Klyuchevsky about the Norman theory. Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state: the genesis of the idea

History of development

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. The Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei de Erlesund tried to develop this idea in 1615 in his book “Regin Muschowitici Sciographia”. His initiative was supported in 1671 by the royal historiographer Johan Widekind in “Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie”. Olaf Dahlin's History of the Swedish State had a great influence on subsequent Normanists.

The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the 1st half of the 18th century thanks to the activities of German historians in Russian Academy scientists Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlözer.

M.V. Lomonosov actively opposed the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness to form a state, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, argued 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 mid-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 the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

The subject of discussion was the localization of the unification of the Rus with the Kagan at its head, which received the code name Russian Kaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Russian Kaganate, while archaeologists (M.I. Artamonov, V.V. Sedov) placed the Kaganate in the south, in the region from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they still derive the ethnonym Rus from Iranian roots.

Normanist arguments

Old Russian chronicles

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

The chronicles left in Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians of Rus' (until 944), most of them with a 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), Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Goods, Ruald, Karn, Frelove, Ruar, Aktev, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (the works 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 have been known by distinctly Slavic names since the beginning of the 9th century.

Written evidence from contemporaries

Written evidence from contemporaries about Rus' is listed in the article Rus' (people). Western European and Byzantine authors of the 9th-10th centuries identify the 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 essay of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and interpretation of names in Greek.
Table of threshold names:

At the same time, Constantine reports that the Slavs are “tributaries” (Paktiots - from lat. pactio"agreement") Rosov.

Archaeological evidence

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikovichs with the image of a falcon, which may later become a symbolic trident - the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs. A similar image of a falcon was minted on English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson (939-941).

During archaeological studies of the layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement, a significant number of finds of military equipment and clothing of the Vikings were discovered, objects of the Scandinavian type were discovered (iron hryvnias with Thor hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence immigrants from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.

Possible linguistic evidence

A whole series of words in Russian are considered Germanisms, Scandinavianisms, and although there are relatively few of them in the Russian language, most of them belong specifically 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. This is how, according to a number of linguists, proper names appeared Igor, Oleg, Olga, Rogneda, Rurik, words

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Chapter 1. “Norman theory” of the origin of the state in the East

Slavs and its criticism in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

1.1. The emergence of the “Norman theory” in the middle of the 18th century: authors, sources, main provisions, first critics…………………………………………………………….....5

1.2. Development of discussion in the 19th century……………………………………………………9

Chapter 2. Normanism and critics of the Norman theory in the 20th century…………….........12

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of references………………………………………………………………...17

Introduction

There is no question in the history of Russia that would not cause such lengthy, fierce debates with the participation of many scientists than the question “where did the Russian land come from”, who is Rurik and his “Varangians”, identified by Russian chronicles with “Rus”.

Written sources date the emergence of the Old Russian state to the 9th century. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Ilmen Slovenes and their neighbors - the Finnish Meri tribes - paid tribute to the Varangians, but then, not wanting to tolerate violence, “...In the year 6370 (862) they drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation arose, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas, to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and everyone said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us.” And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, in Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk."

Further, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that the boyars of Rurik, Askold and Dir, “asked for leave” from their prince to go on a campaign against Byzantium. Along the way, they captured Kyiv and arbitrarily called themselves princes. But Oleg, a relative and governor of Rurik, killed them in 882 and began to reign in Kyiv with Rurik’s young son Igor. Thus, in 882, Kyiv and Novgorod united under the rule of one prince, and the Old Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed.

This is the chronicle legend about the beginning of Russian statehood. There have been endless debates surrounding it for a long time. The story told by the chronicler served as the basis for the creation in the 18th century of the “Norman theory” of the emergence of the Old Russian state. The founders of this theory were the German scientists Bayer, Miller and Schlozer who worked in Russia in the 18th century. They believed that the main role in the formation of Kievan Rus was played by the Varangians, by whom they understood the Normans.

The Norman theory aroused sharp criticism almost immediately after its creation. It was first expressed within the framework of the anti-Norman theory formulated by M.V. Lomonosov and based on the hypothesis of the absolute originality of Slavic statehood.

More than two and a half centuries have passed since the creation of the Norman and anti-Norman theories. During this time, a huge amount of new source material has been accumulated, and hopes that the issue will be finally resolved are not justified. Both the Norman and anti-Norman theories developed with varying intensity all this time and to this day each has a large number of supporters. At the same time, among the “anti-Normanists”, some agree that the Varangians are Scandinavians, and at the same time argue that they did not bring statehood to Rus', but only played some political role as mercenaries at the princely courts and were assimilated by the Slavs. Another part of the “anti-Normanists” found and defended evidence that the Varangians and the Rus, identical to them, are Slavs.

At present, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been fully clarified. In Scandinavia, the history of Rus' is presented as the history of Greater Sweden, which arose as a result of the conquests of the kings in Eastern Europe. The great traveler Thor Heyerdahl sponsored archaeological expeditions in the south of Russia, which discovered numerous material evidence of the presence of Vikings in Rus' during the 10th-12th centuries: weapons, utensils, etc. Due to a lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean toward a compromise option: the Varangian squads had a serious influence on the formation of Slavic statehood.

