There's condescension and then there's condescension though. I've read a great many historians, but even just to use the example of the book from the colloquium in which I read Andress's essay, there were other historians in that book whom I would describe as mainly straightforward, mainly persuasive, mainly aggressive in tone. Andress is the only one whose main tone really stood out to me as condescending. Maybe it's just me, but the other historians seemed to generally want to find out more about how people at all levels of society, from the members of a popular society in a small provincial town to members of the CSP, understood their world and were understood by others in it. Andress seemed more interested in condemning (again, in a very condescending fashion) than understanding.

I know exactly what you mean though, apart from that. Saint-Just had a lot more life experience in his short life than many historians do who live to be 90.