We can say that the first Normanism historical falsification of Russian history, created for mass propaganda. Norman theory (Normanism) — the idea that the state was not created by ancient Russia ancient Russians themselves, and some outsiders, known in Russian chronicles named Vikings (for this role "assigned" Scandinavians). This strange to any unbiased opinion issued Normanists hypothesis for hard fact, allegedly had a tremendous influence on Russian culture. Catches the eye that the disputed hypothesis rests on purely Russophobe foundation — under all sayings shines clear political message: the Russian people is incomplete and is not able to independently create and develop their own state. Lived, they say, there were some savage, stupid enough to manage on their own could not, but not stupid enough not to understand his own stupidity, and here they were gathered together, scratched his head and decided to invite foreigners to rule Varangian . They agreed, and it was through this Russian great happiness. And would not agree — that thereof, and would not be at all.
Anti-Russian orientation normanizma observed even in the Soviet Union, in spite of the international policy of the state. Comprehensive definition contained in the third edition of the TSB in 1974: "The political meaning of the Norman theory is to present ancient Rus backward country, incapable of independent public creativity, and the Normans — a force which early Russian history influenced the development of Russia and its economy and culture. "
The inventors of this theory were Frederick Miller, Bayer and Gottlieb August Schletzer very specifically studied Russian history at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
In the time of Peter the systematic Russian history did not exist — previously it was necessary to collect and study the wealth of material: Russian annals and chronicles of neighboring peoples, evidence of foreign writers on Russia, the defending state and other documents, which were then stored without common directory and not centrally. Perhaps the first such scholar was Tatishchev, who personally traveled to many libraries, then located mostly in the monasteries.
However, these German academics bother to such menial jobs did not — not by rank, you know. Therefore, given Russian history, so to speak, to the surface. In fact, they did not even try to prove that the Russian — a backward race: they are simply based on this. "Enlightened Europe," what do you want?
Academician Rybakov so spoke of this "scientific" work, "there is no theory, the hypothesis is also can not be named, because these findings were presented not as one of the possible options, and quite categorically, as a clear and does not require proof of the axiom" [BA . Fishermen, "Kievan Rus and the Russian principalities XII-XIII centuries", Moscow, "Nauka", 1982, page 295-296].
Characteristically, Normanism — this is not a unified theory, it is divided into "sub-species". Like, if you're not happy here, this hypothesis of inferiority Russian — here's another, but about the same. The main directions of the Norman theory:
1. Aggressive. Old Russian state was founded by the Normans who won the Slavic lands.
2. Colonialist. Claims that Norman colony was the real basis for the rule of the Normans over the eastern Slavs (T.Arne).
3. The class. According to her, the ruling class has been created in Russia and the Vikings was one (A.Stender-Petersen).
All versions agree on the fact that the appearance of the Normans gave impetus to the development, without which the state in Russia would never have arisen.
ROOTS AND FRUITS
Before we begin the analysis of historical evidence, analyze the ideological aspect of normanizma. Already in the XVII century in Swedish historiography born first beginnings of the Norman theory [Fomin VV Norman problem in Western historiography XVII century / / Collection of Russian Historical Society. № 4 (152) — Moscow, 2002. — Pp. 305-324.], Which was due to current political motives of the time. During the Livonian War broke sharp controversy between Ivan the Terrible and the Swedish King Johan III of the differences in titulovanii (which in the Middle Ages was very important). Ivan the Terrible thought Johan III comes from "Muzhichi kind" (father of Johan III Gustav I Vasa came from a noble, but the royal family) and did not consider the Swede equal.
Offended and does not want to remain in the ideological loss Johan III in response resorted to the well-known argument, "fool", accessible to the public by presenting the hypothesis that the Vikings were from Sweden. This diplomatic move as it equated politically Sweden and Russia. Home Normanism was laid just then.
Such evidence has been presented that are admired to this day. Olaf Dalin in his "History of the Swedish state," claimed that Rurik — a Swedish king Eric Uppsala, this same "historian" as far as to that of Sweden, Russia took off only the Mongol-Tatar invasion. In Petreev same name Rurik match Swedish Eric Frederick, Gottfried, Siegfried and Rhodri (to choose from and all very similar) had Sineus Scandinavian analogy Sven Simon and Samson, and Truvor — Tours, Trott or tuff. [Lemons JA "History of the Grand Duchy of Moscow" Peter Petreev / / Scandinavian Collection. No. 12. — Tallinn, 1967. — Page 260-270].
In addition to violent fantasies (as an example — according to Bayer, the name Svyatoslav derive from the Swedish Sven with the Slavic ending the "glory" — by the way, the Russian language Bayer did not know, and he is considered the Scandinavian names Vsevolod, Vladimir, Svetoslav) Normanists was typical ignorance of the facts that did not fit into their theory — say, the same Bayer cited as an argument in favor of the theory of post Bertinskie annals of the ambassadors of the "people Ros" in the court of Louis Ingelheim. [Annales de Saint-Bertin, a. 839 / / Ed. F. Grat, J. Vaillard, S. Clemeneet. — Paris, 1964. — P. 30-31.] Due to a mention in one source and Russ sveonov, by which he meant the Swedes. Academician not in the least disturbed by the fact that the author of the annals of the two peoples share. Little things which.