Chapter 1. "Norman theory" of origin

states among the Eastern Slavs and its criticism in

XVIII-XIX centuries

1.1 Creation of the Norman theory in the middle of the 18th century: authors,

sources, main provisions

In the 30-40s of the 18th century. Russian scientists of German origin who served in the 18th century. in Russia, academicians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Miller and August Ludwig Schlozer proposed the so-called “Norman theory” of the origin of the ancient Russian state.

The main sources on which the first Russian academicians relied were, firstly, “The Tale of Bygone Years.” This chronicle that has come down to us describes the events of Russian history up to the tenth years of the 12th century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, by order of Prince Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich. Subsequently there were several more editions.

Secondly, as sources on which Bayer, and after him Schletser and Miller, relied, one can name the names of princes and warriors indicated in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, as well as mentions of Byzantine writers about the Varangians and Rus', Scandinavian sagas, news Arab writers and the Finnish name of the Swedes Ruotsa and the name of the Swedish Upland Roslagen.

To confirm their correctness, supporters of the Norman theory paid considerable attention to the news of Western historians. Here, the main source can be cited as the Bertine Chronicles and the writings of Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, who was twice ambassador to Constantinople in the mid-10th century.

The theory was based on a legend from the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangians by the Slavs. According to this legend, the Slavs, fearing internal strife, invited a detachment of Varangians led by the king, Prince Rurik, to rule.

The Norman theory is based on the idea that the Varangians mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe as the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, much less Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the chronicles - “Varangians” - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave statehood to Rus'. In his search for the corresponding term in the ancient northern languages, Bayer found, however, only the only word that roughly resembled “Varangian” was “varingjar” (vasringjar, nominative plural).

Another cornerstone conclusion is the conclusion, based on data from 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. There was nothing unusual in such a formulation of the question. It was well known that many European states were founded by foreign rulers, moreover, during conquest, but here we are talking about a peaceful vocation.

But it was precisely this conclusion that gave rise to such a fierce counter-speech by M.V. Lomonosov. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of violated dignity. M.V. Lomonosov saw in the story of the calling of princes an indication of the initial inferiority of the Slavs, who were incapable of independent state creativity. Indeed, any Russian person should have perceived this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like M.V. Lomonosov. The "Germans" were accused of bias.

Very indicative in this regard is the colorful story of the historian, albeit already of the 20th century, M.A. Alpatov about the emergence of the Norman theory: “The shadows of two compatriots - Rurik and Charles XII - hovered over those before whose eyes this question was born. Poltava Victoria crushed the ambitions of the conquerors since the time of Charles XII, the Norman theory, which traced Russian statehood to Rurik, dealt a blow to the ambitions of the Russians from the historical flag. It was an ideological revenge for Poltava. Covered with the dust of centuries, the ancient tale of the Varangians found a new life, became the most pressing modern plot... The Varangian question, "Consequently, he was born not in Kiev in chronicle times, but in St. Petersburg in the 18th century. He arose as an anti-Russian phenomenon and arose not in the field of science, but in the field of politics. The man who fired the first "shot" in this battle was Bayer."

It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. Opponents of the Norman concept also recognized the authenticity of the primary source chronicle 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 the capture of Kyiv, it was believed that before the appearance of the Norman Varangians, Kiev had its own princely Russian dynasty.

In addition, the answer to the question of who the Rus were was different... “So, Tatishchev and Boltin brought them out of Finland, Lomonosov - from Slavic Prussia, Evers - from Khazaria, Golman - from Friesland, Vater - from the Black Sea Goths .... "

In connection with the above, a number of questions arise: was the emergence of “Normanism” determined by the political background of the mid-18th century? And whose conclusions are more politicized: the founders of “Normanism” or their opponents?

What exactly is the Varangian question? In fact, we are talking about the degree of participation of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Old Russian state. From this neutral position, A.N. Sakharov’s article was written in the “Soviet Historical Encyclopedia”.

The author argued that the Norman theory is “a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'.” From this point of view, in the works of German academicians, the first Russian academicians, it is quite possible to see a truly academic attitude towards Russian history, based, first of all, on the study of sources.

There was another position in Soviet historiography. B.D. Grekov in the 1953 edition of “Kievan Rus” noted: “By Normanism we understand a “theory” that “proves” the inferiority of the Russian people, their inability to create their own culture and statehood, affirming the role of the founders of the Russian state and creators for the Norman Varangians Russian culture". This point of view was shared by D.A. Avdusin.

Researchers who dealt with the Norman question did not pay attention to the factual authenticity of the very calling of the Varangians and, in general, to the foreign origin of the princely dynasties. On the contrary, all researchers come from the above-mentioned legend and only interpret its text in different ways; for example: what does she mean by Varangians and Russia? Which sea does it point to? And in what sense should we understand the words “Girding all of Rus' around?”

