How did the state appear in Rus'. Norman theory. Norman theory concept and essence

Norman theory (Normanism) is a trend in historiography that develops the concept that the people-tribe of Rus comes from Scandinavia during the expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe.

Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states Eastern Slavs- Novgorod, and then Kievan Rus. In fact, this is following the historiographic concept of the Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century), supplemented by the identification of the chronicle Varangians as Scandinavian-Normans. The main controversy flared up around ethnic identification, at times intensified by political ideologization.
For the first time, the thesis about the origin of the Varangians from Sweden was put forward by King Johan III in diplomatic correspondence with Ivan the Terrible. In 1615, the Swedish diplomat Piotr Petreus de Yerlesunda tried to develop this idea in his book Regin Muschowitici Sciographia. His initiative was supported in 1671 by the royal historian Johan Widekind in Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie. Olaf Dalin's History of the Swedish State had a great influence on subsequent Normanists.
The Norman theory gained wide popularity in Russia in the first half of the 18th century thanks to the activities of German historians in Russian Academy Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlözer.
Against the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis of the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness for the formation of a state, M.V. Lomonosov actively spoke out, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, claimed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians mid-eighteenth century V. N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik descended from the Norman prince ruling in Finland, and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.
The Norman version was accepted by N. M. Karamzin, and after him by almost all major Russian historians of the 19th century. The two most prominent representatives of the anti-Normanist trend were S. A. Gedeonov and D. I. Ilovaisky. The first considered the Rus to be Baltic Slavs - encouraged, the second, on the contrary, emphasized their southern origin.
Soviet historiography, after a break in the first years after the revolution, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The main argument was the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism, Friedrich Engels, that the state cannot be imposed from outside, supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonic theory of the linguist N. Ya. Marr, officially promoted at that time, which denied migration and explained the evolution of language and ethnogenesis from a class point of view . ideological setting for Soviet historians was the proof of the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the tribe "Rus". Characteristic excerpts from a public lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin, delivered in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:
“It is natural that the “scientists” servants of world capital strive at all costs to discredit, denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the significance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state...
These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that a thousand-year-old tradition about the “calling of the Varangians” by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from across the sea”, which should have been archived a long time ago along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the serpent, tempter global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology ...
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the remarks of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Summary of a textbook on the history of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state that arises at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials of the history of the Russian state. Thus already in theoretical constructions There are no founders of Marxism-Leninism and there can be no place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the "wild" East Slavic tribes.
Historian and archaeologist B. A. Rybakov represented Soviet anti-Normanism for many years. From the 1940s, he identified the Rus and the Slavs, placing the first ancient Slavic state, the predecessor of Kievan Rus, in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper.
In the 1960s, the "Normanists" regained their positions, recognizing the existence of a Slavic proto-state headed by Rus before the arrival of Rurik. I. L. Tikhonov names one of the reasons why many became Normanists in the 1960s:
... the departure from scientific officialdom was also perceived as a kind of “scientific dissidence”, a fronde, and this could not but attract young people, whose political dissidence was limited to reading Gumilyov and Brodsky, singing songs of Galich, and anecdotes about Brezhnev ... Some opposition quite suited us and created a certain halo around the participants of the Varangian Seminar.
The subject of the discussion was the localization of the unification of the Rus with a kagan at the head, which received the conditional name Russian Khaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the Russian Khaganate, while archaeologists (M.I. Artamonov, V.V. Sedov) placed the Khaganate in the south, in the area from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they still deduce the ethnonym Rus from Iranian roots.
In 862, in order to end the civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes) and Finno-Ugric peoples (All and Chud) turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne. Where the Varangians were called from, the chronicles do not report. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus on the coast of the Baltic Sea (“from across the sea”, “the path to the Varangians along the Dvina”). In addition, the Varangians-Rus are put on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (the inhabitants of Gotland are modern Swedes):
And the Slovenians said to themselves: “Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right.” And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders - like these.
Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym "Germans", which unites the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.
The chronicles left in the Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians-Rus (until 944), most of the distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. The chronicle mentions the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium in 912: Rurik (Rorik), Askold, Dir, Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingwar), Charles, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (compositions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).
The first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list of the treaty of 944, although the leaders of the West Slavic tribes from the beginning of the 9th century are known under distinctly Slavic names.
Written testimonies of contemporaries about Rus' are listed in the article Rus (people). Western European and Byzantine authors of the 9th-10th centuries identify Rus as Swedes, Normans or Franks. With rare exceptions, Arab-Persian authors describe the Rus separately from the Slavs, placing the former near or among the Slavs.
The most important argument of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus "On the management of the empire" (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and the interpretation of the names in Greek. At the same time, Konstantin reports that the Slavs are "tributaries" (paktiots - from the Latin pactio "agreement") of the Ross.
Ibn Fadlan described in detail the rite of burial of a noble Rus by burning in a boat, followed by the erection of a barrow. This event dates back to 922, when, according to the ancient Russian chronicles, the Rus were still separated from the Slavs subject to them. Graves of this type were found near Ladoga and later in Gnezdovo. The method of burial probably originated among immigrants from Sweden on the Aland Islands and later, with the beginning of the Viking Age, spread to Sweden, Norway, the coast of Finland and penetrated into the territory of the future Kievan Rus.
In 2008, on the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikids with the image of a falcon, which later became a symbolic trident - the coat of arms of the Rurikids. A similar image of a falcon was minted on the English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Gutfritsson (939-941).
At archaeological research layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement, a significant number of finds of military equipment and Viking clothing were found, Scandinavian-type items were found (iron hryvnias with Thor's hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence of immigrants from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.
A number of words in Russian are considered Germanisms, Scandinavianisms, and although there are relatively few of them in the Russian language, most of them belong to the ancient period. It is significant that not only words of trade vocabulary penetrated, but also maritime terms, everyday words and terms of power and control, proper names. So, according to a number of linguists, proper names appeared Igor, Oleg, Olga, Rogneda, Rurik, the words: tiun, pud, anchor (from the 11th century), sneak, whip (from the 13th century).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NORMANN THEORY- a direction in the study of the domestic past, whose supporters consider the Scandinavians, Vikings, Normans the founders of the Russian state. The thesis about the “calling of the Varangians”, which formed the basis of the theory, like itself, has been used in scientific and political disputes for more than three centuries as an ideological justification for the concept of the inability of the Slavs, and especially Russians, to independent state creativity and development in general without the cultural and intellectual assistance of the West .

