8.1. Origin and essence of the Russian state

Features of the emergence of the state in Russia

The concept of "state" for a person born in Russia means not just a set of state bodies and institutions endowed with power, but something more. This is the core that for a long time united the great diversity of peoples, languages, cultures, religions, customs that existed on the territory of two continents (Europe and Asia).

If for a Western person the state was associated with lack of freedom, coercion, as a result of which he sought to limit his power in every possible way, then for a Russian person a strong state is a goal, meaning, life, a unifying principle. Only a strong state is able to ensure the integrity and unity of society, guarantee the necessary order, protect the country from foreign invasions.

This image of the state was based on the culture of society, the system of values ​​that dominated in it. Among these values, one can note: spirituality as opposed to material values ​​(wealth), community, sobornost (full power of the majority) as opposed to individualism, sovereignty (statehood), patriotism, social justice.

However, this does not mean that the Russian state arose and developed in a special way, completely different from other states. No, those laws of state development that were inherent in all states can also be traced in Russia, although their effect was manifested somewhat differently.

The beginning of statehood among the East Slavic tribes dates back to the 8th-9th centuries, when there is a transition from an appropriating to a producing economy, property inequality arises. At this time, city-states appeared on the territory of the settlement of the Slavs, in which the days of organizing their life were created:

o management apparatus (people's assembly, council);

o urban community, i.e. a territorial organization that no longer united blood relatives, but neighbors:

o enforcement agencies (team led by the prince).

From the 11th century consequences of the Neolithic revolution, i.e. the use of metal tools, the social division of labor, lead to the allocation of artisans, merchants, vigilantes, and city administration. In the future, Novgorod and Ladoga stand out among the Slavic city-states. Kyiv, around which Slavic statehood began to form. Consequently, internal socio-economic processes created the preconditions for the formation of statehood.

However, there is another - the Norman version of the emergence of states in Russia, focusing on external factors.

According to the legend, which was entered into the annals much later than the events that took place, in 862 the Novgorod Slavs and Krivichi, tired of internal strife and unrest, decided to find a worthy ruler in foreign lands. They went overseas to their Varangian neighbors and called on them to reign and rule over them. And three brothers volunteered with their clans and squads. The eldest of the brothers, Rurik, began to reign in Novgorod, the second brother, Sineus, in Beloozers, and the third, Truvor, in Izboreks. After the death in 864 of Sineus and Truvor, Rurik became the sovereign ruler of the Novgorod land and founded the first dynasty of Russian princes and tsars. It should be noted that a more reliable historical person who became the founder of the Rurik dynasty is the Grand Duke Igor, whom the chronicle calls the son of Rurik.

As archaeological excavations show, the signs of statehood among the Eastern Slavs arose before the "calling of the Varangians." As for Rurik, he really existed and ruled first in Ladoga, and was not called "from across the sea." Then he seized power in Novgorod by force, taking advantage of the internecine strife of the local princes.

Consequently, the Russian state arose for the same reasons as for other peoples - on the basis of economic inequality due to the transition from an appropriating to a producing (agricultural) economy, the use of metal tools, the separation of farmers, pastoralists, artisans and merchants, the emergence of increase in labor productivity of property inequality and, as a result, the emergence of classes and the state, reconciling the opposing interests of communal farmers.

But economic inequality was preceded by political inequality caused by the peculiarities of civilizational development. Thus, the size of its territory and geographical location had a significant impact on the formation of the Russian state.

The territory of the future centralized state was in the zone of continuous forests, swampy lands with podzolic and sod-podzolic soils. In the north, along the seas of the Arctic Ocean, the tundra stretched, and in the south - the forest-steppe, turning into the steppe.

The lack of moisture, which fell in the form of rain for two to three months, often led to drought. If in Western Europe the peasant had eight to nine months favorable for agricultural work, then the Russian peasant had to grow and harvest grain within four to five months.

The harsh climate, low productivity, limited peasant plowing largely predetermined the collective forms of farming. Therefore, strong communal traditions have developed in Russia, which for a long time were supported by both the landowners and the state. The community personified society and justice for the peasant, because without the community he could not survive.

Only a strong centralized state could unite the efforts of numerous communities. This caused the separation of a political class that monopoly performs the function of management. Having power over a dependent population gave the ruling class access to wealth.

Christianity, adopted in 988, played a huge role in the formation of Russian statehood. It most of all corresponded to the established way of life of the peasant community, where the interests of society were placed above the interests of a single person, making them sacred.

In addition, it should be noted that the vast territory determined the extensive development of the national economy, i.e. development not by improving the quality of labor, the culture of production, but by involving additional workers and the development of new territories and minerals. This could only happen if there was a strong state.

The vast expanses of Russia have always attracted conquerors. Suffice it to say that in the XVI century. the Russian state fought 43 goals, in the 17th century. - 48, and in the XVIII century. spent 56 years in wars. To protect the territory, significant armed forces and large expenses for their maintenance were required.

All these factors explain the reason for the formation in Russia of the cult of the state, and the state of the autocratic type. In addition, one should not forget about the almost 300-year period when Russia was under the rule of the Mongol-Tatar conquerors, which disrupted the normal development of Russian statehood. During this period, certain elements of statehood were borrowed from the Golden Horde.

In the minds of ordinary community members, the state was often associated with a caring father, who was a prince, tsar, and monarch. Their power was deified, endowed with such qualities as justice, piety, infallibility, mercy, concern for subjects. The state relied on a strong alliance between the monarch and the church.

Consequently, the basis of the absolutist nature of state power is the consent of those in power and subjects. Russian revolutionary thinker A.I. Herzen (1812-1870) noted:

Every Russian is aware of himself as a part of the whole state, is aware of his kinship with the entire population. From that, wherever the Russian lives in the vast expanses between the Baltic and the Pacific Ocean, he listens when the enemies cross the border, and is ready to go to the aid of Moscow as he did in 1612 and 1612.

In fairness, it should be noted that Russia, which by the XVIII century. in form of government was an empire. it is difficult to characterize with the term "imperialist power". All the peoples included in it were the bearers of statehood, and the Russian Empire itself was a state not only for Russians. Therefore, the division into "mother country" and "colonies" traditional for Western empires was absent in Russia. The Russian Empire was a union of different nations, united by a strong state.

Until the 17th century both in Europe and in Russia itself, there was a theory of the Slavic origin of the Russian state. According to her, the Slavs created their own state on their own, without any outside help. A passionate propagandist of this theory already in the 18th century. becomes an outstanding Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov. Following the annals, he insisted that Rurik comes from Prussia, and Prussia is "Po-Russia". Lomonosov associated the name of the state Rus with the Roxolan Sarmatians (“Ros-Alans”), with the Ross River near Kyiv (other names are Rossa, Rus).

The situation began to change at the beginning of the 17th century. This time went down in national history as "Trouble". One of the elements of the Time of Troubles was the invasion of Russia by foreign troops, who sought to tear off all ancient territories from Russia. So, the Swedes tried to wrest Novgorod lands from Moscow. In order to historically substantiate the annexation of Novgorod, the enterprising Swedish writer Peter Pogrey de Yerlezunda went to the direct forgery of documents and in his work of 1614-1615. "History of the Grand Duchy of Moscow", he was the first to state without any evidence that the Varangians were Swedes. Since the publication of this work, it has been customary to equate the Varangians and Vikings, or otherwise, the Normans, therefore the theory of the introduced nature of the Russian state is today called Norman, and all opponents are called anti-Normanists.

The reason for the popularity of Petreus's views should be sought in the ideological quest that unfolded in the 15th-17th centuries. Europe and specifically Sweden. At that time, there was a surge of national identity in Sweden. Some Swedish authors such as Joan Magnus, Johan Bure, Olaf

Rudbeck, strongly promote the myth of Sweden as the cradle of all European civilization. The first of these created the myth that the Germanic tribe of the Goths once lived in Sweden, and then, having moved to Europe, created an advanced Germanic civilization, with all its achievements and severe grandeur. The second author went even further, proclaiming the Swedes to be ancient Hyperboreans, while attributing to them the achievements of many peoples. But the Swede Rudbek surpassed everyone in his fantasies. He stated that the Swedes are the legendary Atlanteans, and therefore mankind owes all cultural achievements to them.

Against such a background, Petreus' statements did not look fake at all. On the contrary, they flattered the growing Swedish nationalism. Thus, as the modern Russian historian V.V. Fomin has shown, Petreus became the founder of the theory according to which the Slavs in the East of Europe did not create their state on their own, but received it ready-made, from outside. An important contribution to the Norman theory was made by another Swede - Brenner. He argued that the very name of Russia comes from the Finnish designation of the Swedes - "ruotsi". Over time, the Slavs adopted the name of the Swedes from the Finns and began to call themselves that. Brenner made it clear that there is a territory in Sweden called Roslagen (Roslagen). It is from her, supposedly, that the name of the Russian Empire comes.

Thus, the Norman theory became the fruit of the collective myth-making of Swedish authors of the 17th-18th centuries. It was brought to Russian soil by three Germans who, under the heirs of Peter I, worked in the Russian Academy of Sciences: Bayer, Miller and Schlozer. In our country, it is them, due to ignorance of the European tradition, that are called the authors of the Norman theory.

Bayer, Miller and Schlozer, who arrived in Russia, were not specialists in its history, they did not really know the Russian language. But they were armed with the ideas of Petreus and Brenner. Therefore, with enthusiasm, they began to adjust historical facts to a ready-made scheme.

First of all, Miller and Schlozer denied Rurik the princely title. It turned out that the Novgorodians invited an unknown random sea robber to rule them. Further, Bayer generally doubted the authenticity of the annalistic report about the arrival of three Varangian princes in Russia, since he considered the Rurik brothers to be fictional characters. He tried to derive the names of Truvor and Sineus from Scandinavian speech turns, which the chronicler allegedly simply could not translate due to ignorance, while in fact “tru-thief” supposedly means a faithful squad, and “sine-hus” means his home.

Trying to oppose Russians and Slavs, anti-Slavists since the time of three German academicians point to the works of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who in the 10th century. described the Dnieper rapids and gave their "Slavic" and "Russian" names. Anti-Slavists argue that the "Russian" names of the thresholds of Konstantin are clearly of Germanic, Scandinavian origin. It is also alleged that the names of the warriors, Rurik himself and his heirs are also Scandinavian: Oleg is a distorted Scandinavian Olaf or Helg (saint), Igor is Ingvar, etc. Those anti-Slavists who nevertheless recognize the historicity of the Rurik brothers are also trying to find Swedish analogues to their names. So, Sineus turns into Seaman, Sigg or Sven, and Truvor into Tur or Tufa. Rurik himself turns out to be Eric, Roderick or Fredrik.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the followers of Normanism did not limit themselves to searching for Scandinavian-Russian parallels in names and titles. They began to prove that the Russian state itself was created by foreigners, immigrants from the West, the Germans. From this, they soon began to draw far-reaching conclusions about the inability of the Russian people to independent historical creativity, about the secondary nature of Russian history in relation to European history.

In pre-revolutionary Russia, Normanism was supported by such authors as N. M. Karamzin, M. N. Pogodin, and some others. Some of its provisions can be found in S. M. Solovyov and V. O. Klyuchevsky. After the revolution of 1917, the main Bolshevik historian M. N. Pokrovsky acted as an active Normanist. Very popular, for quite understandable political reasons, the Norman theory became in the West. There, she quickly won a leading position not only in scientific and pseudo-scientific circles, but also formed the basis of racist misanthropic ideologies, in particular, fascism. In the spirit of the Norman theory about the inability of the Slavs to independent historical and state activity, the head of the Nazi regime, Hitler, and his propaganda minister, Goebbels, and his other handy spoke out. Based on the Norman anti-Slavic theory, the Nazis based their aggressive plans to seize our country, enslave and destroy our peoples.