Historians argued about spelling and punctuation marks in the chronicle text, trying to make it work in favor of their version. While this entire text is in no way able to withstand historical criticism, unclouded by preconceived ideas and interpretations.

Nevertheless, Bayer laid the foundation for the Norman theory of the origin of statehood in Russia, and in the 18th century, and in the next two and a half centuries, Bayer’s hypothesis found support from scholars both from among German-speaking scientists (G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, I.E. Thunman, H.F. Hollmann, K.X. Rafn) in Russia and abroad, and among Russian speakers (N.M. Karamzin, M.N. Pogodin, A.A. Shakhmatov, V. A. A. Brim, A. A. Vasiliev, N. G. Belyaev, V. A. Moshin, V. Kiparsky). The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version so as not to give the Normans 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, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. And the patriotic fervor of M.V. Lomonosov, S.P. Krascheninnikova and others gave the Normanists a reason to accuse these and subsequent anti-Normanists of the fact that their writings are just the fruit of patriotic sentiments or, worse, the imagination of amateurs.

1.2 Development of the debate in the 19th century

In the 19th century, which became the time of the formation of Russian historical science, the Varangian issue was resolved ambiguously. The Norman view was supported by the majority of scientists, including Russians.

Perhaps it is expressed most thoroughly in the works of N.M. Karamzin.

The first question asked by N.M. Karazmin, this is a “question: who does Nestor call Varyagami? Under the Varangians N.M. Karamzin understands the Scandinavians. The arguments are the messages of the chronicle, the Scandinavian names of the Varangian princes.

The second question: “...which people, especially called Russia, gave our fatherland and the first Sovereigns and the very name...?” N.M. Karamzin identifies the Varangians with Russia and places them in the Kingdom of Sweden, “where one coastal region has long been called Rosska, Ros-lagen, and the Finns to this day call all its inhabitants Rossi, Rots, Ruots.”

Thus, N.M. Karamzin conducts his research in the same way as the Normanists of the 18th century, for example G.Z. Bayer, also based on messages from the Tale of Bygone Years. However, the events of the beginning of Russian statehood in the “Normanist” interpretation of N.M. Karamzin received an interesting, not at all derogatory assessment of the Slavs: “... The beginning of Russian History presents us with an amazing and almost unprecedented case in the chronicles: the Slavs voluntarily destroy their ancient rule, and demand Sovereigns from the Varangians, who were their enemies.

Wanting to explain this important incident in some way, we think that the Varangians, who captured the countries of Chud and the Slavs several years before that time, ruled them without oppression and violence, took light tribute and observed justice. Dominating the seas, having relations with the South and West of Europe in the ninth century, the Varangians or Normans should have been more educated than the Slavs and Finns, confined in the wild reaches of the North; could tell them some of the benefits of new industry and trade that would be beneficial to the people.

The Slavic boyars, dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own, perhaps outraged this frivolous people, seduced them in the name of their former independence, armed them against the Normans and drove them out; but personal strife turned freedom into misfortune, failed to restore the ancient laws and plunged the fatherland into the abyss of civil strife. Then the citizens remembered, perhaps, the beneficial and calm Norman rule: the need for improvement and silence told them to forget the people’s pride, and the Slavs, convinced - as legend says - by the advice of the Novgorod elder Gostomysl, demanded Rulers from the Varangians...”

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

The fight against this “theory” was led 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 the calling of the Varangians, that is, the Normans, is recognized, while it is argued that Slavic statehood has its origins not in the north in Novgorod by the Varangians, but in the south, in Kiev. The Tale of Bygone Years is also used as the main source.

Perhaps the idea of ​​the Slavic origin of the first Kiev 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 rather complex phenomenon, and therefore, with the leading role of the Varangians, it could not take place without the corresponding development of social relations of the Slavs themselves.

We meet this opinion in the “Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky: “The word “Rus,” according to the author of “The Tale of the Russian Land,” originally had a tribal meaning: this was the name of the Varangian tribe from which our first princes came. Then this word acquired a class meaning... Later, Rus' or Russian land... - acquired a geographical meaning. Finally, in the 11th-12th centuries, when Rus' as a tribe merged with the native Slavs, both of these terms Rus' and Russian land... have a political meaning: this is how the entire territory subject to the Russian princes began to be called... the names of the first Russian Varangian princes and their the vigilantes are almost all of Scandinavian origin; we find the same names in the Scandinavian sagas: Rurik in the form of Hrorekr, Oleg in the ancient Kiev accent with an “o” - Helgi, Olga - Helga, Igor - Ingvarr, etc.... Political unification came from Kiev, and not from Novgorod Russian Slavs; The Kievan Varangian principality... became a mirror of that union of Slavic and neighboring Finnish tribes, which can be recognized as the original form of the Russian state."