The Norman theory was first formulated by German scientists who worked in Russia at the invitation of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences during the reign of Anna Ivanovna (second quarter of the 18th century), - G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer. Describing the history of the creation of the Russian state, they were based on the legendary story of the chronicler from Tale of Bygone Years about the calling by the Slavs to Rus' of the Varangian king Rurik, who gave the name of the first Russian princely dynasty (Rurik, 9-16 centuries). Under the pen of these German historians, the Normans (north-western tribes of the Varangians, Swedish Vikings) were the creators of the ancient Russian statehood, their representatives formed the basis of the ruling class of ancient Russian society (princes, boyars, the top command staff of their squads in the "times of military democracy"). M.V. Lomonosov, a contemporary of Bayer, Miller and Schlozer, saw in the theory put forward by them a political meaning hostile to Russia and pointed out its scientific inconsistency. He did not deny the authenticity of the chronicle story, but believed that the "Varangians" (Normans) should be understood as the tribes of the Goths, Lithuanians, Khazars and many other peoples, and not just the Swedish Vikings.

In the 19th century Norman theory acquired in the official Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanists were N.M. Karamzin and many others. other historians of his time. S.M. Solovyov, without denying the vocation Varangian princes to Rus', did not see in this legend grounds for thinking about the infringement of national dignity.

By the 30s–50s of the 19th century. the struggle between "Normanists" and "anti-Normanists" was at the same time a struggle between "Westerners" and "Slavophiles". It became especially acute in the 60s of the 19th century. in connection with the celebration in 1862 of the millennium of Russia. Opponents of the theory then were D.I. Ilovaisky, N.I. Kostomarov, S.A. Gedeonov (who was the first to try to prove the West Slavic origin of the Varangians), V.G. Vasilevsky. They drew attention to the fact that the thesis about the calling of the Varangians was first turned into a theory precisely during the “Bironovshchina” (when many top positions at the court were occupied by German nobles who sought to justify the cultural role of the West for “backward” Russia). At the same time, over the past six centuries (12th-18th centuries), the legend of Rurik's calling was included in all works on the history of Russia, but was never a basis for recognizing the backwardness of Rus' and the high development of its neighbors. And yet the argumentation of the "anti-Normanists" was weak and by the beginning of the 20th century. the victory of "Normanism" in Russian historiography seemed obvious. Even the outstanding Russian specialist in ancient Russian chronicle textology and archeography A.A. Shakhmatov, having established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes, nevertheless inclined to the idea of the “decisive importance” of the Scandinavian tribes in the process of state building in Rus'. He even derived the very name of the ancient Russian state from the Finnish lexeme "ruotsi" - the designation of the Swedes and Sweden.

