The Mind in the Machine 219
The peasants for their part by and large looked on the members of this 'prouc
fraternity' as alien oppressors. The rift persisted even in 1812, when (so we an
led to believe by historians) the general upsurge of patriotism extendeci to com-
moners. We have a frank and percipient statement to this effect from the pen
of A. Chicherin, a young lieutenant who in November 1812 decided to study;:
village (Krasnaya Slobodka) in Smolensk province where he happened to be
stationed. The population, he thought, could be divided into four groups.
One, which 'mercilessly refuses [us] its hospitality', comprised people whose
hearts had been hardened by the bitter experiences they had undergone. A
second category consisted of those 'tortured by fear', who 'try to hide from
the sight of their liberators'. A third group were still paralysed by shock, and
only the fourth 'has at last been infected by the idea of liberty'-by which he
meant that they were well disposed towards their compatriots in uniform. As
an example of the latter type he mentions a peasant who, although reduced to
destitution by Cossack requisitioning, uncomplainingly shared his last crust of
bread with Chicherin's soldiers_^84
Looting was a problem for the authorities even when the army was defend-
ing Russian soil. Barclay de Tolly had 15 soldiers hanged for robbing a church
on the retreat to Smolensk: significantly, the case was referred to him by the
tough-minded Yermolov.^85 Rostopchln reported to the tsar that Russian
troops pillaged Moscow before the enemy arrived to do the same,^86 but his
evidence is not always reliable. In general peasants and others with produce to
spare were treated high-handedly. They were supposed to be paid for whatever
the troops took from them, but this rule, like so many others, was not always
observed. In 1812 especially, when funds were short and the administration
disorganized, vouchers (kvitantsii) might be issued in exchange for goods.
They could be redeemed later-that is, if the recipient survived and could
make good his claim; the sum repaid was, however, often less than the cost of
the produce.^87 Some useful data are contained in the reports which the bailiff
of an estate near Vitebsk sent to his master, M. S. Vorontsov. The property
suffered exactions by soldiers of both armies in turn. After the war was over
the bailiff estimated the total damages at over 110,000 roubles, of which
foreign troops were responsible for 57, 181 roubles (52.6 per cent) and Russians
for the remainder; the enemy had issued vouchers worth 17 ,999 roubles,
whereas the Russians did so for only 4,405 roubles (8.4 per cent as against 31.4
per cent). Only the latter vouchers were of course now redeemable, but there
were far fewer of them. When the bailiff complained to an officer about the
behaviour of men of the Narva infantry regiment; he was cursed and
threatened.^88 (One is left wondering whether these grievances had anything to
do with Count Vorontsov's liberal leanings!)
84 Chicherin, Dnevnik, pp. 49-50.
8S Davydov, Zapiski, p. 29; cf. Yermolov, Zapiski, p. 38.
86 Shchukin, Bumagi, vii. 422; cf. i. 97.
87 Zhuravsky, 'Stat. obozreniye', 12, p. 313.
88 Shchukin, Bumagi, iv. 286-306.