Thus, in the 19th century, the discussion on the origins of Russian statehood was continued by Russian and foreign scientists. As before, the main source for Normanists and anti-Normanists remains written sources, mainly the Tale of Bygone Years, and all researchers are still unanimous in recognizing the real version of the chronicle about the recognition of the Varangians by the Novgorodians. At the same time, representatives of Normanism (N.M. Karamzin) did not at all insist on the backwardness of the Slavs, emphasizing the peaceful nature of the Varangians’ calling, and not the aggressive one. And anti-Normanists have an idea about the complex process of creating a state and the role of Slavic social institutions in this process, as well as opinions about the leading role of the Kievan dynasty in the formation of the state.

Chapter 2. Normanism and criticism of the Norman

theories in the 20th century

Russian scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries usually treated with complete confidence the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians. They argued only on the issue of the ethnicity of the aliens, without doubting the very reality of the events reported in the chronicle in 862. Gradually, however, an opinion is emerging that the story about the calling also captures much of the reality of the beginning of the 12th century, when the chronicle was created.

Thus, N.I. Kostomarov, in a dispute with M.P. Pogodin on March 19, 1860, about the beginning of Rus', said: “Our chronicle was compiled already in the 12th century and, reporting news of previous events, the chronicler used the words and expressions that prevailed in his time". D.I. Ilovaisky wrote about the influence of the Novgorod customs of the late period when creating the legend.

But the real turning point here came thanks to the work of A.A. Shakhmatov (“Investigation of 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 insertion, combined by artificially combining several North Russian legends subjected to deep processing by chroniclers.

The researcher saw the predominance of speculation 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 creativity of Kiev chroniclers of the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries.

After research by A.A. Shakhmatov in the field of the history of Russian chronicles, scientists began to be much more careful about chronicle news about incidents of the 9th century.

However, by the beginning of the twenties of the 20th century, despite the change in attitude towards criticism of the main written source of both Normanists and anti-Normanists, the plot of the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangians, it was still believed that “the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state of Russian history "i.

Further, cardinal changes occurred in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists. This was caused by a certain surge in the activity of anti-Norman teachings, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the old school were replaced by scientists of the younger generation. But until the mid-30s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit.

And from the mid-30s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists began an attack on the “anti-scientific” Norman theory, declaring it politically harmful and unpatriotic. At the same time, the bias of the German scientists G.Z. Bayera, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schletser, who sought to use history to justify the dominance of the Germans at the Russian court in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Soviet historical and historical-legal science in terms of exposing the Norman theory is represented by the works of B.D. Grekova, A.S. Likhacheva, V.V. Mvrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkova and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the disintegration of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on Rus' is negligible, if only because the level of their social and cultural development was not higher than in Ancient Rus'.

Thus, in Soviet historiography there are three approaches to the news of the chronicle about the calling of the Varangians. Some researchers consider them to be fundamentally historically reliable. Others completely deny the possibility of seeing in this 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 worried ancient Russian society at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries. Still others, finally, catch in the “legend about Rurik” echoes of real incidents, but by no means those told by the chronicler. In addition, they 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 more constructive than the others.

Conclusion

In the 18th century Russian scientists of German origin who served in the 18th century. in Russia, academicians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Miller and August Ludwig Schlozer proposed the so-called “Norman theory” of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The theory was based on a legend from the “Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling of the Varangians, Normans, Vikings or Scandinavians by the Slavs. According to this legend, the Slavs, fearing internal strife, invited a detachment of Varangians led by the king, Prince Rurik, to rule.

G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schletser believed that the Scandinavian invasion of the lands of the Slavs was the decisive factor in the emergence of statehood. The first critic of the Norman theory was M.V. Lomonosov, who proved the dominant role of the Slavs in the creation of the ancient Russian state. Lomonosov's statements were called the anti-Norman concept and marked the beginning of a debate that continues to this day.

One of the latest publications examining the problem of the origins of statehood in Rus' is the book by R. G. Skrynnikov “Russian History”.

The author quite highly evaluates the contribution of the Scandinavian element to the construction of the ancient Russian state, insists on the constant active influence of the Normans on the nature of the emerging sovereignty of Rus'; he writes about the “decisive influence on the evolution of Russian society” of the military organization of the Normans.” In his opinion, only in the 11th century did the Slavic “assimilation of the Rus go so far that the newcomer Scandinavians were perceived by them as foreigners.”

According to R.G. Skrynnikov, the emergence of the Old Russian state was not a one-time event and took several centuries.

He believed that the Rus could not give the Slavs they conquered ready-made statehood: the Scandinavians were barbarians, and they were dominated by the tribal system, like the Eastern Slavs. The decisive influence on the evolution of Russian society was exerted by the synthesis of the military organization of the Normans, the social institutions of the Slavs and Byzantine law, which became known in Rus' thanks to the establishment of the Byzantine church hierarchy in Kiev.

Origin Russian states. Norman theory contains two... that "Normanistic theory origin Russian states has firmly entered the scientific inventory Russian history." Presnyakov...