In the Soviet historical science the question of how the ancient Russian state was created, of the correctness or falsity of the Norman theory, acquired an obviously political significance. Historians who studied the most ancient period of Russian statehood (B.D. Grekov, B.A. Rybakov, M.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Mavrodin) were faced with the need to give a “fierce rebuff to the reactionary bourgeoisie, trying to denigrate the distant past of the Russian people, undermine the feeling of deep respect for him on the part of all progressive mankind. Together with fellow archaeologists, they sought to find substantiations high degree the expansion of the communal system among the Slavs by the beginning - the middle of the 9th century, since only this could confirm the presence of internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state.

Nevertheless, the "Normanists", especially those who worked on the study of the history of the ancient Russian state in foreign universities, did not give up their positions. Finding Norman elements in the organization of administrative and political management, social life, cultures, Normanists tried to emphasize that they were decisive in determining the nature of a particular social phenomenon. By the early 1960s, Normanists had become advocates of at least one of four concepts:

1) "The concept of conquest", leaning towards the idea of the conquest of the Russian land by the Normans (shared by most Russian historians)

2) "The concept of colonization" (T. Arne) - the capture of Russian territory by the Normans by creating Scandinavian colonies.

3) "The concept of political cooperation" between the Swedish kingdom and Russia. Initially, the role of the Varangians in Rus' was the role of merchants who knew foreign countries well, later - warriors, navigators, sailors.

4) "The concept of a foreign elite" - the creation of an upper class in Rus' by the Vikings (A. Stender-Petersen).

Their anti-Normanist opponents drew attention to the following points in their argumentation.

1) Representatives of the South Baltic Pomeranian Slavs, who were part of large tribal confederations of tribes, in the 8th-10th centuries. dominated the southern shores of the Baltic and determined much in the history, religion, culture of this region, influencing the fate and development of the Eastern Slavs, especially its northwestern region, where the first centers of Russian statehood arose - Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod. But these were not the Varangians, but the Pomeranian Slavs.

2) The ancient connections of the Pomeranian Slavs with the East Slavic lands were reflected in the linguistic community of the South Baltic and Novgorod (Ilmen) Slavs. The Tale of Bygone Years also says that Slavic and the Varangian-Russian language "the essence is one." The chronicle found confirmation that - in the opinion of its author - there were Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and there were "Varangians - Rus", and the chronicler singled out separately the Scandinavian, and separately - the Varangian-Russian ethnic community.

3) The existence of some ancient Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor, etc.) and Norman-Varangians in princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Varangians left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus', because those of them who lived in Rus' were assimilated (glorified).

4) The Normans (Varangians) themselves recognized high level development of Gardariki - "country of cities", as they called Rus'.

5) The foreign origin of the ruling dynasty is typical of the Middle Ages; the legend of calling the Varangians to Rus' is no exception (the German dynasties originate from the Roman ones, the British from the Anglo-Saxon ones).

To date, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been finally clarified. The controversy between Normanists and anti-Normanists occasionally resumes, but due to lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean towards a compromise option, and a moderate Normanist theory arose. According to her, the Varangians had a serious influence on the ancient Slavs, but being small in number, they quickly mastered the Slavic language and culture of their neighbors.

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva

In the 19th century Norman theory acquired in the official Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanists were N.M. Karamzin and many others. other historians of his time. S. M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', did not see in this legend grounds for thinking about the infringement of national dignity.

In Soviet historical science, the question of how the ancient Russian state was created, of the correctness or falsity of the Norman theory, acquired an obviously political significance. Historians who studied the most ancient period of Russian statehood (B.D. Grekov, B.A. Rybakov, M.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Mavrodin) were faced with the need to give a “fierce rebuff to the reactionary bourgeoisie, trying to denigrate the distant past of the Russian people, undermine the feeling of deep respect for him on the part of all progressive mankind. Together with fellow archaeologists, they sought to find justification for the high degree of decomposition of the communal system among the Slavs by the beginning - the middle of the 9th century, since only this could confirm the presence of internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state.

Nevertheless, the "Normanists", especially those who worked on the study of the history of the ancient Russian state in foreign universities, did not give up their positions. Finding Norman elements in the organization of administrative and political management, social life, culture, the Normanists tried to emphasize that they were decisive in determining the nature of a particular social phenomenon. By the early 1960s, Normanists had become advocates of at least one of four concepts:

1) "The concept of conquest", leaning towards the idea of the conquest of the Russian land by the Normans (shared by most Russian historians)

2) "The concept of colonization" (T. Arne) - the capture of Russian territory by the Normans by creating Scandinavian colonies.

