With the death of Yaroslav the Great in 1054, the entire Russian land was divided into almost independent principalities or appanages. The external essence of the appanage system was that a more or less significant tribal central city received or received a prince, who remained completely independent in internal affairs, and in external affairs more or less dependent, depending on the size and significance of the appanage he controlled. Actually, the specific system of the ancient Russian state existed even before Yaroslav. So, after the death of Svyatoslav Igorevich, Vladimir became the autocratic ruler of Rus' only after a long and stubborn struggle with his brother Yaropolk. Yaroslav Vladimirovich also had to fight with his brother Svyatopolk, imprison another brother Sudislav Pekovsky, and rule Russia for a long time together with his brother Metislav Tmutarakansky until the latter’s death in 1034. Only then did Yaroslav become the autocrat of the Russian land. From this it is clear that the custom of dividing Rus' into destinies existed much earlier than Yaroslav. However, with the death of the latter, his offspring multiplied so much that they had already divided Rus' by many centuries. Yaroslav himself left 5 sons, and, moreover, the Izyaslavichs, independent of him, reigned in Polotsk.
Despite the rather high state of Russian historical science, the essence and significance of the remote period is still far from being clarified by historians. There have been many theories on this issue, but none
82 M. DOVNAR-ZAPOLSETY,
one of them does not fully embrace the essence of this era, focusing attention first on one side or the other.
Not to mention the completely outdated theory of Karamzin, which saw the great prince’s sons in his volosts - fatherly love and care for the families, we find it necessary to mention the bolfa of outstanding opinions on this issue. Authoritative scientists such as S. M. Solovyov and Vavelin admit that the knots originated from the distribution of Russian lands by the Grand Duke, as the ancestor of the princely family, and that consequently the entire Russian land represented the common ancestral possession of the princely house, and the struggle of the princes among themselves was the struggle for the princely family scores. Dalfe, there is a theory that sees in the udflno-v$chevom stroz the ethnographic division of Rus' by tribes and, therefore, explains the struggle of the princes with the tribal struggle of nationalities. This was largely discovered for the first time by Kostomarov. Finally, there is also a rather important opinion of Sergevich, who sees in the udflnovchevom a warehouse - a contractual principle between the prince and the people's magistracy 53).
This is not the place to enter into a more detailed study of these theories, nor is it appropriate to conduct polemics with them. But it seems to us, in our extreme reasonableness, that none of these are unsatisfactory. The point is that each theory does not consider the totality of all the phenomena of people's life at a given time, but preferably selects one group of facts that seems important and fair to it, and builds its conclusions on them; They try to explain those facts that do not fit into this group with some kind of exaggeration or directly consider them as exceptions.
Turning to the facts of the ancient period of Russian history, we notice three major phenomena: 1) the manifestation and development of the tribal life of the nationalities that made up the then Rus', 2) the struggle of the princes and 3) the conflict between princely interests and the interests of the zemstvo.
53) Otyztin is even younger than you. Passek, who in the phenomena of the appanage period saw “anxious family feeling,” Reading Mosk. General Yeet. and Ancient Ross., 1868, vn, Sh, r. 9.:
T. KRIVICHI and DREGOVICHI LAND BEGINNINGS. HI OT. 83