224 The Imperial Century, 1725-1825Investigators invariably questioned those they caught as to the exact route
they had taken and how they had kept alive. A man might typically reply that
he had eaten vegetables growing in the fields and had laid up in woods by day
or empty houses at night.^110 The purpose of this questioning was to discover
and punish any civilians who had given him food or shelter, as well as to ascertain
whether he had committed any robberies while on the run. Captured deserters
were also asked several proforma questions, such as whether they had received
their pay and had intended to abscond temporarily or for good. Courts martial
observed such juridical formalities but did not bother to probe the accused's
motives more broadly.
Occasionally local authorities organized round-ups of suspected fugitives.
Catherine II disapproved of the practice. In 1795 she wrote to M. M. Izmaylov,
the Moscow commander-in-chief, declaring that the reason why men fled was
that 'they do not get their due, are beaten cruelly, and made to dig ponds [for
their officers] and to drink wine in the taverns [to increase the lease-holders'
revenue]'. She ordered those detained to be asked what specific grievances they
had-but refrained, perhaps out of respect for legal procedure, from saying
whether they were to be set free.^111
Her successors were less squeamish. They did not return to the early eigh-
teenth-century (and Muscovite) practice of sending out special investigators
(syshchik1), which Catherine had abandoned,^112 and they continued the
long-standing habit of granting amnesties. But Paul imposed pepalties on
unit commanders whose men deserted-and made these officers responsible
for paying the reward to the delator .113 In 1811 Alexander I ordered soidiers
who had fled to the Cherkessians (in the Caucasus) and were recovered to be
summarily executed, presumably as traitors.^114 He set up a permanent security
force, called the Internal Guard (Vnutrennyaya strazha), one of whose chief
tasks was to apprehend deserters. By 1817 he became worried that the large
number of military convicts who had been sent to the Orenburg line or to
Siberia 'are corrupting fine young recruits' in those areas, and ordered them to
be kept in their units instead.^115 The normal penalty for deserters was still the
gauntlet: one to three passes through 500 men for the first offence, six for the
second, and five passes through 1,000 men for the third, fourth, or fifth
offence.1^16110 Cases of A. Nikolayev and V. Poletayev (Aug. 1799), TsGVIA, f. II, op. 6, ed. khr. 33
(1799). II. 23, 36•.
111 Vorontsov, 'Zapiska', AKV x. 385.
112 For the practice: PSZ xiv. 10650 (19 Nov. 1756), § IO; for its repeal xvi. 11672 (2 Oct. 1762);
cf. xvi. 11919 (12 Sept. 1763).
113 PSZ xxiv. 17588 (9 Nov. 1796), IX, ch. VI, § I (p. 90); xxiv. 17590 (9 Nov. 1796), ch. 38, § I
(p. 184); xxv. 18913 (Mar. 1799).
114 PSZ xxxi. 24704 (3 July 1811), § 15 and accompanying 'lnstruktsiya', § 10.
1 u PSZ xxxiv. 27091 (13 Oct. 1817).
116 See above, p. 173. Under Paul there were many discretionary sentences: TsGVIA, f. 11, op.
6, ed. khr. 33.