At the same time, Lomonosov's line did not disappear in Russian historical science. The followers of the Russian genius worked hard to debunk the myths created by the Normanists. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the Slavic theory was developed, for example, by such historians as D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov and others. Already in the 19th century. they refuted the groundlessness of many anti-Slavist arguments. In particular, the names of the Dnieper rapids from the Scandinavian languages ​​cannot be explained in any way, but they have clear meanings and meanings in the Celtic, Iranian, Turkic and even Slavic languages. Those few names of the Dnieper rapids that can be classified as Germanic do not necessarily have to be Swedish. Rather, they date back to the time when the German tribe of the Goths lived in these places.

Already Ilovaisky and Gedeonov showed that the name Rurik is widely known among the Slavs, who never came into contact with the Scandinavians. It is found in the names of the oldest Czech families, we find the same name among the princes of another West Slavic tribe - the Pomeranians. Interestingly, Rurik is not just a name, but also the name of the West Slavic tribal union of the Bodrichs (Obodrites), from where our chronicle prince Rurik came from, as well as the name of their capital: which later became Mecklenburg, in Slavic times the city was called Rerik (another pronunciation is Rorog). At the same time, among the Scandinavians, the name Rurik is just a set of meaningless sounds, and among the Bodrichs, as mentioned above, it meant a falcon. Therefore, the emblem of the Rurik dynasty was an attacking falcon.

The same applies to other "Scandinavian" names. So, with the Russian Plain, and not with Scandinavia, the names of Oleg and Olga have obvious parallels. Ilovaisky pointed out the connection of their names with the name of the great Russian river Volga, and indeed - in Russian chronicles and epics they are sometimes called Volg and Volga. The name Oleg-Volg is also derived from the concepts of "sorcerer" ("priest") and "wolf" (totem animal). This, by the way, further clarifies the chronicle definition of Oleg as the Prophetic, i.e. as a sorcerer-soothsayer. The name of Prince Igor is also not related to Scandinavia. Its root "ig-ing-iz" is found in several compound Slavic names, such as Iggivld, Iigoslav, Izhoslav, Izyaslav, etc.

Supporters of the Slavic theory managed to convincingly reveal the fallacy of the statements about the Scandinavian origin of the names of the brothers of Prince Rurik - Truvor and Sineus, since the concepts of "faithful squad" and "home" in the ancient Scandinavian languages ​​sound and are written completely differently. In addition, the brothers Rurik Sineus and Truvor are found not only in Russian, but also in German medieval sources. Not so long ago, the modern Russian historian V. I. Merkulov published a genealogical tree of Obodrite rulers, whose descendants ruled in German Mecklenburg for many years (even when there were no more independent states of the Slavic Slavs). Its publication was based on the fundamental work of the German author of the 18th century. Samuel Buchholtz. In an adapted form, the genealogical tree of the Obodrite rulers is shown in fig. 1.1.

Today, anti-Normanists have strengthened the arguments of pre-revolutionary authors. So, the historian Lydia Grot, who lives in Sweden, showed that during the time of Rurik in Scandinavia, lands with the name Roslagen just didn't exist. Then the sea was still splashing in this place, and the land was formed no earlier than the 13th century. as a result of complex geological processes. Even earlier, the historian L. G. Kuzmin showed that the name Rus is widely found throughout Europe, and even where there can be no question of any Scandinavian influence.

So, in the East of the continent, the name "Rus", in addition to the Dnieper region, is known in the Carpathians, the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and even in the Caspian. Four Russias meet in the Baltic region: the mouth of the Neman River, the coast of the Gulf of Riga and the western part of Estonia (Rotalia - Russia), as well as the famous island of Rugen (Ruyan). In the Danube region, on the territory of present-day Austria and the northern regions of Yugoslavia, in the V-VIII centuries. there was a certain formation, which was called Rugiya or Rugiland (the land of the Rugs - Russ). It was from there that "The Tale of Bygone Years" by Nestor brought out the glade - Russia and all the Slavs. Two more Russ existed on the border of Thuringia and Saxony. These are Reis and Reisland (Russian land).

Rice. 1.1.

Other arguments of the anti-Slavists do not stand up to criticism, in particular the theory according to which the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks was laid by the Scandinavians - their ships (drakkars, in translation - dragons) were adapted for sea travel and were not at all suitable for navigation on rivers, especially rapids. But the ships of the Slavs - boats - were perfectly adapted for our rivers.

The theories of the Normanists sound unconvincing, according to which the Scandinavians Prince Oleg and Prince Igor, signing agreements with foreigners, swore for some reason not by Odin and Thor, but by Perun and Veles. Contrary to the assertions of the Normanists, the Scandinavians could not found Novgorod, Ladoga, Izborsk, Pskov, Suzdal and other Slavic cities, because they simply did not know how to build them - cities appear in Sweden only in the 13th century, while Russia was already known to foreigners in antiquity as a country of cities - Gardarika. The Russians even outwardly looked completely different from the Scandinavians. The latter were proud of full beards and long hair. For the ancient Russians, a long beard was a sign of a slave state, and long hair, they believed, adorn only women. The Rus themselves wore only mustaches, their hair was shaved off, leaving a small strand of hair.

Soviet historical science developed its own version of the criticism of the Norman theory. Initially, historians of the USSR shared the postulates of Normanism partly because in the writings of K. Marx there was a provision on the Norman period in Russian history. But in the 1930s, when various leftist groups in science and the Bolshevik party itself were defeated, anti-Normanism became the dominant trend in our country. It is worth emphasizing that the rejection of views on the German origins of the Russian state in the USSR took place in the context of the growing Nazi threat.

Soviet historians, in order not to enter into polemics with K. Marx and the official ideology of the ruling party, did not focus on the historicity, as well as the ethnicity of Rurik. Instead, the general conditions of politogenesis (the emergence of statehood) among different peoples, including the Eastern Slavs, turned out to be at the center of their research. Soviet historians proved that the Normans could not bring statehood to Russia, as they were at a lower stage of civilizational development. At the same time, they pointed to the processes of property stratification and class formation that were going on in East Slavic society, which inevitably had to lead and led to the emergence of the Old Russian state.

As for the solution by Soviet historical science of the issue of the origin of the name Rus, the point of view prevailed, according to which the name "Rus", "Russian land" originally referred to the territory of the southern Russian land, the Middle Podneprovyo. As V. V. Mavrodin showed, in the annals the name “Rus”, “Ros” occurs in two different meanings. In the broad sense of the word, "Rus" refers to all the lands of the Eastern Slavs that entered the Novgorod-Kyiv state. But there was also a narrower meaning of this name, when Russia was called the land of the Polyan tribe, contrasting with other Russian lands, including even Novgorod. So, judging by the Novgorod chronicles, for Novgorodians to go to Kyiv meant going to "Rus", and they returned to their own "Novgorod", and not to the "Russian Land".

B. A. Rybakov in his conclusions went even further and singled out an even narrower meaning of the name "Russian land", "Rus". In this case, "Rus" was a small area in the form of a triangle, the base of which is Porose, i.e. the course of the Ros River and its tributary Rosava, the top is Kyiv, and one of the sides is the right bank of the Dnieper. Thus, the name Rus is not of Scandinavian, but of Dnieper origin, as Lomonosov believed in his time.

• See: Fomin VV The initial history of Russia. M., 2008. S. 10 and others.
• For more details, see: Merkulov V. I. Where do the Varangian guests come from? (Genealogical reconstruction according to German sources). M., 2005.
• Nasonov A. N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state: Historical and geographical research. Mongols and Rus: A History of Tatar Politics in Rus. SPb., 2006. S. 9.

I Introduction

facts and speculation

2. Hypotheses and theories of the origin of the name "Rus"

III. Conclusion

IV. Literature

I Introduction

The study of the problem of state formation among the Eastern Slavs for a long time was inseparable from the story "The Tale of Bygone Years", usually referred to as "the legend of the calling of the Varangian princes." It tells about the events of the early 60s. 9th century, when sharp disagreements arose among a number of northern Slavic tribes. It turned out to be possible to resolve this conflict only with the help of an appeal to one of the Varangian princes Rurik, a representative of a tribe known to the chronicler as "Rus", who agreed to "rule and reign" in Novgorod. Following this, two of his boyars Askold and Dir settled in Kyiv, which meant the mastery of the main East Slavic centers by the Varangians. According to the chronicle, this happened in 862. Twenty years later, the Novgorod and Kyiv lands were united by Prince Oleg.

It was this story, discovered by German scientists who worked in Russia in the first half of the 18th century. (G.-F. Miller, G.-Z. Bayer, A.-L. Schlozer) formed the basis of the theory that was called Normanism, and became the starting point of a long and bitter dispute, the echoes of which are heard to this day. Scientists were divided into two camps - Normanists and anti-Normanists on the issue of the formation of the Old Russian state. Some of them with a great deal of confidence related to the chronicler's message (N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, etc.), while others sharply refuted a number of facts cited by The Tale of Bygone Years, such as, for example, ethnicity Rurik or the origin of the name "Rus" from the name of the Scandinavian tribe "Rus". However, today these disputes have noticeably lost their relevance. Today, the focus of the discussion is shifting more and more from secondary problems, which undoubtedly are the questions of Rurik's genealogy or tribal name, to more significant issues - to the real reasons for the emergence of early state formations.

II. The problem of the emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs:

facts and speculation

1. Norman theory and anti-Normanism

The Norman theory is one of the most important debatable aspects of the history of the Russian state. In itself, this theory is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular.

According to the Norman theory, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the IX-XI centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists. What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which, translated into the generally accepted calendar, is the year 862: “In the summer of 6370. Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and more often they themselves are free, and there is no truth in them, and rise up kindred, and more often fight for themselves. And they decide in themselves: "Let's look for a prince, who would rule over us and judge by right." And go for Mork to the Varangians, to Russia; The sister of both is called Varyazi Ru, as if all of them are called Svie, the friends of Urman, Angliane, the friends of Gote, so and si. Resha Russia Chud, and Slovenia, and Krivichi all: "our land is great and plentiful, but there is no outfit in it, but go to reign and rule over us. the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and gray-haired old Rurik in Ladoza, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bela, and the third Izbrsta, Truvor. And from those Varangians, they called the Russian land ... "

This excerpt from an article in the PVL, taken for granted by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory is based on the notion that the Varangians, mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years, are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe under the name of the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, and even more so Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the annals - "Varangians" - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave the statehood of Russia.

Another key conclusion is the conclusion, based on the data of the same fragment of the chronicle, that the Slavs were unable to govern themselves. On this basis, it was concluded that the Varangians, that is, the Normans, brought statehood to the Slavic lands.

It was this conclusion that gave rise to such fierce counter-actions. Opponents of the Norman concept recognized the authenticity of the chronicle source story and did not argue about the ethnicity of the Varangians. However, referring to the chronicle story about the campaign of Askold and Dir and their capture of Kyiv, it was believed that before the appearance of the Norman Varangians, Kyiv had its own princely Russian dynasty.

In the 19th century, the Norman view was supported by the majority of scholars, including Russians. Perhaps most thoroughly it is expressed in the works of N.M. Karamzin. Under the Varangians N.M. Karamzin understands the Scandinavians. The arguments are the messages of the chronicle, the Scandinavian names of the Varangian princes. N.M. Karamzin identifies the Varangians with Russia and places them in the Kingdom of Sweden, "where one coastal region has long been called Rosskaya, Ros-lagen."

