The Struggle for Survival 179
lower, it was ostensibly run by a committee elected at the start of each four-
month accounting period. Its operations were supervised by one of the NCOs,
the kaptenarmus. Each man contributed a certain sum (3 roubles a year in
1812) and the fund was f"nl:iref"rl liy ~dding the money brnught in by new
recruits, savings from unexpended food allowances, the property of deceased
comrades, the proceeds of artisanal activities-and, last but not least, booty
(see below, p. 218). Some artels built up a capital fund as large as 800 roubles.
The money might be spent on extra food (meat, vegetables) or carts to carry
the members' baggage on the march. However, neither the committee nor the
supervising NCO actually held this money. It remained in the care of the com-
pany commander or his nominee and was drawn on as required. This was an
open invitation to abuse. While the men themselves as a rule managed their
affairs honestly, the same could not always be said of their superiors. The artel
system had two major defects. First, it was a simple informal institution, and
so a soldier who was transferred or discharged could not easily, if ever, claim
repayment of his contributions. Second, it was not genuinely autonomous and
could be 'bent' to serve the interests of authority rather than those of its
members. There were instances where 'company commanders authorize an
advance to the colonel, or in an emergency even give him a present', remarks
von Hupe! disingenuously.^24
In this way a soldier could dispose personally of only a portion of his pay.
As for the official deductions, everyone in state service, civilians included, had
to contribute a sum.~etermined according to rank, towards the cost of
medical car~. In 1731 this was fixed at 1 per cent of basic pay for men in the
'lower ranks'; officers paid 1.5 per cent.^25 NCOs, but not privates, also had to
pay 1 per cent for hospital expenses.^26 These deductions were made before pay
was issued and were non-returnable. The sum was relatively small and accord-
ing to von Hupe! might be donated on the men's behalf by a generously-inclined
colonel.^27 Soldiers probably found it more objectionable to be placed on half-
pay while they were in hospital, or to be held responsible for the cost of items
of equipment they had lost or damaged.^2 M Those under judicial investigation
were also placed on half-pay.^29 Deductions were also made to cover part of the
cost of medals^30 -and originally, as we know, even for uniforms. The latter
24 Von Hupe!, Beschreibung, p. 150: foregoing al-;o ba-;ed on Mas~on, Memoires, iii. 198;
de Raymond, Tableau, pp. 529, 538; Langeron. · Rmskaya armiya'. 4, pp. 148-51; Plot ho,
Entstehung, p. 56; Tanski, Tableau, p. 210. Duffy (Ru.ma's Military Way, p. 130) correctly notes
that 'the artel had deep roots in Russian village sode1y, with ii~ peasant meetings and sense or joint
enterprise', but does not mention its limitations.
25 PSZ xliii. 5864 (28 Oct. 1731), § 15, Table IV: d. vi. 3867 ( 12 Dec. 1721), xv. 10789 (9 Jan.
1758), I,§ 7, xliii. 11784 (4 Apr. 1763), p. 14.
26 Solov'yev, 'Kratkiy ist. ocherk', p. 246.
2rvon Hupe!, Beschreibung, pp. 116, 142, 149.
28 PSZ ix. 6852 (24 Dec. 1735), ch. I,§ 14, xv. 10789 (9 .Ian. 1758), Ill, §7. The former deduc-
tion did not apply to poor officers after 1809: xxx. 23720 (24 June 1809).
29 PSZ xv. 10789 (9 Jan. 1758), II,§ 6; Solov'yev, 'Kratkiy isl. ocherk', pp. 247-50.
JO PSZ xx iv. 18225 (27 Oct. 1797).