Unfortunately, most of the best information on the Revolution (and Robespierre) is only available in French.
I can give you my extremely generalized and short version of the answers to your questions, but you have no reason to take me at my word... Even so, you should know, first of all, that Robespierre was never accused of *being* a dictator in his lifetime, even by his bitterest enemies, only of *wanting* to be one. (It should also be noted that to people in the 18th century, the dictatorship was a Roman magistracy. When anyone from the time says "dictator" they're thinking more Sulla than Stalin.) Second, the concept of the "Republic of Virtue" is a redundant one, since for any 18th century thinker from Montesquieu on, virtue (ie, the concept of participation in the Republic on the part of its citizens) was the foundation of any republic. Third, Robespierre never stopped being for the rights of the poor and ordinary people. Fourth, while everyone agrees that there was repression in the Year II, many historians are starting to question the usefulness of "the Terror" as a concept (J-C Martin demonstrates that it was never actually "put on the order of the day"; a number of studies analyze its invention post-Thermidor; M. Belissa considers that when people use the term Terror what they're really referring to is the popular government - an analysis borne out by the origins of the use of the term during the Revolution: in royalist newspapers decrying the "Terror" of the "Rights of Man and Citizen"; etc.) - as has often been noted with the term "Middle Ages" if you told someone in 1793-1794 that they were living under the Terror, they would have had no idea what you were talking about. Fifth... well, I won't insult your intelligence by any lengthy explanation about how, say, Lenin's invocation of Robespierre tells you a lot more about Lenin than Robespierre.
no subject
Unfortunately, most of the best information on the Revolution (and Robespierre) is only available in French.
I can give you my extremely generalized and short version of the answers to your questions, but you have no reason to take me at my word... Even so, you should know, first of all, that Robespierre was never accused of *being* a dictator in his lifetime, even by his bitterest enemies, only of *wanting* to be one. (It should also be noted that to people in the 18th century, the dictatorship was a Roman magistracy. When anyone from the time says "dictator" they're thinking more Sulla than Stalin.)
Second, the concept of the "Republic of Virtue" is a redundant one, since for any 18th century thinker from Montesquieu on, virtue (ie, the concept of participation in the Republic on the part of its citizens) was the foundation of any republic.
Third, Robespierre never stopped being for the rights of the poor and ordinary people.
Fourth, while everyone agrees that there was repression in the Year II, many historians are starting to question the usefulness of "the Terror" as a concept (J-C Martin demonstrates that it was never actually "put on the order of the day"; a number of studies analyze its invention post-Thermidor; M. Belissa considers that when people use the term Terror what they're really referring to is the popular government - an analysis borne out by the origins of the use of the term during the Revolution: in royalist newspapers decrying the "Terror" of the "Rights of Man and Citizen"; etc.) - as has often been noted with the term "Middle Ages" if you told someone in 1793-1794 that they were living under the Terror, they would have had no idea what you were talking about.
Fifth... well, I won't insult your intelligence by any lengthy explanation about how, say, Lenin's invocation of Robespierre tells you a lot more about Lenin than Robespierre.