However, the ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus was founded, according to N.M. Karamzin, foreigners, but not by conquest, like many other contemporary states, but by peaceful means, through the calling of princes.

The fight against this "theory" was carried out by V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky and others. The Norman theory was criticized by Russian historians S.A. Geodonov, I.E. Zabelin, A.I. Kostomarov and others.

The essence of the objections is the same as in the 18th century: the fact of calling the Varangians, that is, the Normans, is recognized, while it is argued that the Slavic statehood has its origins not in the north in Novgorod with its Varangians, but in the south, in Kyiv. The Tale of Bygone Years is also used as the main source.

Perhaps the idea of ​​the Slavic origin of the first Kyiv princes should be recognized as an innovation of the 19th century, and in addition, a new idea appears that the process of state formation is a fairly complex phenomenon, and therefore, with the leading role of the Varangians, it could not take place without a corresponding development of social relations of the Slavs themselves.

The turning point came in the 20th century thanks to the works of A.A. Shakhmatov ("Search on the most ancient Russian chronicle connections" (1908) and "The Tale of Bygone Years" (1916)), who showed that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians is a late insert, combined by the method of artificially combining several North Russian legends subjected to deep processing chroniclers. The researcher saw the predominance of conjectures in it over the motives of local legends about Rurik in Ladoga, Truvor in Izborsk, Sineus on Beloozero and discovered the literary origin of the entry under 862, which was the fruit of the work of Kyiv chroniclers of the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries.

The attitude of A.A. Shakhmatov to the Norman problem has always been difficult. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicle writing played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. But at the same time, he, like the vast majority of Russian scientists of that time, stood on Normanist positions! He tried, within the framework of his construction, to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period in the history of Russia.

In addition to the changes caused by the works of A.A. Shakhmatov in solving the Norman or Varangian issue, one more change in the source base of this issue should be noted.

IN AND. Ravdonikas, on the basis of the excavations of burial mounds in the South-Eastern Ladoga region in the late 1920s, criticized the statements of the famous Swedish scientist Arne about the existence of Norman colonies in this area and established that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe. A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the assertion of the Normanists about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensk lands, showing that here, too, most of the Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which the burial was not made according to the Scandinavian, but according to the local custom.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the twenties of the XX century, despite the change in attitude towards criticism of the main written source of both Normanists and anti-Normanists, it was still believed that "the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state was firmly included in the inventory of scientific Russian history."

From the mid-30s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists launched an offensive against the "anti-scientific" Norman theory, declaring it politically harmful and unpatriotic. Soviet historical and historical-legal science in terms of exposing the Norman theory is represented by the works of B.D. Grekova, A.S. Likhachev, V.V. Mvrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkov and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on Russia is negligible, if only because the level of their social and cultural development was not higher than in Ancient Russia.

In Soviet historiography, there are three approaches to the news of the annals about the calling of the Varangians. Some researchers consider them basically historically reliable. Others completely deny the possibility of seeing in these news a reflection of real facts, believing that the chronicle story is a legend composed much later than the events described in it in the heat of ideological and political passions that agitated ancient Russian society at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. Still others, finally, catch in the "legend about Rurik" echoes of real incidents, but by no means those that were told by the chronicler. In addition, they also talk about the use of this legend in the ideological and political struggle on the verge of the 11th and 12th centuries. The last point of view seems to be more constructive than the others.

Introduction

Chapter 1. Where did the Russian land come from? The essence of the problem

1.1 Formation of the Slavic state

1.2 Editing Nestor's writings

Chapter 2. The emergence of the "Norman theory" of the origin of the ancient Russian state

2.1 Start of controversy

2.2 M.V. Lomonosov on the "Norman theory"

Chapter 3 Stage of "classical Normanism"

1 Normanists

2 Anti-Normanists

Chapter 4. The emergence of scientific anti-Normanism. The current state of the study of the early history of the Old Russian state in modern historical science

1 Archaeological surveys

2 Pre-state entities

Conclusion

Bibliographic list

Introduction

And they all became under the banner,

And they say: "How can we be?

Let's send to the Varangians:

Let them come to reign.

And here come the three brothers,

Middle-aged Varangians,

Look - the land is rich,

There is no order at all."

A.K. Tolstoy. "History of the Russian State from

Gostomysl to Timashev.

The emergence of statehood among the Slavs is one of the most important debatable aspects of the history of the Russian state. On this basis, in the 18th century, the so-called "Norman theory" arose. In itself, this theory is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was imputed to a certain secondary importance, it seems that, on the basis of reliable facts, a terrible inconsistency was attributed to the Russian people even in purely national issues. It's a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Russia was firmly established in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory. Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians, ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the positions of the Norman theory in science in general were strong and unshakable. It was only in the second half of our century that Normanism lost its position in science. At this time, the standard is the assertion that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the struggle of the Normanists and anti-Normanists, the former were engaged in the search for these same evidence, often fabricating them, while others tried to prove the groundlessness of the guesses and theories derived by the Normanists.

Already knowing the correct resolution of the dispute, it is nevertheless interesting to weigh all the pros and cons and come to your own opinion on this issue. That is why I chose this question as the topic of my essay.

The problem of the presence of the Normans in Russia is difficult to study. The objective difficulty is the state of the sources, which, although numerous and varied, are neither completely reliable nor accurate. In my abstract, I used the works of A.A. Shakhmatov, H. Lovmyansky, S.M. Solovyov and L.N. Gumilyov. The abstract consists of four chapters, each of which is divided into paragraphs.

Chapter 1 The essence of the problem

1 Formation of the Slavic state

The emergence of statehood among the Slavs dates back to the early Middle Ages. By this time, the old geopolitical structure of Europe, which included the Roman Empire in the south and west of the continent, and the "barbarian tribes" (Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Iranian) in the north and east, had gone. A new ethnic and political map of Europe was formed as a result of the migration movement of these tribes, which was called the Great Migration of Nations (4th-8th centuries). The main characters in it were Germans and Slavs. The Germans conquered the territory of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. The Slavs settled in three main directions: to the south (to the Balkan Peninsula), to the east and north along the East European Plain and to the west, to the middle Danube and the interfluve of the Oder and Elbe. In the era of settlement among the Slavs, the tribal system was destroyed, territorial and political communities were formed - tribal principalities and their unions. Based on them in the 8-10 centuries. there was a folding of the Slavic early medieval states.

The state of the Eastern Slavs was formed in the 9th-10th centuries. Its territorial core was the union of the glades with the center in Kyiv, which received no later than the 9th century. political-geographical name "Rus". In the 9th-10th centuries. other East Slavic tribal unions fall under the rule of the Kyiv princes. By the end of the 10th c. this process ends with the formation of a single state, consisting of large territorial units - volosts, ruled by princes - governors of the Kyiv prince.

The question of the formation of the Old Russian state was of interest even to the chroniclers of the 11th-12th centuries. In the earliest of the chronicles that have come down to us from the beginning of the 12th century. - "The Tale of Bygone Years" - the task is to tell, "where did the Russian land come from, and who in Kyiv began first to reign, and where did the Russian land come from." This question, posed by the chronicler Nestor, continues to excite researchers today. And it cannot be said that everything here is already clear and does not require further research. The dispute of historians about who the Rus were and where they should be localized, which began more than 200 years ago, continues. It is due to the nature of the sources, most of which contain far from unambiguous evidence. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the initial Old Russian chronicle was subjected to repeated editorial revisions.

2 Editing Nestor's writings

An excellent connoisseur of Russian annals, A.A. Shakhmatov, proved that Nestor's historical work, written around 1113, underwent two revisions. In order to correctly understand the spirit of these alterations, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the situation in Kyiv at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries.

In the last years of Vsevolod's reign, Russia was practically ruled by his son, Vladimir Monomakh, who, after the death of his father in 1093, expects to keep the throne of Kyiv in his hands, but the Kiev boyars invited a representative of the older branch of the Yaroslavichs, Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. Thus began a twenty-year rivalry between two cousins ​​- Svyatopolk and Vladimir. Nestor was the court chronicler of Svyatopolk and wrote in the Kiev Caves Monastery.

When Svyatopolk died in 1113, the Kiev boyars, in the midst of a popular uprising, invited Vladimir Monomakh to the Grand Duke's table. Having become the Grand Duke of Kyiv by election, Monomakh took up the state annals of Nestor. The abbot of the Vydubytsky monastery Sylvester took up its alteration, who left his entry in the annals under the year 1116. Obviously, the alteration did not satisfy Monomakh, and he entrusted the final edition of the history of Russia to his eldest son Mstislav, which was completed around 1118.

The alteration of Nestor's work was carried out in two directions: firstly, the actual part of the chronicle was edited in the spirit of Monomakh: it described the affairs of Svyatopolk and the events of recent decades, and secondly, the introductory historical part of The Tale of Bygone Years was finally revised. Nestor was a Kievan and based his research on issues related to the Slavic south, Kyiv and the glade-Russian Dnieper, deepening to the 5th-6th centuries. n. E. Its last, most decisive editor was Prince Mstislav, the grandson of the English king, the son-in-law of the Swedish king, who was brought up by the Novgorod boyars from adolescence. For him, the epic legends of the calling of princes were a familiar story, applied to the history of various northern kingdoms. Novgorod and the Varangian North for Mstislav were a natural living environment, and the Kiev boyars, who had not recognized his father for twenty years, were an enemy force.

Remaking Russian history in his own way, he artificially promoted Novgorod to the first place, overshadowing Kyiv, unlawfully moved the birth of Russian statehood far to the north and introduced Varangian conquerors, Varangian organizers into the narrative. The "Normanist" editor distorted a lot in Nestor's text, introduced a number of plots into his "Tale" that conflicted with the original text.

The fact of presence in Russia 9-10 centuries. Scandinavian warriors-Varangians and the chronicle story about the Varangian origin of the ancient Russian ruling dynasty (Rurikovich) gave rise to a long (from the 18th century) discussion between Normanists and anti-Normanists. The former considered the Scandinavians to be the creators of the Old Russian state, while the latter denied this.

Chapter 2. The emergence of the "Norman theory" of the origin of the Russian state.

1 The beginning of the controversy

The question of the origin of the Russian state received particular political urgency in the 1840s and 1850s. during the German dominance at the Russian court. Scientists invited to Russia from Germany, G.S. Its political meaning was reduced to the assertion that the ancient Eastern Slavs were brought out of the state of savagery by the newcomer Varangians, who became the creators of Russian statehood.

A special role in the development of the Norman theory belongs to G.S. Bayer, a member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, who demonstrated not only knowledge of historical sources, but also a desire for their critical assessment, as far as the then state of source study allowed. In one of his articles, he pointed to the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians and such names as Rurik and others given in the annals. The scientist named the origins of Russia and admitted that the name Rus was also applied to the Swedes. He believed that in the Russian North, among the main Finnish population, Gothic (German), and then Slavic colonization developed, which, due to its dispersal, was called Russian or Russian. In his articles, Bayer collected the main range of sources - Russian, Greek, Latin, dedicated to the history of Russia, he also turned to Scandinavian sources, but did not use Arabic, then not yet published, although he himself was a major orientalist.

Source materials collected and published by Bayer were used to confirm the Norman theory by G.F. Miller. In addition, he argued that the conquest of Russia occurred as a result of the victorious campaign of the Swedes. A new argument, at that time authoritative for the Normanists, was the establishment of a connection between the name of Russia through the Finnish definition of Sweden - Ruotsi.

