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

The 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. 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. A great influence on subsequent Normanists was Olaf Dalin's History of the Swedish State.

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 about 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 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 combine opposing views. In his opinion, based on the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik 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 a kagan at the head, which received the conditional name Russian Khaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the Russian Kaganate, 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

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, Deer, Oleg(Helgi) Igor(Ingwar) Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Hoods, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktev, Trouan, 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

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" (g.), where the names of the Dnieper rapids are given in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and the interpretation of names in Greek.
Table of threshold names:

At the same time, Constantine reports that the Slavs are "tributaries" (paktiots - from lat. pactio"contract") rosov.

archaeological evidence

In 2008, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikids with the image of a falcon on the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, possibly later becoming 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).

Archaeological studies of the layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement revealed a significant number of finds of military equipment and Viking clothing, 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 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, according to a number of linguists, proper names appeared Igor, Oleg, Olga, Rogneda, Rurik, the words

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

Chapter 1

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 the discussion in the 19th century………………………………………………………9

Chapter 2

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

List of used literature…………………………………………………...17

Introduction

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

Written sources refer 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 endure violence, “... In the year 6370 (862) they expelled the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began rule over themselves, and there was no righteousness among them, and generation upon generation stood up, 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 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 - that's how these were called. The Chud Rus, the Slavs, the Krivichi and all said: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers with their clans were elected, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came, and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk.

Further, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that the boyars of Rurik Askold and Dir "begged" their prince for 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, under the rule of one prince, Kyiv and Novgorod united, and the Old Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed.

Such is the annalistic tradition about the beginning of Russian statehood. For a long time there have been endless disputes around it. 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 Varangians, by whom they understood the Normans, played the main role in the formation of Kievan Rus.

The Norman theory almost immediately after its creation caused sharp criticism. It was first expressed in the framework of the anti-Norman theory formulated by M.V. Lomonosov and based on the hypothesis of the absolute originality of the 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 the hopes that the question of will be finally resolved are not justified. Both Norman and anti-Norman theories have developed with varying intensity throughout 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 a certain political role as mercenaries at princely courts and were assimilated by the Slavs. Another part of the "anti-Normanists" found and defend evidence that the Varangians and the Russ, who are 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 described 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 southern Russia, which discovered numerous material evidence of the presence of the Vikings in Rus' during the 10th-12th centuries: weapons, utensils, etc. Due to the lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean towards a compromise option: the Varangian squads had a serious impact on the formation of Slavic statehood.

Chapter 1. The "Norman Theory" of Origin

state 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, basic provisions

In the 30-40s of the XVIII century. Russian scientists of German origin, who served in the XVIII 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 sets out the events of Russian history up to the tenth years of the XII century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery, commissioned by Prince Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich. Subsequently, there were several more editions.

Secondly, as the sources on which Bayer relied, and after him Schlozer and Miller, one can name the names of princes and combatants indicated in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, as well as the 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 Swedish Uplandia Roslagen.

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

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

The Norman theory is based on the notion that the Varangians, mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years, are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe under the name of the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, and even more so Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the annals - "Varangians" - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave the statehood of Rus'. In search of the corresponding term in the ancient Nordic languages, Bayer found, however, only the word "varangyar" (vasringjar, noun case plural) that only approximately resembles "Varangian".

Another key conclusion is the conclusion, based on the data of the same fragment of the chronicle, that the Slavs were unable to govern themselves. On this basis, it was concluded that the Varangians, that is, the Normans, brought statehood to the Slavic lands. There was nothing unusual about this question. It was well known that many European states were founded by foreign rulers, and in the course of conquest, but here we are talking about a peaceful vocation.