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Chapter 1. “Norman theory” of the origin of the state in the East

Slavs and its criticism in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

1.1. The emergence of the “Norman theory” in the middle of the 18th century: authors, sources, main provisions, first critics…………………………………………………………….....5

1.2. Development of discussion in the 19th century……………………………………………………9

Chapter 2. Normanism and critics of the Norman theory in the 20th century…………….........12

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of references………………………………………………………………...17

Introduction

There is no question in the history of Russia that would not cause such lengthy, fierce debates with the participation of many scientists than the question “where did the Russian land come from”, who is Rurik and his “Varangians”, identified by Russian chronicles with “Rus”.

Written sources date the emergence of the Old Russian state to the 9th century. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Ilmen Slovenes and their neighbors - the Finnish Meri tribes - paid tribute to the Varangians, but then, not wanting to tolerate violence, “...In the year 6370 (862) they drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation arose, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas, to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and everyone said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us.” And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, in Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk."

Further, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that the boyars of Rurik, Askold and Dir, “asked for leave” from their prince to go on a campaign against Byzantium. Along the way, they captured Kyiv and arbitrarily called themselves princes. But Oleg, a relative and governor of Rurik, killed them in 882 and began to reign in Kyiv with Rurik’s young son Igor. Thus, in 882, Kyiv and Novgorod united under the rule of one prince, and the Old Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed.

This is the chronicle legend about the beginning of Russian statehood. There have been endless debates surrounding it for a long time. The story told by the chronicler served as the basis for the creation in the 18th century of the “Norman theory” of the emergence of the Old Russian state. The founders of this theory were the German scientists Bayer, Miller and Schlozer who worked in Russia in the 18th century. They believed that the main role in the formation of Kievan Rus was played by the Varangians, by whom they understood the Normans.

The Norman theory aroused sharp criticism almost immediately after its creation. It was first expressed within the framework of the anti-Norman theory formulated by M.V. Lomonosov and based on the hypothesis of the absolute originality of Slavic statehood.

More than two and a half centuries have passed since the creation of the Norman and anti-Norman theories. During this time, a huge amount of new source material has been accumulated, and hopes that the issue will be finally resolved are not justified. Both the Norman and anti-Norman theories developed with varying intensity all this time and to this day each has a large number of supporters. At the same time, among the “anti-Normanists”, some agree that the Varangians are Scandinavians, and at the same time argue that they did not bring statehood to Rus', but only played some political role as mercenaries at the princely courts and were assimilated by the Slavs. Another part of the “anti-Normanists” found and defended evidence that the Varangians and the Rus, identical to them, are Slavs.

At present, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been fully clarified. In Scandinavia, the history of Rus' is presented as the history of Greater Sweden, which arose as a result of the conquests of the kings in Eastern Europe. The great traveler Thor Heyerdahl sponsored archaeological expeditions in the south of Russia, which discovered numerous material evidence of the presence of Vikings in Rus' during the 10th-12th centuries: weapons, utensils, etc. Due to a lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean toward a compromise option: the Varangian squads had a serious influence on the formation of Slavic statehood.

Chapter 1. "Norman theory" of origin

states among the Eastern Slavs and its criticism in

XVIII-XIX centuries

1.1 Creation of the Norman theory in the middle of the 18th century: authors,

sources, main provisions

In the 30-40s of the 18th century. Russian scientists of German origin who served in the 18th century. in Russia, academicians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Miller and August Ludwig Schlozer proposed the so-called “Norman theory” of the origin of the ancient Russian state.

The main sources on which the first Russian academicians relied were, firstly, “The Tale of Bygone Years.” This chronicle that has come down to us describes the events of Russian history up to the tenth years of the 12th century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, by order of Prince Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich. Subsequently there were several more editions.

Secondly, as sources on which Bayer, and after him Schletser and Miller, relied, one can name the names of princes and warriors indicated in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, as well as mentions of Byzantine writers about the Varangians and Rus', Scandinavian sagas, news Arab writers and the Finnish name of the Swedes Ruotsa and the name of the Swedish Upland Roslagen.

To confirm their correctness, supporters of the Norman theory paid considerable attention to the news of Western historians. Here, the main source can be cited as the Bertine Chronicles and the writings of Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, who was twice ambassador to Constantinople in the mid-10th century.

The theory was based on a legend from the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangians by the Slavs. According to this legend, the Slavs, fearing internal strife, invited a detachment of Varangians led by the king, Prince Rurik, to rule.

The Norman theory is based on the idea that the Varangians mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe as the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, much less Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the chronicles - “Varangians” - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave statehood to Rus'. In his search for the corresponding term in the ancient northern languages, Bayer found, however, only the only word that roughly resembled “Varangian” was “varingjar” (vasringjar, nominative plural).

Another cornerstone conclusion is the conclusion, based on data from 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. There was nothing unusual in such a formulation of the question. It was well known that many European states were founded by foreign rulers, moreover, during conquest, but here we are talking about a peaceful vocation.

But it was precisely this conclusion that gave rise to such a fierce counter-speech by M.V. Lomonosov. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of violated dignity. M.V. Lomonosov saw in the story of the calling of princes an indication of the initial inferiority of the Slavs, who were incapable of independent state creativity. Indeed, any Russian person should have perceived this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like M.V. Lomonosov. The "Germans" were accused of bias.

