The Argead Kingdom in Macedonia knew only primitive political institutions until the middle of the fourth century. Its Kings came from a family that had been divinely chosen and was differentiated from the rest of the population by a collective charisma. It was kept in power through its association with a Hetairoi (Companion) class, with which it socialized in symposia, which it fought with as cavalry in war, with which it hunted, sometimes for reasons of state. The royal hunt was sometimes more than a leisure activity, more than a bonding experience, and more than a preparation for war: it was one of a series of orchestrated showcases which validated and legitimized a King’s rule. In special hunts the King acted out the role of a hero, whose responsibility it was to protect all of his subjects from the forces of chaos both physical and metaphysical. As observers of the King’s prowess, the Hetairoi testified, where appropriate, to the King’s right to rule. Things began to evolve in Macedon at the end of the Peloponnesian War, but only picked up steam after the accession of Philip II. However, even as late as Alexander III, Macedonian expectations remained conservative and tradition-bound.

Christine D. Worobec explores the volatile world of the peasantry in the decades following the emancipation of 1861. Through Chekhov’s eyes, Worobec considers the cycles of violence and abuse embedded within these communities and the challenges faced in an era of modernization, gauging Chekhov’s response to these problems as a writer deeply troubled by the society that Russian serfdom had produced but wary of sweeping political or ideological solutions.

This chapter explains the Great Reforms of Alexander II, and Tolstoy’s complex response to them in his work. It explores the basic structure of serfdom, and the ways in which it was fundamental to Russian social and economic structures in first half of the nineteenth century. The chapter explains the process of emancipation, and how it gave serfs a degree of freedom while still keeping economic and social power in the hands of the landowners. Tolstoy recognized serfdom as unjust, but also owned serfs and made only an ineffectual attempt to partially free them before the official end of serfdom in 1861. In his works, serfdom is described as oppressive but also connected with love and family. His works also reflect his concern that emancipation would destroy the nobility without solving the fundamental problems of poverty and exploitation. The creation of the zemstvo as a system of local government was a similar source of ambivalence for Tolstoy. He served in his local zemstvo for some years, but in his fiction the zemstvo is shown as an inadequate solution. His later works suggest that a more radically empathetic solution is needed to break down the barriers between peasants and landowners.

This chapter analyzes the history of imperial politics from 1800 to 1914, with special emphasis on three key elements: the autocracy, the army, and peasant life before and after serfdom’s abolition in 1861. It argues that Tolstoy’s worldview took shape in the context of bureaucratic and military systems in which serf-owners occupied privileged positions, which complicated the abolition of serfdom, and which made impossible the building of an egalitarian social order in Russia.

Anton Chekhov and Leo Tolstoy imagined a diverse nation in different ways, but each embraced humanity in all its diversity and did so not only as artist but also as citizen and moral spokesman. In Chekhov’s The Island of Sakhalin (1895) and Tolstoy’s Resurrection (1899), the writers led the evolution of the artist’s role as a new civic actor on the national stage. Russian writers began to dream in the 1860s of an inclusive big tent of the arts, but just what and how the disparate elements of Russian society might share in a common culture was contested. Tolstoy and Chekhov expressed their own views on the topic in their books Resurrection and Sakhalin, which were neither backward-looking glorifications of peasant traditions nor forward-looking visions of modernization. Rather, the authors described people sharing the vast landscape of the empire in recognition of their commonality, acceptance of diversity, and rejection of parochial interests. They emphasized place rather than time. Both authors carved out a shared national space, within which they offered readers a new view of their fellow citizens. Of the two authors, it would be Chekhov rather than Tolstoy who transitioned successfully into the next wave of innovation in art.