Such, in brief, were the acquisitions of Russia during the reign of Nicholas down to the time of the Crimean war, which made him perhaps the most powerful sovereign in the world.  As Czar of all the Russias there were no restraints on his will in his own dominions, and it was only as he was held in check by the different governments of Europe, jealous of his encroachments, that he was reminded that he was not omnipotent.

For fifteen years after his accession to the throne Nicholas had the respect of Europe.  He was moral in his domestic relations, fond of his family, religious in his turn of mind, bordering on superstition, a zealot in his defence of the Greek Church, scrupulous in the performance of his duties, and a man of his word.  The Duke of Wellington was his admiration,—­a model for a sovereign to imitate.  Nicholas was not so generous and impulsive as his brother Alexander, but more reliable.  In his personal appearance he made a fine impression,—­over six feet in height, with a frank and open countenance, but not expressive of intellectual acumen.  His will, however, was inflexible, and his anger was terrible.  His passionate temper, which gave way to bursts of wrath, was not improved by his experiences.  As time advanced he withdrew more and more within himself, and grew fitful and jealous, disinclined to seek advice, and distrustful of his counsellors; and we can scarcely wonder at this result when we consider his absolute power and unfettered will.

Few have been the kings and emperors who resembled Marcus Aurelius, who was not only master of the world, but master of himself.  Few indeed have been the despots who have refrained from acts of cruelty, or who have uniformly been governed by reason.  Even in private life, very successful men have an imperious air, as if they were accustomed to submission and deference; but a monarch of Russia, how can he be otherwise than despotic and self-conscious?  Everybody he sees, every influence to which he is subjected, tends to swell his egotism.  What changes of character marked Saul, David, and Solomon!  So of Nicholas, as of the ancient Caesars.  With the advance of years and experience, his impatience grew under opposition and his rage under defeat.  No man yet has lived, however favored, that could always have his way.  He has to yield to circumstances,—­not only to those great ones which he may own to have been determined by Divine Providence, but also to those unforeseen impediments which come from his humblest instruments.  He cannot prevent deceit, hypocrisy, and treachery on the part of officials, any easier than one can keep servants from lying and cheating.  Who is not in the power, more or less, of those who are compelled to serve; and when an absolute monarch discovers that he has been led into mistakes by treacherous or weak advisers, how natural that his temper should be spoiled!