The quote reflects on the French Revolution and the idea of historical repetition. It suggests that if the revolution could occur repeatedly, historians might view its events and figures, particularly Robespierre, with less reverence or pride. The uniqueness of the revolution lends a certain weight to its historical significance, transforming the past into a series of theories rather than a palpable reality. This change signifies a shift in perception, where the violent events become less burdensome and can be viewed more lightly.

The comparison of Robespierre's singular historical existence to a hypothetical recurring character highlights the complexity of historical legacies. While Robespierre is a notable figure who had a significant impact during a specific period, his legacy is more profound against the backdrop of a one-time event. This underscores the notion that the lessons of the past are often viewed through the lens of nostalgia and interpretation rather than direct, repeated experiences. History, then, is shaped by its singular occurrences and the meanings we attach to them.