A.L. Schlozer, in his comments on the chronicle of Nestor, published in 1802-1809, compared and subjected to a critical analysis the results of a fairly extensive already in the 18th century. literature of the subject, formulating the Norman theory in an extreme form. Trying to find out how a few overseas invaders could conquer the vast Slavic and Finnish lands, this scientist assumed that the local tribes that were part of the Novgorod state, as he believed, founded by Rurik, were semi-wild and too small. He was only embarrassed by the way in which the few Slavs could assimilate neighboring peoples, including the Norman conquerors.

Constructions of G.S. Bayer and G.F. Miller for a long time influenced further studies of the early history of Russia both within the country and abroad. The more straightforward interpretation and simplification of their conclusions, the more they began to be used for anti-Russian, purely political and far from science purposes.

2 M.V. Lomonosov on the "Norman theory"

The Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov sharply criticized the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state. As a result of his research work, he argued that there was no reason to start Russian history with the so-called "calling" of the Varangians in the person of Rurik and his brothers. Even before the establishment of "Russian autocracy" (princely power), at a time when the Slavs lived in "scattered families" and did not know "common sovereigns", they already had their own history. The Russian state and Russian culture were created not by the Varangian squads, but by the Slavs, who, according to Lomonosov, were the indigenous population of the interfluve of the Danube and the Dniester.

This conclusion of the great Russian scientist made it possible to start a controversy between Normanists and anti-Normanists, in which the former tried to prove the inferiority of the Slavs, and the latter argued that the state cannot be introduced from the outside, but is the result of the influence of internal factors, both economic and socio-political.

Chapter 3. The struggle of views and trends on the origin of the Old Russian state in the 19-20 centuries Stage of "classical Normanism"

The development of Russian historical thought in the 19th century. took place in the battle of three currents: noble-serf (M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, I.N. Boltin and others), bourgeois-liberal (S.M. Solovyov, K.D. ) and revolutionary-democratic (A.N. Radishchev, V.G. Belinsky).

1 Normanists

First half of the 19th century was a period of decisive predominance of supporters of the Norman theory, which was quite natural in the then state of criticism of sources and ideas about the historical process as a result of the activities of rulers in the first place. The main ideologists of the Norman theory and its constant defenders were two historians who differed significantly in their research methods. One of them was M.P. Pogodin, who systematized the results of his many years of research in his three-volume work, the first volume of which was devoted to the criticism of sources, primarily the annalistic legend of Nestor. He fully trusted this chronicle, since, in his opinion, it was based on the records that had been kept in Kyiv since the adoption of Christianity. Pogodin rejected only legends borrowed from Scandinavian sagas and oral traditions. Comparing Nestor's data with local and foreign simultaneous news in other sources, the scientist came to the conclusion that they are similar.

He also considered the chronicle the main and quite sufficient source for proving the Scandinavian origin of not only the Varangians, but also the word "Rus".

A well-known advantage of M.P. Pogodin's works was the desire for a systematic and exhaustive consideration of the material, but his criticism was superficial and was based on literally following the source.

The second major representative of the Norman school in the period under review was Arist Kunik. He, unlike Pogodin, used a completely different research approach. Avoiding generalization and even systematization of his conclusions on the Norman question, he was content with detailed comments on certain aspects of the problem. However, although A. Kunik firmly believed in the truth of the Norman theory, he did not remain deaf to the arguments of his opponents. He abandoned less substantiated conclusions, retreating further into defensive positions, and thereby contributed to the continuation of the discussion. On the whole, through careful analysis of the sources, he did more to weaken the theory he defended than any uncritical anti-Normanist of the last century. Particularly noteworthy is his opinion that the Norman theory cannot be proved on the basis of Nestor's texts, which are still awaiting careful analysis. He believed that, given the current state of research in the disputes about the Norman problem, it would be more reasonable to completely abandon the Kievan chronicle and study the initial history of the state in Russia exclusively on the basis of foreign sources. A. Kunik was two generations ahead of those Normanists who even today willingly reject chronicle evidence.

Also a supporter of the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state is the leading noble historian N.M. Karamzin. He outlined the scheme of the Russian historical process in the multi-volume History of the Russian State. Outlining the events of the time of ancient Russia, N.M. Karamzin believed that the princely power was formed from the Normans and that the Slavic elements of its system were perceived by the "Norman" state. However, dividing the history of the Russian state into three periods, where the history of autocracy is put by Karamzin as the basis of periodization, ancient Russia, as an important stage in Russian history, loses its significance in the scheme of N.M. Karamzin.

Most representatives of the bourgeois-liberal trend also defended the Norman theory. The ideologists of the bourgeois monarchy S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin saw the basis of the periodization of the Russian historical process in the change of tribal relations by state ones. Considering ancient Russia as an era of domination of tribal relations, S.M. Solovyov at the same time considered the "calling" of the Varangians the initial moment in the history of the state, attaching exceptionally great importance to this event. He believed that the Norman squads played a decisive role in the formation of social classes and princely power.

2 Anti-Normanists

Unlike Normanism, anti-Normanism of the 19th century had no supporters among leading historians. He was supported not so much by research as by Slavophile sentiments. Slavophilism was one of the currents of bourgeois liberalism. Fearing a revolution, the Slavophiles looked for a "special" path of development for Russia, following which it would avoid the emergence of a revolutionary proletariat that had already taken shape in capitalist Western Europe. Criticizing the views of S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelina, representatives of anti-Normanism G. Evers, D. Shcheglov put forward a theory according to which in ancient Russia there was a social, namely, communal structure. The Slavophiles developed their view of the community as the "original beginning" that permeates the entire Russian history. In connection with the development of Slavophilism, the number of anti-Normanist works in the 19th century. increased. The anti-Normanists of that time did not oppose their own concepts to the Norman ones, did not introduce new sources into scientific circulation, but only sought to logically refute the main provisions of the Normanists. Based on the same methodological premises, the anti-Normanists focused their attention on the ethnos of the Varangians and their leaders, since they did not doubt the very possibility of founding a state by someone at once. They believed that any non-Scandinavian origin of Rurik was preferable to the Russian national identity. This more or less conscious presupposition gave rise to a large number of writings, although it must be admitted that most of them were of no scientific value.

The exception was the work of S. Gedeonov "Varangians and Rus". Despite the controversy of many of his interpretations, especially linguistic ones, and the lack of argumentation of a number of provisions, his work played a big role in strengthening the positions of anti-Normanists. In particular, it noted that Normanists often uncritically and arbitrarily interpret the information of a number of sources, which in fact do not give grounds for categorical conclusions. He correctly pointed out the groundlessness of attributing many Slavic words to Scandinavian borrowings. His own construction, based on a comparison and identification of the roots of Rus, Rug, Rut, widely represented in European ethnonymy, led him to the conclusion about the Baltic-Slavic origin of "Rus" and, accordingly, about the creation of the Old Russian state by immigrants from the Pomeranian Slavs. The work of S. Gedeonov - the only one among the anti-Normanists of that time - dealt a significant blow to Normanism, pointed out its weaknesses. Therefore, S. Gedeonov is rightly considered the leading anti-Normanist of the 19th century.

A sense of national pride permeated the works of representatives of the revolutionary-democratic trend in Russian historical science: V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov and others. it was their statements that paved new ways of studying the past of the Russian people. They fought against Normanism, in which they saw a stronghold of political reaction and a manifestation of scientific inertia. So, for example, at the very beginning of his literary and journalistic activity, N.G. Russians. He believed that the reasons for the emergence of the state should be sought not in external influences, but in internal social development. According to N.G. Chernyshevsky, Normanism is not compatible with a scientific approach to social phenomena: one who has "although the slightest idea of ​​comparative philology and the laws of historical criticism sees the absolute absurdity of the evidence by which the old scientists confirmed the Normanism of Russia."

3 Socio-economic development of Russia

In the second half of the 19th century research issues mostly affect the economic history of Russia - trade, the emergence and development of cities, the formation of state institutions, etc. e. in a straightforward interpretation, being Normanists, the largest historians of that time significantly expanded the range of problems studied.

Of the bourgeois historians of the era of capitalism, the most prominent place belongs to the student of S. M. Solovyov - V. O. Klyuchevsky. He associated the emergence of the political organization of Russia with the internal needs of society: the development of trade with the Caspian and Black Sea markets in the 8th-10th centuries, as well as the need to protect roads and shopping centers. The decisive role in the changes that took place was played, in his opinion, by the military-merchant aristocracy, which consisted first of local elements, and then also of the Varangians, who eventually came to power themselves. The recognition of the fact of the transfer of power to the Varangians was on the part of Klyuchevsky a concession to the then dominant Norman theory. However, the author, in essence, did not share the idea of ​​conquest from the outside, allowing the seizure of power from within. However, in this theory, which rightly pointed to the internal origins of the state, the development of foreign trade was mistakenly recognized as the main cause of social and political changes. Klyuchevsky's scheme for a long time predetermined the view of bourgeois authors on ancient Russia, giving an incorrect picture of the economic life of the Eastern Slavs of the 9th century. and incorrectly depicting the process of formation of the ancient Russian state.

The "philological stage" of the development of the Norman theory was completed by the publication in Russian of the Danish linguist V. Thomsen "The Beginning of the Russian State". His work, although it did not introduce any new arguments or sources into the discussion, but written clearly, had a rich scientific apparatus and, especially thanks to a convincing analysis of sources, had a great influence on its further development and still represents the classical Normanist trend.

Scientific achievements in the 19-20 centuries. consisted not only in reworking the Norman concept or in opposing it to the still immature research of anti-Normanists, but also in expanding the source basis of the problem and conducting a detailed analysis of the main source - The Tale of Bygone Years.

Thus, H.M. Fren published eastern sources concerning both Russia itself and its closest neighbors, the Khazars and the Volga Bulgars. The publisher looked for confirmation of the Norman concept in these sources. A. Garkavi published a collection of Arabic news about Russia, D. Khvolson published, also in Russian, the information of Ibn Rust. These sources were also widely taken into account by the Normanists, but to no lesser extent they were used to substantiate the opposite concept (Gideonov). The mentioned publishers of Eastern sources D.A. Khvolson and A. Garkavy also declared themselves anti-Normanists. However, the Arab authors, who kept the news mostly not very accurate, came to the same in retellings and later reworks, often drew information from second hands, as a rule, were not directly familiar with Eastern Europe and therefore provided researchers with ample opportunities to substantiate various theories and not could help clarify the origin of Russia without a scrupulous analysis of other, especially local sources.

A much greater result was achieved in the field of archaeological research, especially since the second half of the last century, as evidenced by the foundation in 1859 of the Archaeological Commission, in 1864 of the Moscow Archaeological Society, further organization of archaeological congresses in 1869-1911, and, finally , an increased number of scientific publications. By the end of the 19th century. The materials of the excavations have already made possible a historical synthesis, creating the basis for comparison with the information of the chronicles about the settlement of the East Slavic tribes during the formation of the Old Russian state.

The methodology for determining the ethnicity of the buried (and it was mainly the burials that were studied) was then less perfect than now, which gave rise to a false idea of ​​the predominance of Scandinavian things in some monuments. The prominent archaeologist A.A. Spitsyn, therefore, had reason to declare in his work "The Settlement of Old Russian Tribes According to Archaeological Data" about "numerous Normans" in Russian history. An equally exaggerated assessment of the place of the Scandinavians in the history of Ancient Russia and its culture was contained in the works of T. Arne, who played no less a role in the formation of Normanism in the 19th century than Thomsen's book. A prominent Swedish archaeologist studied the Russian language in order to freely use literature, traveled to the main museums of Russia, where the finds of interest to him were stored and collected a huge amount of material, which he outlined in the book "Sweden and the East", accompanying it with historical conclusions. T. Arne saw the problem much broader than historians and philologists - Normanists. In his work, along with a picture of the intensive and versatile influence of Sweden on Russia, the question was raised about the reverse influences of the East (Byzantium, Russia, the Arab world) on Scandinavia. However, this aspect of his work went unnoticed and was not developed in the coming decades. Abundant archaeological arguments in favor of the Norman theory of the formation of the Old Russian state made a strong impression on the scientific community.