Very indicative in this regard is the colorful story of the historian, albeit already of the 20th century, M.A. Alpatov about the emergence of the Norman theory: “The shadows of two compatriots - Rurik and Charles XII - hovered over those before whose eyes this question was born. Poltava Victoria crushed the ambitions of the conquerors since the time of Charles XII, the Norman theory, which traced Russian statehood to Rurik, dealt a blow to the ambitions of the Russians from the historical flag. It was an ideological revenge for Poltava. Covered with the dust of centuries, the ancient tale of the Varangians found a new life, became the most pressing modern plot... The Varangian question, "Consequently, he was born not in Kiev in chronicle times, but in St. Petersburg in the 18th century. He arose as an anti-Russian phenomenon and arose not in the field of science, but in the field of politics. The man who fired the first "shot" in this battle was Bayer."

It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. Opponents of the Norman concept also recognized the authenticity of the primary source chronicle 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 the capture of Kyiv, it was believed that before the appearance of the Norman Varangians, Kiev had its own princely Russian dynasty.

In addition, the answer to the question of who the Rus were was different... “So, Tatishchev and Boltin brought them out of Finland, Lomonosov - from Slavic Prussia, Evers - from Khazaria, Golman - from Friesland, Vater - from the Black Sea Goths .... "

In connection with the above, a number of questions arise: was the emergence of “Normanism” determined by the political background of the mid-18th century? And whose conclusions are more politicized: the founders of “Normanism” or their opponents?

What exactly is the Varangian question? In fact, we are talking about the degree of participation of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Old Russian state. From this neutral position, A.N. Sakharov’s article was written in the “Soviet Historical Encyclopedia”.

The author argued that the Norman theory is “a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'.” From this point of view, in the works of German academicians, the first Russian academicians, it is quite possible to see a truly academic attitude towards Russian history, based, first of all, on the study of sources.

There was another position in Soviet historiography. B.D. Grekov in the 1953 edition of “Kievan Rus” noted: “By Normanism we understand a “theory” that “proves” the inferiority of the Russian people, their inability to create their own culture and statehood, affirming the role of the founders of the Russian state and creators for the Norman Varangians Russian culture". This point of view was shared by D.A. Avdusin.

Researchers who dealt with the Norman question did not pay attention to the factual authenticity of the very calling of the Varangians and, in general, to the foreign origin of the princely dynasties. On the contrary, all researchers come from the above-mentioned legend and only interpret its text in different ways; for example: what does she mean by Varangians and Russia? Which sea does it point to? And in what sense should we understand the words “Girding all of Rus' around?”

Historians argued about spelling and punctuation marks in the chronicle text, trying to make it work in favor of their version. While this entire text is in no way able to withstand historical criticism, unclouded by preconceived ideas and interpretations.

Nevertheless, Bayer laid the foundation for the Norman theory of the origin of statehood in Russia, and in the 18th century, and in the next two and a half centuries, Bayer’s hypothesis found support from scholars both from among German-speaking scientists (G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, I.E. Thunman, H.F. Hollmann, K.X. Rafn) in Russia and abroad, and among Russian speakers (N.M. Karamzin, M.N. Pogodin, A.A. Shakhmatov, V. A. A. Brim, A. A. Vasiliev, N. G. Belyaev, V. A. Moshin, V. Kiparsky). The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version so as not to give the Normans 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, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. And the patriotic fervor of M.V. Lomonosov, S.P. Krascheninnikova and others gave the Normanists a reason to accuse these and subsequent anti-Normanists of the fact that their writings are just the fruit of patriotic sentiments or, worse, the imagination of amateurs.

The Norman theory is one of the most important controversial aspects of the history of the Russian state. This theory in itself is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was charged with some kind of secondary importance, seemingly based on reliable facts, the Russian people were ascribed a terrible failure even in purely national issues. It’s a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Rus' was firmly in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory.

Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians and ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the position of the Norman theory in science in general was strong and unshakable. Only in the second half of our century did Normanism lose its position in science. At this time, the standard is the statement that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the entire struggle between Normanists and anti-Normanists, the first searched for this very evidence, often fabricating it, 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 Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and constituting 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.

They drove the Varangians over the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to fight against themselves more and more, and there was no truth in them, and generation after generation rose up, and more and more fought against themselves. And we decided within ourselves: “Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us rightfully.” And I went to the Varangians, to Rus'; This lot is called Varyazi Rus', as all the druzii are called Svie, the druzii are Urman, Anglyan, druzii Gate, tako and si. Decided to Russia Chud, and Sloveni, and Krivichi all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it, let you come to reign and rule over us.” And the 3 brothers were chosen from their clans, and girded all of Russia around them, and came to Sloven the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik settled in Ladoz, and the second, Sineus, on Bela Lake, and the third Izbrst, Truvor. And from those the Varangians were nicknamed the Russian Land..."

This excerpt from an article in PVL, taken on faith 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 were Scandinavians and they practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural influence on the Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is completely clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, while at the same time subjugating 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 “Bironovschina”, when many the highest positions at court were occupied by German nobles. Naturally, the entire first composition 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, Schletzer developed this theory.

