Those who have kept up with the progress of history writing of late years know that the word "hero" is one that has no place in it. Great men of all kinds have been found to have faults just as grievous as their less famous brethren, and the more noted they were the less were they to be revered when their real selves came to light. But heretofore the public has been left its faith in the bad men of times past. From Nero to the Kaiser, various luckless individuals have been the target of unanimous invective and scorn, and few attempts to deny them their titles have been made.

But in his recent biography of Robespierre, Hilaire Belloc sets a new standard. According to his work, that famous character of the French Revolution was not the bloodthirsty, fanatical flend he is usually pictured to be, but a nonentity who reached his position through circumstance and was merely the mouthpiece for a prevalent doctrine. The prospects if such a model is followed are appalling. Mankind may manage to struggle along without any paragons to inspire virtues, but without any villains to use as horrible examples its instructors would be in a bad way.