4) "The concept of a foreign elite" - the creation of an upper class in Rus' by the Vikings (A. Stender-Petersen).

Their anti-Normanist opponents drew attention to the following points in their argumentation.

2) The ancient connections of the Pomeranian Slavs with the East Slavic lands were reflected in the linguistic community of the South Baltic and Novgorod (Ilmen) Slavs. IN Tales of Bygone Years it is also said that the Slavic language and the Varangian-Russian language "are the same". The chronicle found confirmation that - in the opinion of its author - there were Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and there were "Varangians - Rus", and the chronicler singled out separately the Scandinavian, and separately - the Varangian-Russian ethnic community.

3) The existence of some ancient Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor, etc.) and Norman-Varangians in princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Varangians left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus', because those of them who lived in Rus' were assimilated (glorified).

4) The Normans (Varangians) themselves recognized the high level of development of Gardariki - the "country of cities", as they called Rus'.

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva

Literature

Mavrodin V.V. The fight against Normanism in Russian historical science. L., 1949
Lovmyanskiy X. Rus' and the Normans. M., 1985
Rus' and Varangians. M., 1999
Collection of the Russian Historical Society. Anti-Normanism. M., 2003, No. 8 (156)
Gedeonov S.A. Varangians and Rus. M., 2004

Norman theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norman theory (Normanism) - direction to historiography, developing the concept that the people-tribe Rus comes from Scandinavia expansion period Vikings, which in Western Europe were called Normans.

Proponents of Normanism Normans (Varangians Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs - Novgorod, and then Kievan Rus. In fact, this is following historiographic concepts Tales of Bygone Years(Start 12th century), supplemented by the identification annalistic Varangians like Scandinavians-Normans. Around ethnic identification flared up major disputes, sometimes reinforced by political ideologization.

History of development

For the first time the thesis about the origin of the Varangians from Sweden was put forward by the king Johan III in diplomatic correspondence with Ivan the Terrible . I tried to develop this idea in 1615 Swedish diplomat Piotr Petreius de Yerlezunda in his book Regin Muschowitici Sciographia. His initiative was supported by 1671 royal historiographer Johan Widekind in "Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie". The History of the Swedish State had a great influence on subsequent Normanists. Olaf Dalin .

The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the first half of XVIII century thanks to the activities of German historians in the Russian Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer(1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont And August Ludwig Schlözer.

Against the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness for the formation of a state , actively spoke M. V. Lomonosov, suggesting a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, claimed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians of the middle of the 18th century V. N. Tatishchev, having studied the "Varangian question", did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on Joachim Chronicle”, the Varangian Rurik came from a Norman prince ruling in Finland, and the daughter of a Slavic elder Gostomysl.

Norman version accepted N. M. Karamzin, followed by almost all the major Russian historians of the 19th century. The two most prominent representatives of the anti-Normanist trend were S. A. Gedeonov And D. I. Ilovaisky. The first considered the Rus to be Baltic Slavs - encouraging, the second, on the contrary, emphasized their southern origin.

Soviet historiography, after a break in the first years after revolution, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The main argument was the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism Friedrich Engels about the fact that the state cannot be imposed from the outside, supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonic linguist's theory N. Y. Marra who denied migration and explaining the evolution of language and ethnogenesis from a class point of view. The ideological setting for Soviet historians was to prove the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the Rus tribe. Characteristic excerpts from the public lecture of the Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodina read in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in the Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:

“It is natural that the “scientists” servants of world capital strive at all costs to discredit, denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the significance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[…]

These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that a thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from across the sea”, which should have been archived a long time ago along with the legend about Adam, Eve And serpent tempter, global flood, noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[...] Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the remarks of Stalin's comrades, Kirov And Zhdanov on the “Synopsis of a textbook on the History of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state that arose at that time, and applied this theory to specific materials in the history of the Russian state. Thus, already in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism there is no and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the “wild” East Slavic tribes.

Historian and archaeologist B. A. Rybakov for many years he represented Soviet anti-Normanism. From the 1940s, he identified the Rus and the Slavs, placing the first ancient Slavic state, the predecessor of Kievan Rus, in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper.

