distinction at Paris.  He continued his studies in art, in science, and laws, saw everything, and was particularly impressed with the tomb of Richelieu.  “Great man!” apostrophizes the Czar, “I would give half of my kingdom to learn from thee how to govern the other half.”  Such remarks indicate that he knew something of history, and comprehended the mission of the great cardinal,—­which was to establish absolutism as one of the needed forces of the seventeenth century; for it was Richelieu, hateful as is his character, who built up the French monarchy.

From Paris, Peter proceeded to Berlin, where he was received with equal attentions.  He inspired universal respect, although his aspect was fierce, his habits rough, and his manners uncouth.  The one thing which marked him as a great man was his force of character.  He was undazzled and unseduced; plain, simple, temperate, self-possessed, and straightforward.  He had not worked for himself, but for his country, and everybody knew it.  His wife Catherine, also a great woman, did not make so good an impression as he did, being fat, vulgar, and covered with jewels and orders and crosses.  I suppose both of them were what we now should call “plain people.”  Station, power, and wealth seem to have very little effect on the manners and habits of those who have arisen by extraordinary talents to an exalted position.  Nor does this position develop pride as much as is generally supposed.  Pride is born in a man, and will appear if he is ever so lowly; as also vanity, the more amiable quality, which expends itself in hospitalities and ostentations.  The proud Gladstone dresses like a Methodist minister, and does not seem to care what kind of a hat he wears.  The vain Beaconsfield loved honors and stars and flatteries and aristocratic insignia:  if he had been rich he would have been prodigal, and given great banquets.  Peter made no display, and saved his money for useful purposes.  It would seem that most of the Russian monarchs have retained simplicity in their private lives.

The closing years of Peter were saddened by a great tragedy, as were those of David.  Both these monarchs had the misfortune to have rebellious and unworthy sons, who were heirs to the throne.  Alexis was as great a trial to Peter as Absalom was to David.  He was hostile to reforms, was in league with his father’s enemies, and was hopelessly stupid and profligate.  He was not vain, ambitious, and beautiful, like the son of David; but coarse, in bondage to priests, fond of the society of the weak and dissipated, and utterly unfitted to rule an empire.  Had he succeeded Peter, the life-work of Peter would have been wasted.  His reign would have been as disastrous to Russia as that of Mary Queen of Scots would have been to England, had she succeeded Elizabeth.  The patience of the father was at last exhausted.  He had remonstrated and threatened to no purpose.  The young man would not reform his habits, or abstain from dangerous intrigues.  He got beastly drunk with convivial friends, and robbed and cheated his father whenever he got a chance.