抗者's point of 見解（をとる）. Lenin never regards an argument as a mere discussion; for him an argument is always a 衝突／不一致 between different classes or different groups, as it were a 衝突／不一致 between different 種類 of humanity. An argument for him is always a struggle, which under 確かな circumstances may develop into a fight. Lenin always welcomes the 移行 from a struggle to a fight.

In contrast to Lenin, Trotsky is undoubtedly often 傾向がある to step 支援する and watch himself. Trotsky treasures his historical 役割 and would probably be ready to make any personal sacrifice, not 除外するing the greatest sacrifice of all - that of his life - ーするために go 負かす／撃墜する in human memory surrounded by the aureole of a 本物の 革命の leader. His ambition has the same characteristic as that of Lenin, with the difference that he is more often liable to make mistakes, 欠如（する）ing as he does Lenin's almost infallible instinct, and 存在 a man of choleric temperament he is liable, although only 一時的に, to be blinded by passion, whilst Lenin, always on an even keel and always in 命令（する） of himself, is 事実上 incapable of 存在 distracted by irritation.

It would be wrong to imagine, however, that the second 広大な／多数の／重要な leader of the ロシアの 革命 is inferior to his 同僚 in everything: there are, for instance, 面s in which Trotsky incontestably より勝るs him - he is more brilliant, he is clearer, he is more active. Lenin is fitted as no one else to take the 議長，司会を務める at the 会議 of Peoples' Commissars and to guide the world 革命 with the touch of genius, but he could never have 対処するd with the titanic 使節団 which Trotsky took upon his own shoulders, with those 雷 moves from place to place, those astounding speeches, those ファンファーレ／誇示s of on the 位置／汚点／見つけ出す orders, that 役割 of 存在 the unceasing electrifier of a 弱めるing army, now at one 位置／汚点／見つけ出す, now at another. There is not a man on earth who could have 取って代わるd Trotsky in that 尊敬（する）・点.

Whenever a truly 広大な／多数の／重要な 革命 occurs, a 広大な／多数の／重要な people will always find the 権利 actor to play every part and one of the 調印するs of greatness in our 革命 is the fact that the 共産主義者 Party has produced from its own 階級s or has borrowed from other parties and 会社にする／組み込むd into its own organism 十分な 優れた personalities who were ふさわしい as no others to fulfil whatever political 機能（する）／行事 was called for.

And two of the strongest of the strong, 全く identified with their 役割s, are Lenin and Trotsky.

公式文書，認める: Anatoly Lunacharsky (1873-1933) wrote the 調書をとる／予約する "革命の Silhouettes" in 1918. It was 問題／発行するd in a couple of 版s until 1924, now this now that biography was 削減（する） out or put in. This text is taken from the 1923 版. In the last 版, the profiles of Trotsky, Zinoviev and others were omitted. The 調書をとる／予約する was never published again. Stalin was almost not について言及するd at all in the 調書をとる／予約する, which maybe was the biggest problem with it. /KET