Recruitment and Service in the Ranks 173striking than might have been expected. 'Merciless' and 'cruel' penalties were
prohibited^164 -but the gauntlet was not considered cruel! A doctor now had to
be present, who could order the punishment to cease if he thought the victim
might expire;^165 but on the man's recovery the beating~ rf"c0mmenced. Thi:;
was a mixed blessing for the victim-and for the doctor, whose function was
scarcely compatible with the Hippocratic oath. The gauntlet was probably in-
flicted less extensively than it had been under Paul, since sentences were as
a rule mitigated on review. This practice became more necessary than ever
after 1812, when new field regulations prescribed the gauntlet as the sole cor-
poral punishment for five specified serious offences; since Peter's military
statute remained in force, there was an ambiguous legal situation which was
not cleared up until 1839.^166
This ambiguity probably explains the harsh retribution meted out to the
rebellious military colonists at Chuguyev in 1819 and to the Semenovsky guards-
men who protested (legally) against excesses by their commander the following
year. During Arakcheyev's ascendancy miscarriage of justice became almost
as common as it had been under Paul. The Decembrist A. Podzhio (Poggio)
records that Major-General Golovin, commander of a guards chasseur regi-
ment, beat to death a private who complained at an inspection about misap-
propriation of the funds in a soldiers' artel, although such complaints were
perfectly proper; on another occasion, before beating a soldier, he had his
grave dug in readiness.^167 Such testimony cannot easily be corroborated, but
there is no doubt that abuses were widespread, notably striking men for errors
committed during drill. Official reports of conditions in the Second Army,
stationed in the south of Russia, explicitly acknowledge that this was so. Count
Pkheyze, who commanded a brigade, 'personally hits soldiers in the teeth';
Major-General Tarbeyev 'beats whole platoons to excess with his cane'.^168
Such malpractices stood in stark contrast to those in the Russian occupation
corps in France (1815-18), where Lieutenant-General M. S. Vorontsov
abolished corporal punishment.^169 In 1821 officers of the lzmaylovsky guards
regiment freely debated, within earshot of the troops, whether discipline was
best maintained by the stick or by persuasion.^170 The more enlightened com-
manders realized that Russia owed her victory over Napoleon to the long-
neglected common soldier. Unfortunately this awakening of social conscience
among the officers, which led to the ill-fated Deccmbrist revolt of 1825 (see
JM PSZ xxvii. 20115 (18 Jan. 1802), xx.. 2~279 (10 Apr. 1808); Bobrovsky, 50fet spetsia/'noy
shkoly, pp. 1-2.
16< PSZ xxvi. 20070 (8 Dec. 1801).
'"" Klugen, 'Neskol"ko slov', p. 193.
167 Podzhio, Zapiski, ed. S. Gessen. in Vosp. i ras1ka~_1• de.mt<'ln· taw1ykh oh.lhches/I' 1810-kh
111'1· (Moscow, 1931). p. 24. cited by Fedorov. Sofdat.,km·e 1fr1zhe111ye, p. 22.
16~ Prokof~ev, Bar.ha, p. 72.
16~ Zavalishin, Zapisk1, p. 109.
Pn Gangeblov, 'Kak ya popal', p. 188.