IN 1960s years, the "Normanists" regained their positions, recognizing the existence of a Slavic proto-state headed by Rus before joining Rurik. I. L. Tikhonov names one of the reasons why many became Normanists in the 1960s:

... a departure from scientific officialdom was also perceived as a kind of " scientific dissidence”, the Fronde, and this could not but attract young people whose political dissidence was limited to reading Gumilyov and Brodsky, singing songs of Galich, and anecdotes about Brezhnev [...] Some opposition quite suited us and created a certain halo around the participants of the Varangian Seminar

The subject of the discussion was the localization of the association of the Rus with the kagan at the head, which received the conditional name Russian Khaganate. Orientalist A. P. Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the Russian Khaganate, while archaeologists ( M. I. Artamonov, V. V. Sedov) placed the kaganate in the south, in the area from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they nevertheless deduce the ethnonym Rus from Iranian roots .

Normanist Arguments

Old Russian chronicles

IN 862 g. to end the strife of the tribes Eastern Slavs (krivichi And Ilmen Slovenes) And Finno-Ugric (the whole And chud) turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne (see article The calling of the Varangians, Rus' (people) And Rurik). Where the Varangians were called from, the chronicles do not report. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus on the coast of the Baltic Sea (“from across the sea”, “the path to the Varangians along Dvina"). In addition, the Varangians-Rus are put on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (the inhabitants of Gotland are modern Swedes):

"And they said to themselves Slovenia: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by law." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders - like these.

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians pseudo-ethnonym "Germans", uniting the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.

The chronicles left in the Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians-Rus (before 944 years), most distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. IN annals the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium are mentioned in 912: Rurik (Rorik) Askold , Deer , Oleg (Helgi) Igor (Ingwar) Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Hoods, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar,Aktev, Trouan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. Prince's names Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (works Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).

The first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list agreements 944 years, although the leaders of the West Slavic tribes from the beginning 9th century known by distinctly Slavic names.

Written testimonies of contemporaries

Written testimonies of contemporaries about Rus' are listed in the article Rus' (people). Western European and Byzantine authors of the 9th-10th centuries identify Rus' as Swedes , Normans or francs . With rare exceptions, Arab-Persian authors describe the Rus separately from the Slavs, placing the former near or among the Slavs.

The most important argument of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus « On the management of the empire» ( 949 d.), where the names are given Dnieper thresholds in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and the interpretation of names in Greek.

Table of threshold names:

Slavic name	Translation into Greek	Slavic etymology	Russian name	Scandinavian etymology	Name in the 19th century

		1. Nessupi 2. Give in (ledges)		1. - 2. OE Stupi: waterfall	Staro-Kaydatsky

Islanduniprah	Threshold islet	Island Prague	Ulvorsi	other sw. Holmfors: island threshold	Lokhansky and Sursky rapids

Gelandri	Noise Threshold			other sw. Gaellandi: loud, ringing	Zvonets, 5 km from Lokhansky

	Pelican nest	Don't eat	Aiphor	other sw. Aei(d)fors: waterfall on the portage	insatiate

Vulniprah	Big backwater	International Prague	Varouforos	other-isl. Barufors: threshold with waves	Volnisskiy

	boiling water	Vruchii (boiling)	Leandi	other sw. Le(i)andi: laughing	Not localized

	small threshold	On the line (on the line)	Strukun	other-isl. Strukum: narrow part of a river channel	Superfluous or Free

At the same time, Constantine reports that the Slavs are tributaries (paktiots) rosov.

archaeological evidence

Ibn Fadlan described in detail the rite of burial of a noble Rus by burning in a boat, followed by the erection of a mound. This event refers to 922 when, according to ancient Russian chronicles Russians were still separated from the Slavs subject to them. Graves of this type were found near Ladoga and later in Gnezdovo. The method of burial probably originated among immigrants from Sweden on Åland Islands and later, with the beginning of the Viking Age, it spread to Sweden, Norway, the coast of Finland and penetrated into the territory of the future Kievan Rus.

IN 2008 on the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurik dynasty with the image of a falcon, which later became a symbolic trident - coat of arms of Rurikovich. A similar image of a falcon was minted on the English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Gutfritsson (939-941).

During archaeological studies of the layers of the IX-X centuries in Rurik settlement a significant number of finds of military equipment and clothing of the Vikings were discovered, objects of the Scandinavian type were found (iron torcs with Thor's hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.) , which indicates the presence of immigrants from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.