The study of the sources of The Tale of Bygone Years advanced especially in the third quarter of the last century thanks to M.I. Sukhomlinov, as well as the works of I.I. Sreznevsky and K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. At the same time, two trends emerged in the assessment of the origin of this monument. Sukhomlinov saw in the annals of Nestor a homogeneous work, and from beginning to end literary. He noted, however, that Nestor used primarily written sources, consisting, in addition to foreign literature, of short dated entries entered into Easter tables, which thus formed the basis of Russian chronicle writing. In addition, Nestor had the most extensive stories about Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, Boris, Gleb and other princes. Bestuzhev-Ryumin did not agree with Sukhomlinov on questions about the uniform character of The Tale of Bygone Years and about the role of Easter tables. He believed that the author of the "Tale" primarily used weather records kept in Kyiv from the beginning of Oleg's reign (882), as well as numerous stories already recorded by his time or transmitted orally. Nevertheless, he admitted that "The Tale of Bygone Years" is the first Russian chronicle. Sreznevsky, on the other hand, looked for chronological layers in the annals and admitted that the oldest edition ended with the year of the death of Svyatoslav (according to the annals, 972), after which it was continued and revised by later chroniclers.

The most fruitful was the study of the initial Russian chronicle, undertaken by A.A. Shakhmatov. This researcher not only established the existence of the vaults: preceding the "Tale of Bygone Years" and used by it, but also determined their origin and composition. Directly "The Tale of Bygone Years" was preceded by an annalistic compilation, compiled, in his opinion, in 1093-1095. and preserved in fragments covering the most ancient period up to 1015, in the so-called First Novgorod Chronicle. Subsequently, Shakhmatov took the path of reconstructing the text of ancient chronicles dating back to the first half of the 11th century. Showing extraordinary talent in the analysis of sources, he could not reconstruct historical facts on their basis with the same success, generally sharing the position of the Normanists. His merit lies in the fact that he gave the key to further research on the beginnings of Russian chronicle writing: to search for its ancient basis and identify subsequent stages in the development of the text. The main conclusions of A.A. Shakhmatov about the most ancient Russian chronicle writing were accepted by Russian science outside the state as well.

Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century. the stage of "classical Normanism" ended. Archaeological and philological research seemed to close this problem. In the environment of official science, there was an opinion about the final victory of the Norman concept. Even such a prominent scientist as Yu.V. Gauthier in his book "The Iron Age in Eastern Europe" stated that the question of the emergence of the Old Russian state was "resolved in favor of the Normans." Therefore, until the end of 1920, when scientists of the old school (S.F. Platonov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.E. Presnyakov, A.A. Spitsyn, etc.) continued to play a leading role in scientific institutions, to dominate the opinion about the creation of the Old Russian state by the Normans.

Chapter 4. The emergence of scientific anti-Normanism. The state of the study of the early history of the Old Russian state in modern science

A new stage of anti-Normanism began with the formation of Soviet science and Marxist methodology, a revision on its basis of the problem of the formation of the Old Russian state. Within the framework of this theory, the Normanist explanation of the creation of the Russian state by the Scandinavians lost its meaning and historical content.

1 Archaeological surveys

A concrete substantiation and detailing of the processes of formation of the East Slavic states were achieved as a result of intensive archaeological excavations, primarily in the works of A.V. Artsikhovsky, V.I. Ravdonikas, P.N. Tretyakov, B.A. Rybakov.

A.V. Artsikhovsky, having done a huge source study work, showed that the center of production of many things that were considered Scandinavian (for example, swords) lay outside Scandinavia, that a number of weapons (for example, chain mail) are practically absent in Scandinavia, that most arrowheads and spears, and also the helmets of Russian soldiers are of Russian origin. This was essentially the first source study analysis of archaeological materials from the era of the formation of the Old Russian state in Soviet literature. On this basis, A.V. Artsikhovsky raised and resolved the Norman question in a new way. He characterized the social image of the society, whose archaeological sites he studied, and came to the conclusion that the Scandinavian burials in Gnezdovo, in the Yaroslavl and Vladimir burial mounds are single and belong to associates of Russian warriors, about whom the chronicler often wrote. However, the works of A.V. Artsikhovsky were not free from prejudice. The degree of study of archaeological materials was at that time low, for the most part they were not published. As a result, Artsikhovsky did not see Scandinavian elements, for example, in the Great Gnezdov Mound and in the Black Grave, downplaying the role of the Scandinavians in the life of Russia in general.

An equally significant contribution was made by the works of other Soviet archaeologists, which, it would seem, were not directly connected with Scandinavian antiquities. Researchers of the material culture of the Eastern Slavs on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state, handicraft production, and agriculture in Ancient Russia revealed a relatively high level of development of the East Slavic society. Firstly, on the whole, it was not inferior to the degree of development of the Scandinavian, especially the ancient Swedish society, and this conclusion undermined the Normanists' conviction in the cultural superiority of the Scandinavians over the Slavs. Secondly, the works of V.I. Ravdonikas, P.A. Tretyakov, B.A. Rybakov and others testified that by the 9th-10th centuries. Eastern Slavs in their economic and social development were at the stage of state formation.

These conclusions of archaeologists laid a solid foundation for specific historical studies of the process of formation of the Old Russian state, conducted by B.D. Grekov. Studying the economic aspects of the life of the Eastern Slavs, B.D. Grekov substantiated the agricultural nature of the Russian state, which was formed over several centuries, and assessed the role of the Normans only as an auxiliary one.

Even in the first edition of his work on the history of Kievan Rus, B.D. Grekov gave an objective description of the place of the Scandinavians in the history of Russia: "The Varangians in the history of the Kyiv state did not play the main role. They certainly obeyed the production relations of the local society that left the Kiev state." However, in this and two subsequent editions of his work, Grekov did not seek to downplay the activities of the Scandinavians in Russia. He considered the North German ethnos of the Varangians and, possibly, the Scandinavian origin of the name "Rus" (in contrast to the South Russian root ros-) to be established, noting the possibility of both ethnic and social interpretation of it. Questioning the accuracy of all the details in the legend about the calling of the Varangian (Scandinavian) princes, he did not see the need to reject it entirely, because. behind it, in his opinion, is a historical fact that has many analogies in the history of both Russia and other countries, including Slavic ones.

The main merit of B.A. Grekov is in the development of the problem of the class nature of the Old Russian state and the entire social system of Ancient Russia. In a whole series of monographic studies, articles, reports prepared in the first half and mid-1930s, B.D. Grekov, on the basis of a huge amount of factual material, established the presence of feudal relations in Kievan Rus. The author connected the solution of this great general problem with the question of the emergence of the Old Russian state and its social essence.

The concept of B.D. Grekov in the mid-30s was supported by most of the Soviet scientists. The definition of the class character of the Old Russian state was the greatest achievement of Soviet science. But the question of what class formation should be associated with the development of the Old Russian state at its early stage (9th-10th centuries), and during its maturity (11th-12th centuries) became debatable. This question caused a lively debate in science, during which Grekov himself did not adhere to a fixed concept, over two decades his views changed more than once.

After the discussion in 1950 on the periodization of the history of feudal Russia, most researchers began to consider the Old Russian state of the 9th-10th centuries. early feudal: and the previous period is usually attributed to the pre-feudal stage of development of the Eastern Slavs.

anti-normanism Slavic Nestor scientific

4.2 Pre-state entities

An important step towards an in-depth study of the prehistory of the emergence of the Old Russian state was the research of M.N. Tikhomirov, A.N. Nasonov, B.A. Even pre-revolutionary scientists noticed (S.A. Gedeonov, M.S. Grushevsky, D.I. Bagalei and others) that along with the general meaning of the term "Rus", covering all East Slavic lands, its narrow meaning can also be traced from ancient Russian sources, private value attached to the Middle Dnieper, to the region of Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl. In the prewar years, M.D. Priselkov drew attention to this circumstance. In the first post-war years, this issue was specially dealt with by M.N. Tikhomirov, who came to the conclusion that the narrow meaning of the terms "Rus", "Russian land" was initial, and then spread to the entire territory that became part of the Old Russian state. According to M.N.Tikhomirov, this term first denoted the land of the Polyany tribe, directly adjacent to Kyiv.

A.N. Nasonov joined the opinion about the originality of the term "Russian land" in the narrow sense of the word. Based on much broader material, he identified the 11th-13th centuries indicated by the sources. more or less exact boundaries of the "Russian Land", which included not only the territory of the Polyan tribe, but also some neighboring regions, which during the period of feudal fragmentation constituted the territories of the Kyiv, Chernigov, and Pereyaslav principalities. Deepening the study of sources, A.N. Nasonov came to the conclusion that the "Russian Land" was already a state, the first political entity created by the Eastern Slavs in the Middle Dnieper and preceding the formation of a large Old Russian state that united all the East Slavic lands. According to A.N. Nasonov, this southern Russian state arose in the 9th century. during the decline of the Khazar state, and in the 10th century. on its basis the ancient Russian state was created; however, even after that, in the 10th c. and the first half of the 11th century. "Russian land" continued to exist as a certain political unity, "as the political and territorial core of the vast Kievan state", as the main base on which the power of the Kievan princes relied.

A number of works by B.A. Rybakov are devoted to the study of the historical role of the "Russian Land" as the predecessor of the Old Russian state. With the greatest completeness, he collected information from sources about the territory of the "Russian Land" - about its geographical borders. The author made an attempt to trace the prehistory of this territorial formation using archaeological data, to show how, from the middle of the 1st millennium AD. here a cultural community was formed and developed, which was the material basis for the formation of the "Russian Land".

The works of the 1930s - 1950s by B.D. Grekov, S.V. Yushkov, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.V. Artsikhovsky, B.A. Rybakov and many others convincingly showed the high development of East Slavic society during the period of formation early feudal state, revealed the economic and social prerequisites for its emergence. The transition from the primitive communal system to the early feudal state, which began before the Scandinavians appeared in Eastern Europe, was accompanied by intensive Slavic colonization of vast areas, the consolidation of agriculture in the colonization zone, social and property differentiation, the replacement of tribal communities with territorial ones, the emergence of early city centers, and the development of the administrative apparatus. In the 9th century it led to the formation of tribal confederations, which by this time represented not just ethnic, but political entities. It is on this basis that in the 10th c. the formation of a single Old Russian state with a center in Kyiv is being completed, uniting under its rule a vast territory from Ladoga and White lakes in the north to the border of the steppe zone in the south. The typological similarity of the processes of socio-economic development among other Slavic peoples (Poles, Moravians, Czechs, etc.) confirmed the conclusion about the emergence of the Old Russian state as a result of the natural internal development of East Slavic society.

3 Development of modern Normanism

It should be noted that Normanism in this period is still developing, adapting to the latest achievements in this area, primarily in the USSR. The Normanists were especially active in Germany during the years when Hitler was in power. So, on the one hand, the Norman theory was used to present the Slavs as inferior, and on the other hand, to substantiate the thesis that the Germans, including the Normans, belonged to the "master race". But in general, the persuasiveness of the conclusions of Soviet historical science was already recognized in the 1950s and 1960s by many progressive Western researchers, which led to a change in their views on the role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Old Russian state, for example, the refusal to consider the Normans "founders of the state."

