394 ROBESPIERRE ; 
feature, but as an unavoidable consequence, arising out of the 
French Revolution. 
It was Robespiérre’s person which marked the révolutionary strug- 
gle we are detailing with the peculiar stamp of terror which it then, 
for the first time, assumed, as distingnished from that which has 
been designated, through all ages, and in all countries, by the sim- 
ple appellation of civil war and party fury. Madame de Stael said 
there was something awful about Robespiérre, which inspired the 
public with imaginary fear of a deeper shade than was produced 
even by the cruel measures of government. But it was Bailleul 
who hit upon the most suitable appellation for that infernal period, 
which existed only so long as it bore the stamp of an enigma; but 
no sooner did the Convent enter into the views of Robespiérre, and 
solve that political problem, than the author, not unlike those mon- 
sters of whom we read in fairy tales, breathed his last, and vanished 
from the stage. 
« Robespiérre based,” says Bailleul, in his Exam. g:c. “the rege- 
neration of society upon these two foundations—equality, and so- 
vereignty of the people. Virtue, in the most comprehensive accep- 
tation of the word, according to his interpretation, constituted the 
true essence of democracy ; and as he included amongst the oppo- 
nents of virtue all those who derived any advantage from the abuses 
of a corrupt government—all selfish wealthy persons, the immoral 
poor, the unduly ambitious, and all those who were inimical to po- 
pular measures and equality—it naturally became a part of his sys- 
tem not only to cleanse society from these vices, but to exterminate 
the individuals in whom they had taken root. No sooner had Ro- 
bespiérre established this preliminary axiom than he inferred, with 
logical rectitude, that in peaceable times it is virtue alone which 
constitutes democracy, but that at revolutionary periods, and during 
civil war, terror must be added to virtue, in order to insure the up- 
rightness of democracy. Terror, without virtue, would, therefore, 
prove as fatal, as virtue, without terror, would be powerless: terror 
being nothing more than strict, rigorous, and instant justice, as de- 
rivable from virtue itself. 
“« Robespiérre,” continues Bailleul, “ being convinced of the sub- 
limity and perfection of his views, in no wise resembled any of his 
coadjutors of the Revolution. They felt that they were opposed to 
an almost overwhelming storm, but nevertheless consoled themselves 
with the belief that the political fever would cease with its cause, 
while Robespiérre, cool, calm, and collected, felt that he was in his 
natural element. He imagined that he could already discover vir- 