Some Russian scientists, especially 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 violated 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 opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially took the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the primary source chronicle story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.

The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, just 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, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the polemics on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the leading role 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 of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea was established about the victory of the Normanistic concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work.

Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanist 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 overwhelming 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 that developed in Russian science at that time.

It should be noted that in the 18th and early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but did not specifically address this problem. For almost two centuries in the West there were only a few Norman scientists, 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 become Soviet, increased sharply. This was also 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. should be named. Shakhmatov, 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 chronicling played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on a 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 overwhelming majority of Russian scientists of that time, took a Normanist position! Within the framework of his construction, he tried to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period of the history of Rus'.

The emergence of statehood in Rus' seemed to Shakhmatov to be 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 certain concept, clearly defined and somewhat more specific than those previously described. So, according to Shakhmatov, the first state of the Scandinavians was created by the Norman-Russians who came from overseas at the beginning of the 9th century in the Ilmen region, in the area of ​​​​the future Staraya Russa. It was this 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 its center in Kyiv.

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

Also, a major Normanist work that appeared in our historiography in the 20s was the book by P.P. Smirnov "The Volga Road and the 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 route “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 Smirnov’s concept, in the Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. The first state created by Russia - the "Russian Kaganate" - emerged. In the Middle Volga, Smirnov searched for the “three centers of Rus'” mentioned in Arab sources of the 9th-10th centuries. In the middle of the 9th century, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Ugrians, the Norman Rus from the Volga region went to Sweden and from there, after the “calling of the Varangians,” they 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 supporters of the Norman school. Further, cardinal changes occurred in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists. This was caused by a certain surge in the activity of anti-Normanist teachings, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the old school were replaced by scientists of the younger generation. But until the mid-30s, 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 30s produced materials that contradict Arne’s concept. The theory of Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in subsequent decades. An attempt was made, by analyzing the toponymy of the Novgorod land, to 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 an opinion on the importance, when studying this problem, of taking 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 well as other Russian researchers, opposed individual Norman positions, and not against the entire theory as a whole.

After the war, what should have happened in science happened: the polemics of Soviet science with Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle with the scientific constructions of the last century they began to move on to specific criticism of existing 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) Theory of conquest: The Old Russian state was, according to this theory, created by the Normans, who conquered the East Slavic lands and established their dominance over the local population. This is the oldest and most beneficial point of view for the Normanists, since it is precisely this 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 Kingdom of Sweden with the Russian state. Of all the theories, this theory stands apart because of its fantastic nature, not supported by any facts. This theory also belongs to T. Arne and can only claim to be a not very successful joke, since it is simply made up 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 Varangians. According to it, the upper class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them. The creation of a ruling class by the Normans is considered by most authors to be a direct result of the Norman conquest of Rus'. A proponent of this idea was A. Stender-Petersen. 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.

The Russian state under Ivan IV the Terrible.

Ivan IV the Terrible ascended the throne as a three-year-old boy (1533). As a seventeen-year-old youth (1547), for the first time in Russian history, having been crowned king, he began to rule independently. In June of the same year, a huge fire burned almost all of Moscow; The rebellious townspeople came to the tsar in the village of Vorobyovo demanding that the perpetrators be punished. “Fear entered my soul and trembling into my bones,” Ivan later wrote. Meanwhile, much was expected from the tsar: the years of his childhood, especially after the death of his mother, Elena Glinskaya, passed in a difficult atmosphere of hostility between boyar factions, conspiracies and secret murders. Life presented him with difficult challenges.

The process of creating a unified Russian state has largely been completed. It was necessary to centralize it - create unified system central and local authorities, to approve uniform legislation and courts, troops and taxes, to overcome 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 Elected Rada, a circle of the tsar’s closest advisers and like-minded people: 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 convening in 1549 of the first body in Russian history representing various social strata (boyars, clergy, nobility, service people, etc.) - the Zemsky Sobor. The council of 1549 is called by historians the “cathedral of reconciliation”: the boyars swore to obey the tsar in everything, the tsar promised to forget previous grievances.

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

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

Feedings were abolished (the procedure under which the boyar-governors lived at the expense of funds collected in their favor from the territories under their control);

The system of public administration became harmonious through orders - the central bodies of executive power (Razryadny, Posolsky, Streletsky, Petition, etc.);

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

A rifle army armed with firearms was created;

The “Code of Service” was adopted, strengthening the local noble army;

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

The success of reform efforts was supported 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 doubling), security of the eastern borders, prerequisites for further advancement in the Urals and Siberia were important achievements of Ivan IV and the Chosen Rada.