Possible linguistic evidence

A number of words in Russian are considered Germanisms, Scandinavianisms, and although there are relatively few of them in the Russian language, most of them belong to the ancient period. It is significant that not only words of trade vocabulary penetrated, but also maritime terms, everyday words and terms of power and control, proper names. So there were own names Igor, Oleg, Olga,Rogneda, Rurik, words :herring, chest, pud, hook, anchor, sneak, please, whip, mast and others. It is also important that the very name of the ruler in the East Slavic languages \u200b\u200bis - knѧs and knѧgyni [ knɛ̃dzɪ] And [ knɛ̃gɯnɪ] is also probably a word of Germanic, most likely Scandinavian origin from konungR like this old Russian word how tiun (tivun) comes from OE. þjónn (servant).This name existed until the 17th century inclusive, including in Commonwealth(in its then constituent part - Lithuania) There are suggestions about the Scandinavian origin of the word " boyar" (where does the Russian master and young lady from the colloquial "bare" - "boyars"). However, other Germanisms of the same sphere of the sphere - wash, armor, sword, buy, helmet - are most likely considered earlier - from Gothic

Norman theory- 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. 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 Rus' 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. IN given time the standard is the assertion that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both views 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.

According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of the Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the Eastern Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the Rurik princes. 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.

Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and more often in themselves volunteers, and there is no truth in them, and stand up kindred, and more often fight for yourself. 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 Rus'; The site of both is called Varyazi Rus, as if all of them are called Svie, the friends of Urman, Angliane, the friends of Gote, taco and si. Resha Russia Chud, and Slovenia, and Krivichi all: "our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress 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 Bele, 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 contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists claim that the Varangians who came are Scandinavians and they practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural impact on the Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is quite clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, and at the same time subjugated them to themselves.

Although this construction was first mentioned by the compiler of the chronicle and since then for six centuries has usually been included in all works on the history of Russia, it is well known that the Norman theory received official distribution in the 30-40s of the 18th century during the "Bironism", when many the highest positions at the court were occupied by German nobles. Naturally, the entire first staff of the Academy of Sciences was staffed by German scientists. It is believed that the German scientists Bayer and Miller created this theory under the influence of the political situation. A little later this theory was developed by Schletzer.

Some Russian scientists, in particular M. V. Lomonosov, immediately reacted to the publication of the theory. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of infringed dignity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like Lomonosov. It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. The catch is that the opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially stood on the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the chronicle source story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.

Normanists rested on the fact that the term "Rus" denoted precisely the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, if only not to give the Normanists a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a consequence, to late XIX century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the controversy on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the lead in considering this issue.

After his work "The Beginning of the Russian State" was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists continued their polemics, the majority of representatives official science adopted a Normanist position. In the scientific community, an idea has been established about the victory of the Norman concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen's work.

Direct polemics against Normanism almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that "the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history." Also, the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the vast majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter in Rus', "the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg." This statement perfectly illustrates the situation prevailing in Russian science at that time.

It should be noted that in XVIII early In the 20th century, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the foundation of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but they did not specifically deal with this problem. For almost two centuries there were only a few Norman scholars in the West, except for the already mentioned V. Thomsen, one can name T. Arne. The situation changed only in the twenties of our century. Then interest in Russia, which had already managed to become Soviet, increased sharply. This was reflected in the interpretation of Russian history. Many works on the history of Russia began to be published. First of all, the book of the greatest scientist A.A. Shakhmatova, dedicated to the problems of the origin of the Slavs, the Russian people and the Russian state.

Shakhmatov's attitude to the Norman problem has always been complex. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicle writing played important role in criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on the textual and logical analysis of the chronicle, he established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes. 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 Rus'.

The emergence of statehood in Rus' seemed to Shakhmatov the successive appearance of three Scandinavian states in Eastern Europe and as a result of the struggle between them. Here we move on to a concept that is clearly defined and somewhat more specific than those previously described. So, according to Shakhmatov, the first state of the Scandinavians was created by the Normans-Rus who came from the sea at the beginning of the 9th century in Priilmenye, in the region of the future Staraya Russa. It was it that was the "Russian Khaganate", known from the entry of 839 in the Bertin Annals. From here, in the 840s, Norman Rus moved south, to the Dnieper region, and created a second Norman state there with a center in Kyiv.

In the 860s, northern East Slavic tribes rebelled and expelled the Normans and Rus', and then invited a new Varangian army from Sweden, which created the third Norman-Varangian state, headed by Rurik. Thus, we see that the Varangians, the second wave of Scandinavian newcomers, began to fight with the Norman Rus that had previously come to Eastern Europe; the Varangian army won, uniting the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into one Varangian state, which took the name "Rus" from the defeated Kyiv Normans. The very name "Rus" was derived by Shakhmatov from the Finnish word "ruotsi" - designations for the Swedes and Sweden. On the other hand, V.A. Parkhomenko showed that the hypothesis expressed by Shakhmatov is too complicated, far-fetched and far from the actual basis of written sources.

