The principles that Nicholas I governed by were those of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” principles that were coined by his Minister of Education, Count Uvarov. It was these principles that set the tone of Nicholas’ regime, and reinforced the feeling of repression under the Tsar in Russia. Under the principle of “Orthodoxy” Nicholas I and Uvarov strictly reinforced the relationship between Tsar, God and the Orthodox Church. The principle of Orthodoxy within the regime meant that Piety was taken as the main yardstick in human behaviour in Russia, and life in “this world” was not held to be nearly as important as that in the “next world”. This principle strictly limited Russians to being Russian Orthodox, thus repressing any other religion would have been around, e.g. Catholicism. The principle of Autocracy, like Orthodoxy was central to Nicholas I’s regime as it sought to impose itself more firmly on the Russian people and reinforce the tradition Russian view of the total submission to the Tsar of all his subjects. The idea of Autocracy being fully reinforced and imposed upon the people of Russia was repressive as it sent the false message that the Tsar would protect them so they wouldn’t be infected by the foreign ideas like freedom and democracy. This merely repressed the free will of the Russian people and increased the fear the Russian people had for the Tsar, something Nicholas I felt strongly in attaining this, as it would restore some control to his regime that had been rattled by the attempt of his life by The Decembrists in 1825. The final principle of Nationality was yet another repressive one from the reactionary Tsar. The principle of russification and the promotion of Russian culture and elimination of non-Russian languages was definitely a repressive one. In Poland attempts were made to eliminate the Polish language, culture, and religion and replace it with the Russian language, culture and religion. This was truly of a repressive nature.
These three principles of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality in tandem with the Third Section (founded under Nicholas I) vastly increased the overall feeling of repression in Russia. It was the job of the Third Section to inform the Tsar of public opinion on issues, as the censorship laws put in place by Nicholas prevented any public opinion from being aired. The Third Section rooted out any perceived “evil” in Russia, discovering plans for revolutions by intellectual groups and having them sentenced to death or hard labour in Siberia. This was the case with the Petrachevsky Circle, which drew up the programme of equality before the law, freedom of the press, abolition of censorship and a democratic republic. The Third Section discovered the Petrachevsky Circle in May 1849 and rounded up the leaders sentencing 15 of them to death, only for this sentence to later be turned into a hard labour sentence. This presence of the Third Section in Russia, made everyone feel more repressed, you had to watch what you said and how you felt, in fear of the infamous secret police coming after you. Under Nicholas I especially, the Third Section kept thousands of Russian citizens under surveillance. The Third Section was just another ominous reminder of how repressed Russia really was in under Nicholas I, and with the strict principles of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality looking to be upheld, people lived in fear of accidentally going against one of these principles in the presence of a Third Section officer.
Nicholas I also introduced stringent censorship laws. Cookery book’s were not allowed to mention “free air” because of its revolutionary connotations and the Third Section and Ministry of Education, who were responsible for censorship, frowned upon any discussion of social issues in the press or books. If something slipped through the net Nicholas I would act ruthlessly to make sure it was made right. In 1836 Mosow Periodical The Telescope printed a “Philosophical Letter” that was seen as a “merciless cry of reproach and bitterness against Russia.” Nicholas fired the censor who passed the letter, closed down The Telescope and had its publisher sent into exile. The author of the letter, Chadaev, was fond and declared insane and sentenced to house arrest. This just goes to show the repressive of nature of Nicholas’ government, a government to acted to cover up any ideas that would threaten Russia, even going to the lengths of declaring a Chadaev insane in order to show the nation that “sane” people do not write these things.
However, despite being clearly reactionary and repressive, it can be argued that Nicholas I could have been a lot more repressive than he was, considering the principles he laid out. Also, with issues like Serfdom, Nicholas felt that it should be tackled, not abolished, but dealt with to improve conditions for the serfs. The principle of Nationality was not very strictly enforced, and censorship was not as encompassing as it was under previous Tsars.
On the issue of serfdom, Nicholas I was not nearly as repressive as he was when it came to the likes of liberal press. Nine committees were set up to examine the question of serfdom under Nicholas I. Nicholas I also introduced some reforms that improved the lives of serfs, such as in 1827 when he set out clear limitations to landowners’ rights to send serfs to Siberia. In 1833 he prohibited the selling of serfs by public auction, the splitting up of serf families and the “mortgaging” of serfs without land to obtain credit. In 1842, it was made easier for serfs to buy their freedom, and in 1847 serfs were given the right to buy their freedom if their village was sold at public auction. All these reforms that made it easier suggest that Nicholas I was not repressive at all when it came to the issue of serfdom. Nicholas I would have liked to do for the serfs as well, however he faced strong opposition and was scared that if he gave the serfs for freedom it may allow for new “foreign” ideas to flourish. Nicholas I also felt that it was his job to bolster the landowning nobility who were decreasing in numbers and taking on more and more debt, it was these two factors that prevented Nicholas I from taking further action to change serfdom, but it shows that Nicholas was definitely a liberal Tsar in his approach to the issue. It can also be argued that due to the work of Nicholas I reforming aspects of serfdom paved the way for Alex II to abolish serfdom.
Nationality as a main principle of Nicholas I’s government was also not that heavily enforced throughout Russia. Poland was subjected harshly to the ideas of russification, but purely because they had revolted against Russia. Nicholas cared more for a well-ordered society, rather than one that entirely patriotic. Nicholas felt that he wouldn’t need to introduce change unless it was necessary (like in Poland). Thus Finland and the Baltic states were left virtually untouched by the principal of Nationality. It was only when there was a revolt, like there was in Poland, when Nicholas decided to implement the principle. This lack of desire to enforce nationality throughout Russia shows us that Nicholas I the first was not as repressive as the nature of the Nationality suggests. It seemed to be little known that Nicholas preferred the idea of a well-ordered society than an entirely patriotic one.
Finally, Nicholas’ censorship rules were not as harsh as it appeared. Alex I’s censorship laws were much more encompassing and limited the pursuits of the intelligentsia. Nicholas I’s censorship laws did not clamp down of the intelligentsia like Alex I’s did, but merely acted to prevent the free spread of ideas outside the narrow confines of the intelligentsia’s group. The censorship laws looked kindly upon small intelligentsia publications, which was subject to bitter debates within the government of Nicholas I.
In conclusion, Nicholas I did appear at face value to be very repressive. With the three principles of Orthodoxy, Nationality and Autocracy, the Third Section, censorship laws and the ruthless crushing of the Polish revolution, it appears that there can be no discussion on whether he was repressive or not. But when you look at the issues more closely, it becomes clear that Nicholas I only enforced things like Nationality on revolutionary countries who threatened the decrease of Russia’s empire and that censorship was not as stringent as perceived. Nicholas I first also successfully did a lot for the serfs, leading the way for Alex II to abolish it. There is no denying that Nicholas I’s government had a very repressive nature, but it is clear that Nicholas I did care hugely about the welfare of his country.