But it was precisely this conclusion that gave rise to such a fierce counter-action by M.V. Lomonosov. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of infringed dignity. M.V. Lomonosov saw in the history of the calling of princes an indication of the initial inferiority of the Slavs, who were not capable of independent state creativity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken 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, though 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 in whose eyes this question was born. Poltava Victoria crushed the ambitions of the conquerors times of Charles XII, the Norman theory, which traced Russian statehood to Rurik, dealt a blow to the ambitions of Russians from the historical flag. It was an ideological revenge for Poltava. Covered with the dust of centuries, the ancient tale about the Varangians found a new life, became the sharpest modern plot ... The Varangian question, therefore, 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 person 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 chronicle source story and did not argue about the ethnicity of the Varangians. However, referring to the chronicle story about the campaign of Askold and Dir and 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 Ruses were was different ... “So, Tatishchev and Boltin took them out of Finland, Lomonosov - from Slavic Prussia, Evers - from Khazaria, Golman - from Friesland, Vater - from the Black Sea Goths .... ".

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

What is the actual 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, an article by A.N. Sakharov was written in the Soviet Historical Encyclopedia.

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

There was another position in Soviet historiography. B.D. Grekov in the 1953 edition of Kievan Rus noted: “Under Normanism we mean a “theory” that “proves” the inferiority of the Russian people, its inability to create its own culture and statehood, asserting the role of the founders of the Russian state and creators behind the Varangians-Normans Russian culture". D.A. Avdusin shared this point of view.

Researchers who dealt with the Norman question did not pay attention to the factual reliability of the calling of the Varangians and, in general, to the foreign origin of the princely dynasties. On the contrary, all researchers proceed from the aforementioned legend and only interpret its text in different ways; for example: what does she mean by the Varangians and Rus? Which sea is she pointing to? And in what sense should we understand the words "Gird all of Rus' on its own."

Historians argued about spelling, about 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, unobscured 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 was supported by erudite scholars from among German-speaking scientists (G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, I.E. Thunman, H.F. Holmann, K.X. Rafn) in Russia and abroad, and among Russian speakers (N.M. Karamzin, M.N. Pogodin, A.A. Shakhmatov, V A. Brim, A. A. Vasiliev, N. G. Belyaev, V. A. Moshin, V. Kiparsky). The Normanists insisted that it was the Scandinavians who were designated by the term "Rus", 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, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. And the patriotic fuse 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 fantasy of dilettantes.

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 scholars, including Russians.

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

The first question asked by N.M. Karazmin, this is “a question: who does Nestor call Varangians? 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 is: "... which people, in particular being called Rus, 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 Rosskaya, Ros-lagen, and the Finns still call all its inhabitants Rossiami, Rotsami, Ruotsami.”

Thus, N.M. Karamzin conducts his research in the same way as the Normans of the 18th century, for example, G.Z. Bayer, based also on the messages of the Tale of Bygone Years. However, the events of the beginning of Russian statehood in the "Norman" 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 unparalleled case in the annals: the Slavs voluntarily destroy their ancient rule, and demand Sovereigns from the Varangians, who were their enemies.

Wishing to explain this important incident in some way, we think that the Varangians, who had mastered the countries of Chud and Slavs a few 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, imprisoned in the wild limits of the North; could communicate to them some of the benefits of the new industry and trade, beneficial to the people.

The Slavic boyars, dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own, angered, perhaps, this frivolous people, seduced them with 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 rule of the Normans: the need for improvement and silence ordered them to forget the pride of the people, and the Slavs, convinced - as the legend says - by the advice of the Novgorod elder Gostomysl, demanded the Rulers from the Varangians ... ".

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

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

The essence of the objections is the same as in the 18th century: the fact of calling the Varangians, that is, the Normans, is recognized, while it is argued that the Slavic statehood has its origins not in the north in Novgorod 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 complicated phenomenon, and therefore, with the leading role of the Varangians, it could not take place without a corresponding development of social relations of the Slavs themselves.