At the international congress of historians in Stockholm (the capital of the former land of the Varangians) in 1960, the leader of the Normanists, A. Stender-Petersen, stated in his speech that Normanism as a scientific structure was dead, since all its arguments were defeated and refuted. However, instead of proceeding to an objective study of the prehistory of Kievan Rus, the Danish scientist called for ... the creation of "neonormanism". This recognition led him not to abandon the false theory, but to the call to look for new arguments for it.

The call was heard. In the works of Western historians, Normanism received new impulses. The old idea is presented in them with the help of the same manipulation of archaeological and written sources, although it no longer appears in its former categorical unambiguity. The Varangians are declared one of the leading forces involved in state building on the banks of the Volkhov and Dnieper.

At the same time, the influence of Marxist theoretical and concrete historical research in the field of the history of the early feudal states of Europe is growing. Already in 1969, at the international symposium on the "Varangian question", the vast majority of speakers and speakers in the debate supported the idea of ​​G. Ryus: "The Kiev state arose in the course of long and complex processes in which various factors participated", and the task is to study these processes and their dynamics. The second fundamental position of the old "Normanist" school about the socio-political superiority of the Old Norse society over the East Slavic one also did not stand up to research scrutiny. The formation of feudal relations in Scandinavia in the 1960s-1970s became the subject of extensive scientific research and discussion in the USSR, Poland, the GDR (A.Ya. Gurevich, I.P. Shaskolsky, S.D. Kovalevsky, J. Zhak, S. Pekarchik, L. Litsevich, I. Hermann), during which it was established that the Viking Age for Scandinavia was the time of the formation of a class society and early feudal states. Although the time of completion of these processes is still being discussed in the scientific literature and varies widely from the 11th to the 13th centuries. , comparison with the Old Russian material shows the relative synchronism of these processes in Eastern and Northern Europe, especially at an early stage (despite the differences in the specific forms of their manifestation).

Thus, the theoretical foundation of both the "classical" Norman theory of Thomsen-Arne and the "neo-Normanism" of Stender-Petersen turned out to be and was recognized by bourgeois researchers as untenable.

Extremely rare, but still found in the scientific literature, the echoes of the theory of the imposition of statehood among the Eastern Slavs by any outside forces are now considered as an anachronism and are subject to sharp criticism. In 1982, at the International Conference "Slavic Culture and the World Cultural Process", organized in Minsk by the International Association for the Propagation and Study of Slavic Cultures under UNESCO, Professor G. Rotte from the FRG made a plenary report. He proposed a global periodization of Slavic history. His main idea was that at all stages (and he singled out seven of them), the Slavs always had their guides, first the Byzantines, then the Scandinavians, the Khazars, and from the 12th century. Germans. The Eastern Slavs entered the historical arena late and without their own cultural traditions, and the culture of Kievan Rus was a simple symbiosis of the cultural elements of Byzantium, Khazaria, and Scandinavia. Their successful development, according to the German scientist, depended on how much they managed to preserve and develop those layers of European cultures that became their own. Recently, a number of works substantiating the idea of ​​the Khazar origin of Kievan Rus have been made by Professor of Harvard University (USA) O.Pritsak. Accusing the chronicler Nestor of bias and comparing him with a modern political propagandist, he stated that it was impossible to identify Russia with glades for the middle of the 10th century, but at the same time "one should say goodbye to the concept of the Slavic (Polyanian) origin of Russia." These words are written at the beginning 70s of the 20th century, and at the end of the 80s, Professor O. Pritsak with the same ease said goodbye to the Slavic origin of the glades, declaring them Khazars.

In the artificial structures of historians who defend the idea of ​​a foreign principle or a beneficial impulse in the creation of the Kievan state, there is not only an answer, but even no question why there were tendencies of political consolidation in the environment of the nomadic Khazar and Pomoro-Scandinavian world, and in East Slavic society with its ancient there is no settled agricultural culture. And how did the Khazars or the Scandinavians manage to create for the Eastern Slavs what they were unable to create for themselves on their own lands.

However, if in the progressive historical science of recent decades the "Norman problem" has lost its independent meaning, has merged into a broader historical context and, in essence, can be considered as a problem of Russian-Scandinavian cultural interaction, then its reflection in popular and didactic literature changes much more slowly, although in a positive trend has been outlined, especially in those cases when researchers of the problem become the authors of works for the general reader. So, in some of the popular illustrated essays on the history of the Vikings, in a large number published in Germany, the USA, England, Sweden, the results of scientific research in recent years are taken into account. School textbooks in Sweden in the 1970s refused to depict the Varangians as the founders of the Old Russian state.

4 Division of scientific anti-Normanism

The situation is more complicated with anti-Normanism, which today does not represent a single trend. Back in the second half of the 1940s - n.1950s. there was a retreat from the scientific anti-Normanism of Grekov to the Slavophile. A simplified interpretation of the processes of formation of the Old Russian state penetrated the pages of textbooks of that time. This direction of anti-Normanism is also found in modern works.

Modern scientific anti-Normanism is based on a broad comprehensive study of written, archaeological, linguistic sources, both ancient Russian and foreign.

Modern archaeological materials, as well as toponymic data, make it possible to reasonably reject the theories of the Scandinavian conquest and colonization of Russia. As is known, the content of the process of colonization consists in the settling of aliens on the ground and in the development of land by them. Traces of such a process in relation to the Scandinavians on the territory of the Eastern Slavs have not yet been found. Detailed studies of the origin and formation of the ancient Russian city have convincingly shown that it was not the Scandinavians who were their founders. Urban centers arose in places of accumulation of the rural population as a result of the separation of handicrafts from agriculture and acquired administrative, cultural and other functions on a local basis. The presence of the Scandinavians here - and sometimes in significant numbers - is explained not by their urban planning mission, but by their participation in the economic and political life of the Old Russian state. They were in the cities as merchants, warriors, close to the prince. It is no coincidence that the main accumulation of Scandinavian antiquities is observed in the residences of the princely squads near the largest ancient Russian cities: at Gorodishche near Novgorod, in Gnezdovo near Smolensk, in Shestovitsa near Chernigov. Being important trade and craft centers, these settlements also had other functions, primarily arising from the placement of princely squads in them, which radically distinguishes them from the "viks" on the coast of the Baltic Sea.

The significant role of the Scandinavians in the trade of Ancient Russia has never (except for a number of works of the 1950s) been in doubt. At the same time, studies of rural settlements and their interaction with early cities showed that, along with international trade, there was also an exchange between the city and the rural district of food items and handicraft production (the role of trade in the era of the formation of the Old Russian state has not been studied very well yet). In the foreign trade of the Old Russian state, in addition to the Arab and Byzantine directions, there were others. A broad picture of ancient Russian trade relations shows that the Scandinavians participated here only in transcontinental trade with the Arab world (mainly in Bulgar) and Byzantium, and in trade mainly in transit and oriented to Western European and Arab markets. A significant part of the trading activity in Russia proceeded in addition to the Scandinavians, without their participation.

One of the central issues today is the question of the chronology of Russian-Scandinavian relations. The first attempts in this direction were unsuccessful, because. periodization criteria were unsatisfactory: the spread of Scandinavian antiquities in Russia, the campaigns of the Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, the frequency of which was determined by the patterns of development of Scandinavian history alone. However, to build a periodization of Russian-Scandinavian relations based only on the processes that took place in Scandinavia and abstracting from the most important transformations in Russia is deeply mistaken. A more satisfactory periodization is based on the chronology of the formation of the Old Russian state, taking into account the specifics of the development of the Scandinavian countries.

The question of the place of the Scandinavians in the formation of the ruling system in Russia is now being considered objectively and reasonably. This issue was considered in most detail by the Polish historian H. Lovmiansky, who noted the Scandinavian stratum in the composition of the ancient Russian nobility. His observations were supplemented by V.T. along with the Scandinavians, the Finns, representatives of the nomadic world.

The indisputable achievements of scientific anti-Normanism include the formulation of the problem of East Slavic influences in Scandinavia. The study of vocabulary borrowings from Old Russian into Old Norse, borrowings of weapons. Clothing, jewelry, handicraft production technology shows that ethnocultural ties were not limited to the unilateral influence of the Scandinavians on the Eastern Slavs. There was an intensive interchange of objects of material culture, elements of spiritual life.

The question of the origin of the ethnonym "Rus" remains controversial. B.A. Rybakov believes that the union of Slavic tribes of the middle Dnieper took the name of one of the tribes united in it - the people of Ros (or Rus), known as early as the 6th century. far beyond the Slavic world. "Two forms of the name of the people (Ros and Rus) have existed since ancient times: the Byzantines used the form Ros, and the Arab-Persian authors of the 9th-11th centuries the form Rus. Both forms were used in medieval Russian writing: "Russian land" and Pravda Rosskaya. Both forms have survived to the present day: we say Russia, but we call its inhabitants Russians. Linguists G.A.Khaburgaeva, A.I.Popov and others substantiate the etymology of the name "Rus" through the Finnish ruotsi. The problem of the origin of the name "Rus" requires further research.

Thus, scientific anti-Normanism has now become the only fruitful basis for source study, factual, concrete historical research in the field of Russian-Scandinavian relations in the 9th-11th centuries.

Conclusion

A whole millennium has passed, and the discovery of Russia continues today. It `s naturally. Such a large and multidimensional historical phenomenon as Kievan Rus has attracted the attention of many generations of historians. And each of them contributes to the cause of its comprehension its feasible contribution. In general, researchers have recreated a fairly complete and objective image of the state of the Eastern Slavs, which arose as a result of their long political and socio-economic evolution, enriched by the achievements of neighboring peoples. Kievan Rus developed within the framework of the general laws of the historical and cultural process of medieval Europe, in which each nation took part, first of all, with its own cultural traditions. The Old Russian people created a vibrant and original culture, and actually co-authored many achievements of world civilization.

So, the picture of the Scandinavian presence in Eastern Europe has a mosaic (albeit very detailed) character. Can the Varangians be called the creators of Ancient Russia? Definitely not! But the role of the external, Varangian conquest and trade impulse in the formation of the Old Russian state and the degree of participation (no doubt significant) of the Scandinavians in the processes that took place in Russia still have to be determined.

