and the average citizen usually answered in one of two ways: either, ‘We are Orthodox’ (or ‘Muslims’ and so on); or ‘We’re locals’ (from, for example, Pskov, or the village of X, and so on). Religious and regional identity was the basis on which imperial patriotism flourished.43 In this, religious belief occupied a special place, as it was the principal consolidating factor. Vladimir Solovyov maintains that the state effectively turned religious belief into an issue of nationality.44 It is indicative that the russification of the outer fringes of the Empire at the end of the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries was marked out, amongst other things, by the construction of Orthodox churches and the creation of Orthodox parishes.
Right up until the Soviet period, religious belief was considered to be a far more important feature than a person’s ethnic origin. In the majority of documents, ethnicity is not indicated; if it is required, it is related to belief and mother tongue. (This is exactly what happened in the First Census of the Population of the Russian Empire of 1897, where there was no question about ‘ethnicity’, but there were questions about ‘religious denomination’ and ‘native tongue’.45) This was because the most important issues in a person’s life (such as getting married) lay under the auspices of the Church, and there was no unified ‘family code’ for people of all denominations. People needed permission from the hierarchy of whichever religion they belonged to in order to marry. In the majority of cases this meant that spouses had to be of the same faith (or to convert to it). In such a situation, documents that contained details about religious denomination (such as the passport) served as official confirmation that the bearer belonged to a particular religion.
Throughout Europe the attitude to passports changed dramatically in the second half of the nineteenth century. There was much talk about doing away with them altogether. This was linked to the rapid expansion of the railways and the subsequent growth in the mobility of the population. The passport system was clearly hindering progress. This was accompanied by a heated discussion in the press about the rights of man. As a result, the presumption of trust won out. Up until the outbreak of the First World War, there were hardly any passports in Europe (in the sense of identity documents).46 Instead of the passport, a system of legitimization was introduced, whereby a citizen could choose whether or not to hold an identity document. A passport became necessary only if one was travelling abroad.
But in Russia the initial reaction to this new situation was to tighten still further the passport system. Passengers had to show not only permits (or passports) but special certificates issued by the police confirming that, as far as they were aware, there was no impediment preventing this person travelling from, say, St Petersburg to Moscow. This innovation did not last long, as it created unacceptable conditions for passengers. The authorities were forced to ease the restrictions and Tsar Alexander II (reigned 1855–81) removed the necessity to show documents when purchasing railway tickets.47
New rules and demands were issued for various categories of the dependant population to present identity documents, but these inevitably led to chaos and confusion. Even in the eighteenth century it had been recognized that passport rules should be standardized, but in the existing hierarchical social system this was simply an impossible utopia. In the 1830s all of the decrees and resolutions on movement of the population within the boundaries of the Russian Empire which had been issued since the Legal Code of 1649 were brought together in a single ‘Resolution on Passports and Runaways’. They made up the complete fourteenth volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire of the Second Assembly. This did not solve the problem; but at least this Code provided some guidance in this area.
The first article of the Code pronounced: ‘No-one is to absent themselves from their permanent place of abode without a legal permit or passport’ (a position which had been established under Peter I). The permanent place of abode was considered to be the place where the subject served or where their property was, or where they were registered in the nobles’, city or inspectors’ lists. The clergy were supposed to be living near their churches or in monasteries; merchants where they were registered; peasants and domestic serfs where they were registered for taxes. Other limitations were laid down on the religious or ethnic principle. There were special rules set down for where the Jewish population could live (Articles 16–38). Jews were allowed to live in the seven Western districts and in Bessarabia. Settling in other districts was regulated by legal acts which were constantly changing; one day permission might be granted, on another day refused. This happened also with those wishing to settle in Siberia.48
Nobles who were not in government service could use as passports certificates verifying their noble status. For peasants and the lower middle classes there were three types of passport, which were differentiated by their length of validity and the distance they permitted the bearer to go from their place of permanent residence. Separate categories were created for those with ecclesiastical titles, monks, members of sects such as Raskol’niki and Skoptsy and others. The social and religious delineation of the Empire’s population was strengthened by Article 20 of the Code through the following all-embracing formula: ‘Each level has its own permits or passports, as provided for by the law.’
If travelling from one district to another, all passport holders were obliged to show their passport to any government official they met on the way, and on reaching the gates of a city they were obliged to show their passport or certificates of nobility. Once they finally arrived at their destination, they had to present their documents to the police. Anyone not obeying these rules was liable to arrest and to being sent back to their place of residence. Those who were unable to confirm their identity were charged with vagrancy and exiled to Siberia ‘where they were to settle’. People who were in police custody had a red mark stamped in their passport indicating that they had been under suspicion.49 ‘Landlords who accepted travellers on a temporary basis were under an extra form of control, as they had to report to the police the following details about their guests: name, title or rank, place of permanent residence and religious denomination.’50
In the second half of the nineteenth century, it was clear that this cumbersome and muddled system was proving to be a serious impediment to Russia’s development. Alexander II created a Passport Commission under the chairmanship of the Interior Minister, Sergei Lanskoy, which was tasked with simplifying the existing passport regime. However, it soon became clear that too much was tied up with the passport system: the social stratification of society; the taxation laws; the recruitment process for the army and much more, not to mention serfdom and the organization of the village communes [Russ: obshchina]. Serious reform of the passport system inevitably threatened to rock the very foundations of society. Nevertheless, the need for it was widely discussed in the press.51
By this time the state bureaucratic apparatus had become extremely experienced in documenting the individual.52 In principle, they were prepared to make changes, especially as they had already begun to do so in other areas (such as the move from recruitment for the army to conscription, which was carried out in 1875). After the reform of 1861 (which, most significantly, abolished serfdom), the most relevant issues involved the hiring of workers. For the first time there was talk of introducing employment books [Russ: trudovaya knizhka] instead of passports for hired agricultural workers and servants (this idea was brought up again in Soviet times).
Finally, in 1894, the ‘Resolution on Residence Permits’53 was introduced, thanks to the work of the Passport Commission, chaired by the Secretary of State, Dmitry Solsky. This Commission had begun its work eight years after the reform of 1861, and was succeeded by the so-called ‘preparatory commission’ which presented the results of its years-long work in the State Council. The Resolution was amended by the ‘Decree on Passports’ in 1903 and particularly the Supreme Decree of 5 October 1906, but its basic provisions remained unaltered until 1917.
It is indicative that the title ‘residence permit’ showed that where a person lived – and the place which he could leave only with the appropriate documentation – was the first point of identification.54