We meet this opinion in the “Course of Russian History” by V.O. Klyuchevsky: “The word “Rus”, according to the assumption of the author of The Tale of the Russian Land, had a tribal meaning: that was the name of the Varangian tribe from which our first princes came. Then this word received a class meaning ... Later, Rus' or the Russian land ... - received 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 the Russian land ... are with a political meaning: this is how the entire territory subject to the Russian princes began to be called ... the names of the first Russian princes-Varangians and their combatants are almost all of Scandinavian origin; we meet the same names in the Scandinavian sagas: Rurik in the form of Hrorekr, Oleg, according to the ancient Kievan pronunciation on “o” - Helgi, Olga - Helga, Igor - Ingvarr, etc. ... Political association went from Kiev, and not from Novgorod Russian Slavism; 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 are written sources, mainly the Tale of Bygone Years, and as before, all researchers are unanimous in recognizing the version of the chronicle about the recognition of the Varangians as Novgorodians as real. At the same time, representatives of Normanism (N.M. Karamzin) by no means insisted on the backwardness of the Slavs, emphasizing the peaceful nature of the calling of the Varangians, and not the aggressive one. And anti-Normanists have an idea about the complex process of creating a state and the role of Slavic public institutions in this process, as well as opinions about the leading role of the Kyiv dynasty in the formation of the state.

Chapter 2

theory in the 20th century.

Russian scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries usually treated the Tale of the Calling of the Varangians with full confidence. They argued only on the issue of the ethnicity of the newcomers, not doubting the very reality of the events reported by the annals under 862. Gradually, however, an opinion is emerging that the story of the vocation also captures much of the reality of the beginning of the 12th century, when the chronicle was created.

So, N. I. Kostomarov, in a dispute with M. P. Pogodin on March 19, 1860, said about the beginning of Rus': “Our chronicle was compiled already in the 12th century and, reporting news of previous events, the chronicler used the words and time". D. I. Ilovaisky wrote about the influence of the Novgorodian orders of the later 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 insert, combined by the method of artificially combining several North Russian legends subjected to deep processing chroniclers.

The researcher saw the predominance of conjectures in it over the motives of local legends about Rurik in Ladoga, Truvor in Izborsk, Sineus on Beloozero and discovered the literary origin of the entry under 862, which was the fruit of the work of 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 chronicle writing, scientists have become much more cautious about the chronicle news about the incidents of the 9th century.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the twenties of the XX century, despite the change in attitude towards criticism of the main written source of both Normanists and anti-Normanists, 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, 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-Norman 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.

And since the mid-30s of the XX century, Soviet scientists launched an attack on the "anti-scientific" Norman theory, declaring it politically harmful and unpatriotic. At the same time, the tendentiousness was also noted by the German scientists G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer, who sought to justify the dominance of the Germans at the Russian court in the 18th-19th centuries with the help of history.

Soviet historical and historical-legal science in terms of exposing the Norman theory is represented by the works of B.D. Grekova, A.S. Likhachev, V.V. Mvrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkov and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on 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 annals about the calling of the Varangians. Some researchers consider them basically historically reliable. Others completely deny the possibility of seeing in these news a reflection of real facts, believing that the chronicle story is a legend composed much later than the events described in it in the heat of ideological and political passions that agitated ancient Russian society at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. Still others, finally, catch in the "legend about Rurik" echoes of real incidents, but by no means those that were told by the chronicler. In addition, they also talk about the use of this legend in the ideological and political struggle on the verge of the 11th and 12th centuries. The last point of view seems to be more constructive than the others.

Conclusion

In the XVIII century. Russian scientists of German origin, who served in the XVIII 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 the 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 the Varangians, led by the king, Prince Rurik, to control.

G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer believed that the Scandinavian invasion of the lands of the Slavs was a 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 started a controversy that continues to this day.

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

The author highly appreciates 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 newcomers 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 a tribal system, like the Eastern Slavs. The synthesis of the military organization of the Normans, social institutions of the Slavs and Byzantine law, which became known in Rus' thanks to the establishment of the Byzantine church hierarchy in Kiev, had a decisive influence on the evolution of Russian society.

