tween the various communities and crushing all friendly relations in the regions along it.
At the same time the checking of this energetic trade by obstruction of the route resulted in he fatal severance of their cooperative pacts against a common enemy which threatened self-rule within their townships. The people, accustomed to governing themselves through folk-mote, did not take kindly to the dictatorial ways of the boyars and there began a long, intense struggle between the boyars and the people which in the end unfortunately was not won by the communities because a united resistance was made impossible.
During Zakhar Berkut’s time this struggle was by no means finished, as a matter of fact, in the isolated regions high up in the Carpathian ranges, it had not even begun and these, one can safely state, were the most fortunate in all of Rus during that period. The Tukholian region belonged to these fortunate few whose route, cresting over the Beskid, had contributed to its welfare for a long time. This route had not yet fallen into the hands of the boyars but belonged to everyone, the people on both sides of the Carpathians who, though they owed allegiance to two different kings, guarded it with equal zeal from attack by undesirable forces. Warning of an enemy’s advance spread like a flash of lightning to the communities along the route so that they were able to swiftly and effectively repell it by the combined efforts of all their armies.
It was not surprising that the Tukholian district, located in the center of this trade route extending to both sides of the Carpathian ranges, grew increasingly desirable as a habitat and that it continued to preserve its independent, democratic form of government. By its example it kept alive the tradition of liberty and consolidation within the entire Carpathian region and especially in those communities which the king’s boyars had taken over and in which the ruinous struggle had already begun
53