Bibliographic list

1. A.A. Shakhmatov "Investigations about Old Russian annals" SPb., 1908, p.543-544. See X. Lovmyansky "Rus and the Normans". M., "Progress", 1985, p.71.
2. Bayer T.S. Origines Russicae. See H. Lovmyansky "Rus and the Normans" M., "Progress", 1985, p.59.
3. Shletser A.L. "Nestor. Russian Chronicles in Old Slavonic" See ibid., p.60.
4. "Essays on the history of the USSR in the 9th-13th centuries", part 1, ed. B.D. Grekova, M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1953, p.29.
5. Solovyov S.M. "History of Russia since ancient times", v.1, M., 1966, p. 143.266.
6. Gedeonov S.A. Varangians and Russia. Historical research, part 1-2, St. Petersburg, Olma , 1996.
7. Chernyshevsky N.G., Complete Works, v.2. M., 1949, p.298. On Sat. "Essays on the history of the USSR" ed. Grekova B.D., p.41.
8. Klyuchevsky V.O. "Course of Russian History", vol., M., "Thought", 1987, p.134.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

transcript

1 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATEHOOD IN RUSSIA Vereshchagina K. A., Loshenko O. V., Astapeeva E. V., Shkarupa V. G., Krasnodar Regional Basic Medical College, Russia THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF STATEHOOD IN RUSSIA Vereshchagin K. A., Losenko O. C., Astafieva E. C., Shkarupa V. G., GBOU act Krasnodar basic medical College There is no more interesting and discussed by scientists in Russia, and, perhaps, in the whole world, the question of the emergence of statehood in Russia for many centuries. This topic is a stumbling block between researchers of different eras and states, gives rise to bold and speculative theories, divides historians into two camps: Normanists and anti-Normanists. Who, in fact, are both of them? What issues are they discussing and why can't they come to a common decision? To begin with, it is worth referring to ancient sources such as the Laurentian Chronicle: “In summer, tribute to the Varyas from overseas to Chudi and Slovnekh, to Mary and to all Krivich; and Kozariymehu on the Polyan, on the North, and on the Vyatich, imach by 6l and trust from the smoke, In the summer In the summer In the summer, Expelling the Varangians across the sea and not giving them tribute, and more often on their own; and do not bevnih truth, and old people, having strife in them, and fight for the bowl themselves. Rsha themselves in themselves: "look for co6 the prince, who would be free to us and judge by right." Idosha across the sea to the Varangian to Russia, blue fearing to call Varangian Rus, as all friends are called His own, friends are Urman, Angliana, friends are Goethe; tacos and si. Rsha Rusi Chyud, Sloveni and Krivichi: “Our whole land is great and plentiful, but there are no clothes in it; Yes, go to reign and rule over us. And 3 brothers were chosen from their generations, girded all of Russia according to their own, and came; the oldest Ruriksd in Novgorod, and the other Sineus on the Byl Lake, and the third Izborst Truvor. From that nicknamed the Russian land, Novgorod: you are the people of Nougorodtsy from the Varyazhsk clan, formerly the 6th of Sloveni. Sineus died for two years, and Truvor would take him, taking the power of Rurik; and distributing cities to his husband, the new Polotesk, the new Rostov, the other Beloozero. And in those cities are the finds of the Varyazi; and the first inhabitants in Novgorod Slovna, Polotsky Krivichi, in Poctov Merya, in Blyozer. All, in Murom Murom, and darkness and everything and the possession of Rurik. The chronicle tells us that in 6370 (and if translated into modern chronology, this is 882 AD), a certain prince Rurik, along with his brothers Truvor and Sineus, were called by the tribes of Chud, Slovenes and Krivichs to reign on Russian land . So, this is the first mention of how and with the help of whom statehood was born on Russian soil. And yet, who was this Rurik? Why did the Eastern Slavs become a united state only with his appearance? How, having existed for several centuries, different tribes, occupying a common territory and having a single language, could not unite?

2 In the second half of the first millennium AD, Slavic tribes began their widespread settlement throughout Europe, it was at this moment that tribal unions began to emerge, social division began, elders appeared. In parallel with this, the tribal unions had rather complicated relations with other peoples and states of Europe. Thus, the Slavs paid tribute to the Varangians (Scandinavians) and the Turkic tribe, which created its own kaganate state in the middle of the 7th century. The Normans and Khazars sought to subjugate the Eastern Slavs in order to control the most important trade route of that time - "from the Varangians to the Greeks." Later, the Slavs entered into a military conflict with the Normans and began to evade paying tribute. In the future, circumstances develop in such a way that the Slavs lose their common unity and serious disunity is observed in tribal unions. In the light of these events, the Scandinavians send their ambassadors with a proposal to provide them with their people to establish order and introduce statehood in the Russian lands. Prince Rurik becomes the main candidate. He, along with his two brothers and a military detachment or Varangians, as the Slavs called them, arrives on Russian soil and becomes the founder of the royal dynasty, ruling in Russia until 1598. The brothers share power in this way: Rurik, as the most important, goes to reign in Novgorod, Sineus - on Beloozero, and Truvor to Izborsk. Later, Oleg, a relative of Rurik, became the ruler of Novgorod, who later captured Kyiv, killed Askold and Dir, who reigned there, and became the ruler of the northern and southern territories he united. So, 882 is recognized as the year of the formation of statehood in Russia. This event has given rise to many theories and conjectures. For the first time, the professor of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences T.Z. Bayer spoke about the creation of Russia by the Varangians. He believed that the old Russian word "Varangian", often used in chronicles, was derived from "varingyar" (vasringjar, nominative plural). However, linguists still find it difficult to model the nominative singular of this term. Another fact is interesting - the word "veringyar", which was indeed mentioned in ancient northern sources, meant "hired bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors", who called themselves "Rus" and had nothing to do with the Scandinavians, therefore, Bayer's theory of origin of the word "Varangian" was incorrect. However, Bayer's theory gained many followers not only among Russians, but also among German scientists, who became adherents of the Norman theory of the emergence of statehood in Russia. But along with the advent of the Norman theory, an anti-Norman theory appeared. One of the brightest representatives of the anti-Normanists is the scientist M.V. Lomonosov. In the early 50s of the 18th century, Lomonosov began to intensively study history, and already in September 1751 he informed I.I. Shuvalov, who is working on drawing up a plan for "Ancient Russian History", now this work is better known as "The Anti-Norman Theory". The release of "Ancient Russian History" became an important event in Russian historiography. Working on the most ancient period of national history, Lomonosov acted as a researcher, armed with knowledge of the sources. His ideas about the deep antiquity of the Slavic peoples, about their important role in European history, about the mixed Slavic-Chudian ethnic basis of the Russian population were original and

3 directed against the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state. His book was published in 1766 and was called "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of the Grand Duke Yaroslav the First, or until 1054." Lomonosov's historical views were formed in a sharp struggle against the Norman theory, which denied the independent development of the Russian people. Lomonosov developed a historical concept in which he emphasized the decisive role of Orthodoxy, autocracy and the spiritual and moral values ​​of the Russian people in the formation of the Russian state; did not isolate Russian history from European history, he revealed features of similarities and differences in the historical life of different peoples. Mikhail Vasilievich said that the Varangians were not one tribe, but several tribes. He confirmed this by referring to the historical documents of Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, Slavic and Greek historians. Yu. Venelin and S. P. Krascheninnikov became Lomonosov's supporters. However, at that time, the anti-Normanist theory was considered untenable, declaring it patriotic nonsense. But if the above scientists had evidence, then A. I. Popov did not have them at all. Without giving any new arguments, he claims that “the origin of the word Varangian is undoubtedly Scandinavian” precisely because the Varangians came to Russia from the North German lands and performed the duties of hired squads here. There were also those among the anti-Normanists who partly agreed that the Varangians were indeed Scandinavians, who were essentially only mercenaries, but not the creators of statehood in Russia. So, today, it would be more correct to say that anti-Normanists are those scientists who, in search of objective facts, have found and defend evidence that the Varangians and their identical Russ are Slavs. Nowadays, a serious discovery has been made by two independent historians V.B. Vilinbakhov and A.G. Kuzmin. They brought the Varangians out of the western Slavs of the southern Baltic - from the Wends of Pomeranian Rus (Pomerania). But back to Bayer Today, many scientists are inclined to believe that this scientist was overestimated in his time, since referring to the Tale of Bygone Years written by Nestor, we see that even then the monk connected in the annals the emergence of Russia as a state with the calling of the Varangians. Therefore, it can be argued that Bayer did not derive a new theory, but only outlined the events described in the annals in a scientific form. It seems that ancient texts can be interpreted only by drawing on the data of many sciences. Not only onomastics (the science of proper names) and not only through linguistic calculations, sometimes passing them for the “necessary remelting” through the layer of foreign-speaking peoples, as many philologists do, but mainly by clarifying the etymology of these proper names from local languages, modern studied era of peoples, and the correspondence of their ecology. An important control task is, for example, archeology. For half a century, domestic archaeologists have done gigantic work in the Dnieper region and in Novgorod. Since 1966, the expedition of A.F. Medvedeva has been excavating for many years in the Southern Prilmenye - in Staraya Russa. Attempt

4 some scientists immediately link certain archaeological cultures to certain ethnic groups or tribal associations was not always effective. And yet, the excavations of A. V. Artsikhovsky, G. F. Korzukhina, P. N. Tretyakov, V. L. Yanin made it possible to compare the data of written history, onomastics and archeology for a more reliable argumentation of the conclusions of the Laurentian Chronicle. Since we are now interested in the version about the calling of the Varangians, who were called specifically to Novgorod, it makes sense to analyze the data on the ecological features of the Novgorod lands, Priilmenye. It is now, as in the past, a lacustrine swampy region. About a thousand large and small lakes are scattered around the region, the largest of them is Ilmen. It is now known that the name of this lake is common Slavic, however, linguists associate it with South Russian or even Polish. But even among the Normanists there is a theory of the appearance of the name of this lake. They argue that in the Scandinavian languages ​​the word "illmeni" means "evil people, scoundrels." This is explained by the fact that the Scandinavians floating on this lake, in retaliation, so called the Slavs living along the coast, who were aggressive towards the Scandinavians. And yet, such an interpretation of the name is incorrect. Firstly, because it was the Scandinavians who raided the Slavic tribes, taking away all the most valuable things that the Slavic tribal unions had, and secondly, logically speaking, were the Slavs really such a stupid people that they agreed with such an offensive name for themselves , which, moreover, was also in a language alien to them? But let's be completely honest. Old Russian sources have preserved other names of this lake - "Moiskoye Sea" and even "Russian Sea"! Still, the Normanist theory failed! So, back to Novgorod Even today, most of the Novgorod region is covered with forests, of course, except for places located near a reservoir and marshy clearings. Novgorod itself was originally indicated in the annals as "the city of Slovenia." If we compare the ecology of the entire Priilmenye, then we can see that, all other things being equal, from the very beginning of the settlement of the Priilmenye by Slovenes, the southern Priilmenye had an undeniable advantage over Novgorod. With the same waterways, the same soils, climate, swampiness and composition of flora and fauna, the southern Priilmenye had two important strategic advantages. Firstly, the river route with portages connected the Lovat basin with the Western Dvina, Volga and Dnieper, thus opening access to the Baltic, Caspian and Black Seas. And from Volkhov, on the banks of which Novgorod was located, it was still necessary to overcome the stormy "sea", that is, Lake Ilmen. Secondly, and this is the most significant advantage - in the southern Priilmenye, natural salt springs gush out of the ground, which gave the natives "gold of the early Middle Ages" - salt - into the hands of the natives. From the very beginning of the settlement of the Slavs in the Priilmenye, salt was of particular importance. But the Slavs before that did not know how to extract salt themselves, therefore, they learned this from the Finno-Ugric tribes living here. At the confluence of the Polist and Porusya rivers, the city of salt-workers Rusa arose or developed on the site of the existing Finno-Ugric settlement. Salt production has since been called the “Russian economy” (“the economy of the Rushans”, as they were called, according to written evidence

5 different peoples, and are called throughout the past millennium, until your days, the inhabitants of this city - in the modern city of Staraya Russa). Some historians are inclined to believe that the words "Rus", "Rus", "Ros" not only in Slavic languages, but also in European (Germanic, Greek, Finno-Ugric) means "rich", "burly", "noble" . Many chronicles of that time say that the Slavs were one of the richest peoples. They were distinguished by the best equipment of ships, weapons, and this was due to the correct trade. "Ruses", unlike the Scandinavians, could supply honey, furs and one of the most important products of that time - salt to Byzantium. So, the essence of the term "Rus" is a socionim, not an ethnonym. The fact that the South Priilmensky Slavs differed from all other Slavs (Novgorod flax growers, fishermen, livestock breeders and farmers) in an additional specific economic activity - salt making - should have given a synonym for their name on an economic basis. And the root "var" (from the verb "cook", that is, to evaporate salt) formed the basis of the synonym for the name of the Rus - Varangian, Varangian, that is, salt-worker! There is nothing surprising in the fact that the annals emphasize the identity between "Rus" and "Varangian", and on the other hand, there is no contradiction in the fact that the annals state: the essence of the people of Nougorodtsy is from the Varyazhsk clan, formerly the beta of Slovenia, ”or in another place of the annals:“ And he had Varyazi and Slovenian and other people nicknamed Rus ”(when they wanted to emphasize the corpulence of all other Slavic vigilantes of the prince, following the example of the rich southern Priilmens), or : “But the Slovenian language and Russian are one!” How can we talk about Nestor’s confusion of the concept of “Russes” and “Varangians” with foreign-speaking and heterodox Scandinavians, and how can one be surprised that the Varangians, Russ and other Slavs speak a language that is understandable to all of them, more precisely, in the same language? Based on these data, which are based not only on the chronicles, but also on the research of linguists, archaeologists, as well as based on geographical and environmental data, we can argue that the "Varangians" are identical to the "Rus" because they had a common language, common traditions and beliefs. But we can also assume that Rurik's calling was in fact, but only he was not a Scandinavian, but came from the Priilmensky lands. Consequently, it was not the Normans who became the founders of statehood in Russia, but the Slavs themselves. References: 1. Luchnik A. On the origin of the word "Russia". //Arguments of the week. 42(384), Thursday October 31 Moiseenko A. Russian history was replaced by the Germans. //Komsomolskaya Pravda December Osipov S. For the Motherland, for Rurik! //Arguments and Facts. 51, Thursday 22 December

6 5.