Origin Russian states. Norman theory contains two ... that "Normanist theory origin Russian states entered firmly into the inventory of scientific Russian history". Presnyakov ...

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

Chapter 1

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 the discussion in the 19th century………………………………………………………9

Chapter 2

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

List of used literature…………………………………………………...17

Introduction

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

Written sources refer 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 endure violence, “... In the year 6370 (862) they expelled the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began rule over themselves, and there was no righteousness among them, and generation upon generation stood up, 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 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 - that's how these were called. The Chud Rus, the Slavs, the Krivichi and all said: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers with their clans were elected, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came, and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk.

Further, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that the boyars of Rurik Askold and Dir "begged" their prince for 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, under the rule of one prince, Kyiv and Novgorod united, and the Old Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed.

Such is the annalistic tradition about the beginning of Russian statehood. For a long time there have been endless disputes around it. 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 Varangians, by whom they understood the Normans, played the main role in the formation of Kievan Rus.

The Norman theory almost immediately after its creation caused sharp criticism. It was first expressed in the framework of the anti-Norman theory formulated by M.V. Lomonosov and based on the hypothesis of the absolute originality of the 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 the hopes that the question of will be finally resolved are not justified. Both Norman and anti-Norman theories have developed with varying intensity throughout 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 a certain political role as mercenaries at princely courts and were assimilated by the Slavs. Another part of the "anti-Normanists" found and defend evidence that the Varangians and the Russ, who are 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 described 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 southern Russia, which discovered numerous material evidence of the presence of the Vikings in Rus' during the 10th-12th centuries: weapons, utensils, etc. Due to the lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean towards a compromise option: the Varangian squads had a serious impact on the formation of Slavic statehood.

Chapter 1. The "Norman Theory" of Origin

state 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, basic provisions

In the 30-40s of the XVIII century. Russian scientists of German origin, who served in the XVIII 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 sets out the events of Russian history up to the tenth years of the XII century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery, commissioned by Prince Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich. Subsequently, there were several more editions.

Secondly, as the sources on which Bayer relied, and after him Schlozer and Miller, one can name the names of princes and combatants indicated in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, as well as the 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 Swedish Uplandia Roslagen.

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

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

The Norman theory is based on the notion that the Varangians, mentioned in The Tale of Bygone Years, are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe under the name of the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, and even more so Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the annals - "Varangians" - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave the statehood of Rus'. In search of the corresponding term in the ancient Nordic languages, Bayer found, however, only the word "varangyar" (vasringjar, noun case plural) that only approximately resembles "Varangian".

Another key conclusion is the conclusion, based on the data of the same fragment of the chronicle, that the Slavs were unable to govern themselves. On this basis, it was concluded that the Varangians, that is, the Normans, brought statehood to the Slavic lands. There was nothing unusual about this question. It was well known that many European states were founded by foreign rulers, and in the course of conquest, but here we are talking about a peaceful vocation.

But it was precisely this conclusion that gave rise to such a fierce counter-action by M.V. Lomonosov. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of infringed dignity. M.V. Lomonosov saw in the history of the calling of princes an indication of the initial inferiority of the Slavs, who were not capable of independent state creativity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken 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, though 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 in whose eyes this question was born. Poltava Victoria crushed the ambitions of the conquerors times of Charles XII, the Norman theory, which traced Russian statehood to Rurik, dealt a blow to the ambitions of Russians from the historical flag. It was an ideological revenge for Poltava. Covered with the dust of centuries, the ancient tale about the Varangians found a new life, became the sharpest modern plot ... The Varangian question, therefore, 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 person 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 chronicle source story and did not argue about the ethnicity of the Varangians. However, referring to the chronicle story about the campaign of Askold and Dir and 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 Ruses were was different ... “So, Tatishchev and Boltin took them out of Finland, Lomonosov - from Slavic Prussia, Evers - from Khazaria, Golman - from Friesland, Vater - from the Black Sea Goths .... ".