Also a major Normanist work that appeared in our historiography in the 1920s was P.P. Smirnov "Volga way and ancient Russians". Widely using the news of Arab writers of the 9th-11th centuries, Smirnov began to look for the place of origin of the Old Russian state not on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks", as was done by all previous historians, but on the Volga route from the Baltic along the Volga to the Caspian Sea. According to the concept of Smirnov, on the Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. the first state created by Russia - the "Russian Khaganate" - was formed. On the Middle Volga, Smirnov was looking for the "three centers of Rus'" mentioned in Arabic sources of the 9th-10th centuries. In the middle of the 9th century, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Ugrians, the Norman-Russians from the Volga region left for Sweden and from there, after the "calling of the Varangians", again moved to Eastern Europe, this time to the Novgorod land.

The new construction turned out to be original, but not convincing and was not supported even by the supporters of the Norman school. Further, in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists, cardinal changes took place. This was caused by some surge in the activity of the anti-Normanist doctrine, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the younger generation came to replace the scientists of the old school. But until the mid-1930s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit. Archaeologists were the first to come up with anti-Normanist ideas, directing their criticism against the provisions of the concept of the Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, who published his work "Sweden and the East".

Archaeological research by Russian archaeologists in the 1930s produced materials that contradict Arne's concept. The theory of the Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in the following decades. An attempt was made using the analysis of toponymy Novgorod land confirm the existence of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion that, when studying this problem, it is important to take into account not only interethnic, but also social relations in Rus'. However, these critical speeches have not yet changed the overall picture. The named scientist, as, indeed, other Russian researchers, opposed individual Normanist provisions, and not against the whole theory as a whole.

After the war, what happened in science was what should have happened: the controversy between Soviet science and Normanism began to restructure, from the struggle against the scientific constructions of the last century, they began to move on to a specific criticism of the current and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism, as one of the main trends foreign science.

By that time, there were four main theories in Norman historiography.:

1) The theory of conquest: According to this theory, the Old Russian state was created by the Normans, who conquered the East Slavic lands and established their dominance over the local population. This is the oldest and most advantageous point of view for the Normanists, since it is precisely this point of view that proves the "second-class" nature of the Russian nation.

2) The theory of Norman colonization, owned by T. Arne. It was he who proved the existence of Scandinavian colonies in Ancient Rus'. Normanists argue that the Varangian colonies were the real basis for establishing Norman dominance over the Eastern Slavs.

3) The theory of the political connection of the Swedish kingdom with the Russian state. Of all theories, this theory stands apart because of its fantasticness, not supported by any facts. This theory also belongs to T. Arne and can only claim the role of a not very successful joke, since it is simply invented from the head.

4) A theory that recognized the class structure of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. and the ruling class as created by the Vikings. According to her, the upper class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them. The creation of the ruling class by the Normans is considered by most authors as a direct result of the Norman conquest of Rus'. A. Stender-Petersen was a supporter of this idea. He argued that the appearance of the Normans in Rus' gave impetus to the development of statehood. The Normans are a necessary external "impulse", without which the state in Rus' would never have arisen.

Russian state under Ivan IV the Terrible.

Ivan IV the Terrible came to the throne as a three-year-old boy (1533). At the age of seventeen (1547), for the first time in Russian history, having been married to the kingdom, he began to rule independently. In June of the same year, a grandiose fire burned down almost all of Moscow; the rebellious townspeople came to the tsar in the village of Vorobyevo with a demand to punish the guilty. “Fear entered my soul and trembling into my bones,” Ivan wrote later. Meanwhile, a lot was expected from the tsar: the years of his early childhood, especially after the death of his mother, Elena Glinskaya, passed in a difficult atmosphere of enmity between boyar groups, conspiracies and secret murders. Life has given him difficult challenges.

The process of creating a unified Russian state basically completed. It had to be centralized single system central and local governments, to approve uniform legislation and courts, troops and taxes, to overcome the differences inherited from the past between individual regions of the country. It was necessary to carry out important foreign policy measures aimed at ensuring the security of the southern, eastern and western borders of Russia.