5. The birth of the Old Russian state

THE ROLE OF THE VARYAGS IN THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT RUSSIA Egorova Nadezhda Alekseevna St. Petersburg Academy of Veterinary Medicine E-mail: [email protected] Annotation The study of the origin of the state,

The emergence of the state of Rus in the Dnieper region. The first Russian princes Lecturer Kiyashchenko A.A. Two centers of statehood Tribal unions Intertribal groups Kyiv Novgorod and Ladoga Military campaigns of the Slavs

THE ORIGIN OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE AUTHOR: teacher of history and social science Yakushkina Irina Vadimovna Lesson plan: 1. Formation of the ancient Russian state. 2. The first princes and the strengthening of Old Russian

Plan. 1. Origin of the Old Russian state. 2. Rostov land at the end of the X-beginning of the XI century. 3. Yaroslav the Wise. Foundation of Yaroslavl. 4. Socio-economic development of the region in the XI century. Nestor 9th century c.

HISTORY OF RUSSIA BASIC LEVEL Grade 10 MOSCOW "VAKO" UDC 372.893 LBC 74.266.3 K64 The publication is approved for use in the educational process on the basis of the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of

190 Andrey SAKHAROV, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member. Russian Academy of Sciences RURIK AND THE FATE OF THE RUSSIAN STATEHOOD 1140 years ago, in 862, according to the Tale of Bygone Years,

Prepared by the teacher: Baklanova L.I. GBDOU 68 St. Petersburg Our ancestors, the Slavs, came from Asia to Europe in ancient times. First they settled along the lower reaches of the Danube and occupied

Lesson on the world around in grade 4 Topic: “Ancient Russia” Teacher: Yu.S. Smolina Objectives: to tell when and where the unification of the Novgorod and Kyiv principalities took place, to introduce epics about the Grand Duke

Ancient Russia Repetition and generalization Grade 10 Read the document and determine: Title of the document Who is the author? What are we talking about? “... there was a way from the Varangians to the Greeks and from the Greeks along the Dnieper, and in the upper reaches of the Dnieper dragged

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF RUSSIA N.F. KATANOV INSTITUTE OF HISTORY AND LAW

Current control 1 The most ancient peoples on the territory of Russia. Eastern Slavs The great settlement of the Slavs began in 1) IV century 2) V century 3) VI century 4) VII century

Good day, hello! Today I want to talk to you a little about history, about Russian history. I think that this should be of interest to those who are studying, who are learning the Russian language. How did the ancient

Quiz "Old Russian state" Quiz "Old Russian state" - 1 / 6 1. Where was the Old Russian state located? In Eastern Europe In Western Europe In Central Asia 2. In what century did

Demonstration variant of tasks for carrying out intermediate certification of students of 10th grades in history Tasks of level A A1. The appearance of the first samples of human art dates back to the period of the 1. Paleolithic

Municipal State Institution "Information and Methodological Center" Municipal Budgetary Educational Institution Lyceum named after Major General Khismatulin Vasily Ivanovich On-line consultation

Municipal budgetary educational institution Petrovsky secondary school Synopsis of a history lesson in grade 6 "Formation of the Old Russian state" Teacher of history and social studies

Skripkin I.N. Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities and Natural Sciences, Lipetsk Institute of Law and Economics TO THE QUESTION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM "RUSSIA" IN DOMESTIC

"Kievan Rus" Aleshin L.I. The consideration of any historical event or object is almost always associated with the need for a thorough study of the available data, as well as the opinions of various specialists.

The first Russian princes Rurik 862-879 Rurik (862-879) - the son of the Norman king Gadliv, the grandson of the Novgorod headman Gostomysl. He was invited by part of the inhabitants of Novgorod to "rule" them. According to

LECTURE 1. Kievan Rus - early feudal. state of the Eastern Slavs. Plan 1. Prerequisites for the emergence of Kievan Rus. 2. Kievan Rus. The main stages of its development. 3. Theories of the origin of the state

This part of the work is posted for informational purposes. If you want to receive the work in full, then purchase it using the order form on the page with the finished work: https://www.homework.ru/finishedworks/331938/

Ancient Russia IX-XII centuries. Slavic society in the era of settlement Formation of Kievan Rus. First princes. The historical significance of the adoption of Christianity Political and socio-economic development of Old Russian

BASIC KNOWLEDGE FOR LESSON 1 1. Key dates and events End of the 9th century - (in the annals) the calling of Prince Rurik. Beginning of the Rurik dynasty. The end of the X century - the completion of the formation of the Old Russian state.

Federal STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF JUSTICE WORKBOOK ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA

Seminar 2 (Topic 1) Old Russian state in the IX-XI centuries. 1. The problem of the formation of statehood 2. Prerequisites and consequences of the baptism of Russia 3. The social life of ancient Russian society (life, customs, population,

Olympiad for schoolchildren "Star of Talents in the Service of Defense and Security" in history Final stage (2014/2015 academic year) Grade 6-7 1. Here is a list of battles in which the Russian army took part. Try

Integrated work GEF LLC, grade 5 Option 1, November 23, 2016 Integrated work Surname, first name class 5, secondary school of the city (district) Read the text OPTION 1 The ancient Greeks, who lived on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, traveled a lot.

Local history 1 A.V. Borodkin "Culture of Power and the Power of Culture". On the question of the duality of the colonization of the Upper Volga region in the 9th and 10th centuries. The events of medieval Russian history continue to attract the most

Introduction At the end of the XX century. post-Soviet Russia began to look for its place in the global economic, informational and educational space. Russian higher education became a member of the Bologna process.

Quiz "The Wheel of History" for grade 6 on the history of the Smolensk region Objectives: 1) to update children's knowledge about the life and life of the ancient Smolensk people; 2) develop analytical skills, the ability to conduct a dialogue; 3) educate

Materials for preparing for the test in the history of Russia grade 6 profile P-5 teacher: Slonsky A.S. Task bank Task 1 Prince Vladimir I of Kyiv was baptized in 2) Chersonese Kyiv 4) Jerusalem Constantinople

Practice test in history Choose the correct answer: 1. The ancestors of the Russians are A) Eastern Slavs * B) Ukrainians C) Belarusians 2. In ancient Byzantine books, they first wrote about the Eastern

To love your Motherland means to know it (M. M. Prishvin) I love history. The works of N. M. Karamzin, V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. I. Kostomarov, S. M. Solovyov, V. N. Tatishchev, S. F. Platonov, L. N. Gumilyov always

Methodological materials for the transfer certification of 10th grade students in history (profile level) In the 2015-2016 academic year. Teacher Rozhkova Elena Yurievna Explanatory note. Transferable

1. Background The Old Russian state was formed as a result of a complex interaction of a whole complex of both internal and external factors. 1.1. Socio-economic background 1.1.1. Development

Teacher of history and social studies MBOU "Lyceum of Kozmodemyansk" Theme. Primordial Russia Emelyanov V.V. Repetitive generalizing lesson on the history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XIII century in the 10th grade

G. A. Porkhunov NATIONAL HISTORY Educational and methodological manual for bachelor students Omsk Publishing house OmGPU 2014

Interesting historical facts about Russia Russia is a large original country with a rich history. From the very beginning of its existence, it has played a prominent role in the events that took place in the world.

TOPIC 2. FORMATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE 1. BACKGROUND The Old Russian state was formed as a result of a complex interaction of a whole complex of both internal and external factors. 1.1. Socio-economic

85 Chapter 2 Modeling the linguistic personality of the compiler of the Tale of Bygone Years and the interpretation of lexical substitutions as the results of the development of the book and written tradition of Russian medieval annalistics. In this

AN Kirpichnikov On the 1150th anniversary of the creation of the Russian state (862 2012) (Russia, look back at the people's anniversary) In 2012, the 1150th anniversary of the Russian state and its electoral system is coming. It started

A demonstration version for conducting an intermediate certification in History in the 6th grade of 2016-2017 Appointment of the final test work control of the state of the level of formation of general educational and special

Section 3. HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES Topic 3.2. From Ancient Russia to the Muscovite State Lecture 3.2.1. Formation of the Old Russian state. Plan 1. The formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs and the Varangian

Yu. K. Shkolnik Ancient Russia From Rurik to Ivan the Terrible Edited by D. G. Davidenko, Candidate of Historical Sciences

Army leaders like Marshal Zhu De and Chief of the General Staff of the PLA Luo Ruiqing

2017.01.006 35 divisions of capitalism, which have recently ceased to be rigidly linked with the free market and private property, putting different forms of regulation at the forefront. At this point he

Topic 1. Eastern Slavs in antiquity 1. Methodological recommendations

Module 1. the beginning of native history WE LEARN TO SELECT FACTS AND MAKE CONCLUSIONS. LESSON 1. the study of history and chronology Ancient Russia Moscow State Russian Empire USSR RF 5 Task 1. Ability to identify

And 90 History of Russia in dates: IX XXI centuries. / BUT. Trifonova, S.S. Ivanov. Moscow: Eksmo, 2014. 240 p. (Handbook in pocket). The publication will help you quickly refresh the knowledge gained at school and systematize

Test tasks on the topic Test tasks "Slavs and nomads in the IV-beginning of the XII century." 1) The organizer of the campaign of the Slavic princes against the Polovtsians in 1111. was: 1. Vladimir Monomakh; 2. Yuri Dolgoruky; 3.

South Ural Olympiad for schoolchildren in history Full-time round, 2011/2012 academic year Grade 6, option 1 (tasks and answers) Maximum score 100 points I. Multiple choice assignments. Maximum Points

Final examination in history, grade 6 of the Federal State Educational Standard (demo version) Option 1 1. The battle on the Kalka River, where the Russian princes first met with the Mongolotatars, took place in: 1. 1223 2. 1240 3. 1380

Examination on the topic "Kievan Rus" Option 1 1. One of the first ancient Russian stone churches was the cathedral 1) Assumption in Moscow 2) Sophia in Kyiv 3) Pokrovsky in Moscow 4) Dmitrievsky in Vladimir

Evolutionary development of constitutional law in Russia Martirosyan A.A., Astapeeva E.V., Shkarupa V.G., Krasnodar Regional Basic Medical College, Russia Evolutionary development of constitutional

"Baptism of Russia". The historical significance of the adoption of Christianity. The penetration of Christianity into Russia. The earliest attempts to penetrate Christianity into the East Slavic lands date back to the first centuries.