Since the late 50s, however, the tsar’s attitude towards the plans of his advisers and towards them personally changed. In 1560, cooling took the form of hostility. One can only guess about the reasons. Ivan IV dreamed of true “autocracy”; the influence and authority of his associates, who had and, moreover, defended their own opinions, irritated him. Disagreements on the issue of the Livonian War became 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 disintegrated, but its lands went to Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, with whom Russia had to fight until 1583. By the mid-60s. The difficulties of the outbreak of the war became clear; the military situation was not in Russia's favor. In 1565, Ivan the Terrible left Moscow for the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, demanded the execution of traitors and announced the establishment of a special inheritance - oprichnina (from the word "oprich" - outside, except). Thus began a 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, uncontrolled at that, remained in the hands of Ivan the Terrible. An important feature of the oprichnina is the terror that fell upon the ancient boyar families(Prince Vladimir Staritsky), and on the clergy (Metropolitan Philip, Archimandrite German), 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 rampant in plunder and robbery, showed complete military failure. The next year, Ivan the Terrible abolished the oprichnina and even forbade the use of this word in the future.

Historians have long and fiercely debated the reasons for the oprichnina. Some are inclined to see in it the embodiment of the delusional fantasies of a mentally ill tsar, others, reproaching Ivan IV for using the wrong means, highly value the oprichnina as a form of struggle against the boyars who opposed centralization, while 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 give favors to our slaves, and we were also free to execute them,” he wrote to Prince Kurbsky, by slaves meaning his subjects.

The consequences of the oprichnina are tragic. The Livonian War, despite the desperate efforts of the tsar and 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 Treaty of Plus with Sweden in 1583. ). Oprichnina weakened Russia's military power. The country's economy was devastated; to keep peasants fleeing violence and unbearable taxes, laws on reserved summers were adopted, abolishing the St. George's Day rule and prohibiting peasants from changing their masters. Having killed his eldest son with his own hands, the autocrat doomed the country to a dynastic crisis, which began in 1598 after the death of his heir, Tsar Fedor, who ascended to his father’s throne in 1584. The Troubles of the early 17th century. considered a distant but direct consequence of the oprichnina.

Photo: Rurik Dynasty. Fresco from the Granovite Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin

The whole truth about the Norman theory

According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Rus' were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.

Background

It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. Subsequently, many major Russian historians adhered to this theory, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.

The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully outlined by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered virtually proven.

In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory took hold in the wake of the growth of ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.

Today, the moderate Norman theory prevails, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.

Two ethnonyms

The key terms used by the “Normanists” are “Varangians” and “Rus”. They are found in many chronicle sources, including in the Tale of Bygone Years:

“And they said to themselves [the Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi]: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.”

The word “Rus” for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically related to the Finnish term “ruotsi”, which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. Thus, linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that from “Ruotsi” the name “Rus” can be formed purely philologically.

Norman philologists do not ignore other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - “Rhodes” (Swedish “rowers”) and “Roslagen” (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, “Rhodes” could well turn into “Russians”.

However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alan tribes, which is known as "Roksolans".

“Varyags” (other scan. “Væringjar”) “Normanists” also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, focusing either on the social or on the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, mercenary warriors without an exact localization of place of residence and specific ethnicity.

Sigismund Herberstein in “Notes on Muscovy” (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word “Varyag” and the name of the tribe of Baltic Slavs - “Vargs”, which, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians “were from different tribes and languages.”

Chronicle evidence

One of the main sources that brought to us the idea of ​​“calling the Varangians to reign” is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.

Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.

Moreover, being a collection of different chronicles, “The Tale of Bygone Years” offers us three different references to the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Rus'.

In the “Novgorod Chronicle,” which absorbed the “Initial Code” that preceded the Tale from the end of the 11th century, there is no longer a comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to Rurik’s participation in the founding of Novgorod, and then explains that “the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian family.”

In the “Joachim Chronicle” compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

Linguistic evidence

It has now been precisely established that a number of words in the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, and words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely steward). A number of names also passed from Old Scandinavian to Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor.

An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and “Russian” languages.

Each “Russian” name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, “Varuforos” (“Big Pool”) clearly echoes the Old Icelandic “Barufors”.

Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their insignificant number.

Archaeological evidence

Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, at the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects with the image of a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs.

Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson, dating back to the middle of the 10th century.

It is known that in 992, the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the burial ceremony of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the construction of a mound. Russian archaeologists discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread all the way to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.

However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian objects in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Rus', the burials were carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local rites.

Alternative view

Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Rus' existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of the northern and southern Slavs.

Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: “after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called polyans, the speech was Slavic.” The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people.

The Slavic theory was developed by 19th century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.

The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - the Obodrits, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym “Rusy”.

The Rus and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper region.

A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the “Russian Kaganate”, put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the Russian state was located between the Dnieper and Don. The ethnonym “Rus”, according to this hypothesis, appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.

In 2007, Newsweek published the results of studies of the genome of living representatives of the Rurikovich house. It was noted that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich family) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard universities, disagrees with such conclusions, noting that “there are no Swedish haplotypes.” He defines his belonging to the Rurikovichs by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov’s research, could indeed have lived in the 9th century, but its Scandinavian origin is questioned.

“The Rurikovichs are either carriers of haplogroup R1a, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of haplogroup N1c1,” the scientist concludes.

Elena Melnikova, a professor at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the situation can be clarified by analyzing DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in northern Russia.