The first period of the reign of Ivan IV - until the end of the 50s. - passed under the sign of the activities of the Chosen Council, the circle of the closest advisers and like-minded tsar: the Kostroma landowner A. Adashev, Prince A. Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, Archpriest Sylvester, clerk I. Viskovaty and others. The direction of the transformations was determined by the desire for centralization, and their spirit - the convocation in 1549 of the first body in Russian history representing various social strata (boyars, clergy, nobility, service people, etc.) - the Zemsky Sobor. Historians call the cathedral of 1549 the "cathedral of reconciliation": the boyars swore to obey the tsar in everything, the tsar promised to forget past grievances.

Until the end of the 50s. The following reforms have been implemented:

A new Code of Laws (1550) was adopted, designed to become the basis of a unified legal system in the country;

Feeding was canceled (the order in which the boyars-governors lived at the expense of funds collected in their favor from subject territories);

The system has gained harmony government controlled through orders - the central executive authorities (Razryadny, Posolsky, Streletsky, Petition, etc.);

Localism was limited (the principle of holding positions according to the nobility of origin);

A streltsy army was created, armed with firearms;

The Code of Service was adopted, which strengthened the local noble army;

The order of taxation was changed - a unit of taxation (“plow”) and the amount of duties levied from it (“tax”) were established. In 1551, the church council adopted the “Stoglav” - a document that regulated the activities of the church and was aimed at unifying (establishing unity) rituals.

The success of reform efforts was reinforced by foreign policy successes. In 1552, the Kazan Khanate was conquered, and in 1556, the Astrakhan Khanate. At the end of the 50s. the Nogai Horde recognized its dependence. Significant territorial growth (almost doubled), security eastern borders, the prerequisites for further advancement in the Urals and Siberia were important achievements Ivan IV and the Chosen One are glad.

From the end of the 1950s, however, the tsar's attitude towards the plans of his advisers and towards them personally changed. In 1560, cooling took the form of enmity. The reasons can only be guessed at. Ivan IV dreamed of true "autocracy", the influence and authority of his associates, who had and, moreover, defended their own opinion, annoyed him. Disagreements on the question of the Livonian War were the last straw that overflowed the cup: in 1558 war was declared on the Livonian Order, which owned the Baltic lands.

At first, everything went well, the Order collapsed, but its lands went to Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, with which Russia had to fight until 1583. By the mid-60s. the difficulties of the outbreak of the war were clearly revealed, the military situation was not in favor of Russia. In 1565, Ivan the Terrible left Moscow for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, demanded the execution of traitors and announced the establishment of a special inheritance - the oprichnina (from the word "oprich" - outside, except). This is how it started new era in the history of his reign - bloody and cruel.

The country was divided into oprichnina and zemshchina, with their own Boyar Dumas, capitals, and troops. Power, moreover, uncontrolled, remained in the hands of Ivan the Terrible. An important feature of the oprichnina is terror, which also fell upon the ancient boyar families(Prince Vladimir Staritsky), and on the clergy (Metropolitan Philip, Archimandrite Herman), and on the nobles, and on the cities (pogrom in Novgorod in the winter of 1569-1570, terror in Moscow in the summer of 1570). In the summer of 1571, the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey burned Moscow: the oprichnina army, which was mad in robberies and robbery, showed complete military failure. The following year, Ivan the Terrible abolished the oprichnina and even forbade the use of this word in the future.

Historians have long and fiercely argued about the reasons for the oprichnina. Some tend to see in it the embodiment of the delusional fantasies of the mentally ill tsar, others, reproaching Ivan IV for using the wrong means, highly appreciate the oprichnina as a form of struggle against the boyars who opposed centralization, and others admire both the means and the goals of the oprichnina terror. Most likely, the oprichnina was a policy of terror aimed at establishing what Ivan the Terrible himself called autocracy. “And we were always free to favor our serfs, we were also free to execute,” he wrote to Prince Kurbsky, by serfs he meant subjects.

The consequences of the oprichnina are tragic. The Livonian War, despite the desperate efforts of the tsar, the courage of the soldiers (for example, during the defense of Pskov in 1581), ended with the loss of all conquests in Livonia and Belarus (the Yam-Zapolsky truce with Poland in 1582 and the Plyussky peace with Sweden in 1583. ). Oprichnina weakened the military power of Russia. The country's economy was devastated, in order to keep the peasants who fled from violence and unbearable taxes, laws on reserved years were adopted, which abolished the rule of St. George's Day and forbade peasants to change their masters. Having killed his eldest son with his own hand, the autocrat doomed the country to a dynastic crisis, which came in 1598 after the death of his heir, Tsar Fedor, who ascended his father's throne in 1584. The Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century. considered a distant but direct consequence of the oprichnina.

Russian state under Ivan IV the Terrible.

You may be interested