0 The Imperial Century, 1725-1825bitrary actions by their subordinates. Regimental colonels in particular
joyec; more freedom than before to determine how the law was applied
thin their units, and their practice varied greatly.
Characteristic in this respect are S. R. Vorontsov's instructions to his com-
ny commanders (! 774), 'Nhich ·.vere rcgaidcd by other :)~uiur officers of
ivanced' views as worthy of emulation and have earned the praise of
litary historians. 'Do not strike a man for [mistakes in] marching and [rifle)
Vements,' wrote Vorontsov, 'but unflaggingly teach the men what they
veto do ... It is unbecoming and harmful if a soldier hates his rifle, as he
1y well do if he is beaten when drilling with it, and comes to look on it simply
an instrument of torture.'^147 Yet in the same document Vorontsov ordered
n charged with insubordination to be sent for trial at regimental head-
arters because they merit 'the harshest penalties, which cannot be admin-
!red at company level'; these penalties were to be carried out in public,
fore the whole regiment, so that others may be dissuaded by the example'.
yone insulting a sentry was to be killed at once by another soldier, 'and it is
to him whether to kill him with the bayonet or the butt of his rifle'.^148 That
:h a document could be considered a humanitarian manifesto tells us a lot
Ut the condition of Catherine's army (and later historiography, too).
. S. Pishchevich, who commanded a cavalry squadron in the second Russo-
rkish war of the reign, claims in his memoirs that for seven years 'I never
d the stick, let alone ordered any rogue to run the gauntlet'. Yet he blandly
nits that a friend of his beat a dragoon 'so severely that a few days later he
j'; an investigation found the officer to blame but Pishchevich persuaded
ir commander 'to consign the case to oblivion'. He disapproved of what he
a.rded as laxity by some of his colleagues: 'it takes years to knock a soldier
shape but only a minute to spoil him'. Such a philosophy was probably
untypical of officers in distant provincial stations, such as those on the
an' line where Pishchevich wrote his reminiscences.^149
.iberal influences percolated slowly, from the top down. The great field-
·shaJs of the age, P. A. Rumyantsev, G. A. Potemkin, and A.V. Suvorov,
e acquired a reputation for 'progressive' views that is not wholly deserved,
ough they certainly displayed more common sense than the martinets of
Gatchina school who succeeded them. Rumyantsev's service regulations
'0) make no provisions for soldiers' rights or welfare (apart from two
JC clauses on medical aid).^150 The several dozen court-martial sentences
:h he confirmed in 1778-80 were not remarkable for their liberalism.^151
~mkin, certainly more enlightened than most, repeatedly urged senior
Glinoyetsky, 'lnstruktsiya ... Vorontsova', p. 39 (§ 5).
Ibid., pp. 34, 42 (§§ I, 7).
[Pishchcvich) Zhizn; pp. 120-1, 147-9.
'Obryad sluzhby' (1770), in Fortunarov, Rumyantsev, ii. 233-51; cf. Suvorov's 'Polkovoye
:zhdcniyc' (1764) in Meshcheryakov, Suvorov, i. 73-168, which showed more concern for
:rs' health.
TsGVIA, V-UA, ed. khr. 226 (1778-80).