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

What is the actual 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, an article by A.N. Sakharov was written in the Soviet Historical Encyclopedia.

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

There was another position in Soviet historiography. B.D. Grekov in the 1953 edition of Kievan Rus noted: “Under Normanism we mean a “theory” that “proves” the inferiority of the Russian people, its inability to create its own culture and statehood, asserting the role of the founders of the Russian state and creators behind the Varangians-Normans Russian culture". D.A. Avdusin shared this point of view.

Researchers who dealt with the Norman question did not pay attention to the factual reliability of the calling of the Varangians and, in general, to the foreign origin of the princely dynasties. On the contrary, all researchers proceed from the aforementioned legend and only interpret its text in different ways; for example: what does she mean by the Varangians and Rus? Which sea is she pointing to? And in what sense should we understand the words "Gird all of Rus' on its own."

Historians argued about spelling, about 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, unobscured 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 was supported by erudite scholars from among German-speaking scientists (G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, I.E. Thunman, H.F. Holmann, K.X. Rafn) in Russia and abroad, and among Russian speakers (N.M. Karamzin, M.N. Pogodin, A.A. Shakhmatov, V A. Brim, A. A. Vasiliev, N. G. Belyaev, V. A. Moshin, V. Kiparsky). The Normanists insisted that it was the Scandinavians who were designated by the term "Rus", 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, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. And the patriotic fuse 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 fantasy of dilettantes.

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

Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians, ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the positions of the Norman theory in science in general were strong and unshakable. It was only in the second half of our century that Normanism lost its position in science. At this time, the standard is the assertion that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both 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, by the end of the 19th century, the apparently 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 of official science took Normanist positions. 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 the 18th and early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding 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 an important role in the 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, the 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 to confirm the existence of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places with the help of an analysis of the toponymy of the Novgorod land. 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 has basically been 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 Sudebnik (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 of state administration gained harmony 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 twice), the security of the eastern borders, the prerequisites for further advancement in the Urals and Siberia were important achievements of Ivan IV and the Chosen One.

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). 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, 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.

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. In the future, this theory was followed by many major Russian historians, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.

The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully presented 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 factually proven.

In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory established itself on the wave of growth of the 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.

Moderate Norman theory prevails today, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited nature of the 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 the Tale of Bygone Years:

"And they said to themselves [Chud, Slovene and Krivichi]:" 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'."

The word "Rus" for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically connected with the Finnish term "ruotsi", which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. So, the linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that the name "Rus" can be formed from "Ruotsi" purely philologically.

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

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-Alanian tribes, which is known as "Roksolani".

"Varangians" (another scan. "Væringjar") "Normanists" also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, emphasizing either the social or the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, hired warriors without an exact localization of their place of residence and a specific ethnicity.

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

chronicle evidence

One of the main sources that conveyed 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 various 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 previous Tale "Initial Code" of the end of the 11th century, there is no comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to the participation of Rurik in the foundation of Novgorod, and then explains that "the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian clan."

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

Now it is precisely established that a number of words of 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 manager). A number of names also passed from Old Norse into 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 management 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 backwater") clearly echoes the Old Norse "Barufors".

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

archaeological evidence

Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, on 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 depicting a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikids.

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

It is known that in 992 the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the rite of burial of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the erection of a barrow. Russian archaeologists have 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 up to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.

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

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 northern and southern Slavs.

Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years: “after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before that there were Slavs; although they were called glades, but 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 - encouragers, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym "blond".

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

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

In 2007, Newsweek published the results of a study of the genome of living representatives of the Rurik dynasty. It was noted there that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich clan) 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, does not agree with such conclusions, noting that "there are no Swedish haplotypes." He defines belonging to Rurikovich by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov's research, could indeed live in the 9th century, but his Scandinavian origin is being questioned.

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

Professor of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Elena Melnikova 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 analysis of DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in the north of Russia, can clarify the situation.