Oh actually I can think of some attempts at "middle ground" by one historian in particular: Jean-Clément Martin. Which is quite ironic because he is much more of a defender of Robespierre than even Peter MacPhee is. But I think that's precisely the reason - when one's ideas can be perceived as somewhat radical in the field of history, today's compulsion seems to be to temper them with some "reasonable" "balanced" "moderate" views, to avoid a perceived weakening of the overall argument.

Martin's attempts involved, I feel, erasing Robespierre's at least symbolic importance - and thus in the political psyche and public opinion, extensive perceived influence during the end of his lifetime - to present him as "a deputee amongst others", and refusing any contemporary reclaiming of the Frev by Left parties because he can't accept the politisation of the Revolution's ideas as their natural continuation. If anything, I find the lack of nuance in these statements to undermine his work.