Bad wording (surprise surprise, it's the Daily Mail), but they clearly mean that if you wanted to avoid having your beard forcibly shaved off, you had to pay the Beard Tax.
I highly recommend Robert Massie's book Peter the Great, a truly fantastic read that goes in depth on the origin of the beard tax (modernization program) and associated kopek.
I haven't read the book, but one explanation is a power grab from the Church. Prior to Peter's reforms, the beard was essential to orthodox christian tradition and culture, walking around "barefaced" ("босое рыло") was considered a sin. Forcing people to cut the beard was a strong indication of his authoritarian ambitions, and a step to make Russia a more secular state according to his vision of a modern country. The tax was extremely unpopular and led to occasional riots and even suicides (as a form of protest particularly popular among Old Believers half a century before Peter I during Raskol), but in the end he succeeded in changing the culture - the ban was partially lifted a century after that, but it was considered inappropriate to wear a beard since then, unless you was a priest or an elderly person.
He did plenty of similar things, for example ordering the Boyars to cut their long sleeves (a traditional status symbol of a feudal who doesn't need to work) which was a thinly veiled message for them that the old power structure was obsolete and new institutions were coming.
See https://journals.urfu.ru/index.php/QR/article/download/270/2... for a scholarly discussion of what is known of the history. It is reported the 15,903 copies of the original 1698/9 beard tax token were ordered, but unclear if that number were actually produced. Previously only one example was known. Little documentary evidence remains to suggest the beard tax was imposed prior to 1705. The later 1705 and 1725 versions of the beard tax token are rare, but numerous examples exist. And records show the rule was promulgated and tax collected starting in 1705.
Because it’s the Daily Mail, and I wouldn’t believe anything you see in it. They run articles on whether wife-swapping yetis are parking their UFOs properly, and if not, why not. They make the National Enquirer look deadly serious.
> Because it’s the Daily Mail, and I wouldn’t believe anything you see in it. They run articles on whether wife-swapping yetis are parking their UFOs properly, and if not, why not. They make the National Enquirer look deadly serious.
I am not a fan of the Daily Mail. Having said that, can you provide a reference for your claim that they run articles "on whether wife-swapping yetis are parking their UFOs properly, and if not, why not."?
wow, not only a beard tax, but a progressive beard tax! :D