In short, the scientific basis normanizma could not be reliably confirmed even in the first half of the XVIII century.
By M. Lomonosov and other Russian academicians — Tredyakovsky, Krasheninnikov and Popov — objected to the method of Miller accepts the Bayer without verification.He believed — and not without reason — that "the word" Russian "," Russian "northern language totally unknown, but it is common on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. So, one mouth sleeve Neman called Roos. Here it is necessary to search and home Rurik. " [Hoffman, P. The value of University in the study of ancient Russian history / / Lomonosov. Collection of articles and materials. — Moscow, Leningrad, 1961. T. 5. — Page 208.] Indeed, the point of view of Miller did not find a perfect confirmation. For example, in the Swedish dictionary "100,000 borrowed words and names in the Swedish" root "Rus" is among borrowed. Also, are all borrowed words containing this root. [Ekborn CM Foerklaringar oever 100.000 Fraemmande ord och namm mm i svenska spraket. — Stockholm, 1948. — S. 1145, 1156-1157.]
After Lomonosov wrote that Miller made the Russian "as miserable people, which is the worst of any people from any historian before."
The controversy Normanists their opponents continued long until in 1891 was not published work "The Beginning of the Russian state" [V. Thomsen beginning of the Russian state / / Reading Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1891], after which many Russian historians have come to believe that Norman origin Russia can be considered proven. Although antinormanistov (Ilovajskij, Gideons and others) continued the debate, the majority of mainstream science turned to normanistskim positions.
It should be noted that the position of Russian historical science was not so unique — just scientists, like all people, often fall under the influence of "self-evident truths." Thus, AA Chess on the basis of textual analysis chronicles evidence at a later date and unreliable nature of the story about calling the Varangian princes, but all this is still considered reliable Norman theory [AA Shakhmatov Legend of calling the Vikings. — St., 1904.]
The formation of the Soviet Union also did not change the position on the issue of Norman — up to the mid 30's historians save templates opinion that Varangian question has long been settled Normanists. Only works archaeologists pointed to the discrepancy Norman theory historical realities. Excavations AV Artsikhovsky given materials that violate the concept of the existence of the Norman colony in ancient lands, showing that most of the things found in the Scandinavian funerary monuments that burial was not on the Scandinavian tradition. [AV Artsikhovsky Archaeological evidence of the origin of feudalism in Suzdal and Smolensk land / / Pido 1934. № 11-12.]
After that topic again normanizma interested historians, and with a direct criticism of the main provisions of the Norman theory made VA Parkhomenko. He made out the main arguments Norman theory and showed that they are not based on a serious analysis of the totality of sources, and therefore totally unconvincing. [V. Parkhomenko To a question about the "Norman Conquest" and the origin of Rus / / Marxist historian. 1938. Number 4.] However, we can not agree with VV Fomin, who pointed out the dual nature of the Soviet antinormanizma: on the one hand, that of saying that the Vikings-Scandinavians were not relevant to the process of formation of the ancient Russian state, and the other — still considered the Scandinavian Vikings.
And now — it's time to move on to the analysis of the arguments of supporters normanizma.
"Our land is great and rich"
Norman origin factology Rurik largely based on information from the "Tale of Bygone Years" monk Nestor.
The first known chronicle of ancient Russia was Kiev 996-997 years. Later (1037-1039) he was redesigned and became part of the arch, which was conducted at the Church of St.. Sofia at the behest of Prince Yaroslav the Wise. This body was later also repeatedly reworked and rewritten by monks of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, has not yet taken final shape and was called "Chronicle." Thus, we can just say that "The Story" — this is not evidence of eyewitnesses, while working in it could distort as unintentional and deliberate, "by order." Censorship does not come up in the XX-th century.
Extant chronicle describes events of Russian history up to the 10-ies of XII-th century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery, by order of Prince Svatopluk II Izyaslavich. It refers to the second edition in 1116 and was composed by Sylvester, abbot of the Kiev Vudubickiy, to Vladimir Monomakh. And in 1118 in Pereyaslavl anonymous chronicler created the third edition of "The Tale of Bygone Years" for Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich. Please note — all the "Edition" chronicles the prince made on specific orders, which could support their ideological demands (the same Nestor was a supporter of Prince Svatopluk II, the great friend of the German and Danish feudal lords). Of course, it is incorrect to assert that the distortions were without fail, but hope to fit with the text of the historical reality without confirmation from other sources — a very naive.
The work is not over for the chroniclers Nestor: a number of scientists (MH Aleshkovsky etc.) theorized that in 1119 elder Basil, close to Vladimir Monomakh, for the fourth time edited the text "The Tale of Bygone Years", and it has kept us Ipatiev Chronicle. It is known that in 1123, in Pereslavl, copy and edit the "Story" Bishop Sylvester, the former abbot of the monastery Vydubitsk. In the process of multiple correspondences text Vasilyeva editorial "The Tale of Bygone Years" was a part of a set of Tver in 1305, which came to us in the Laurentian Chronicle 1377g. In short, only the First Novgorod Chronicle older recension (called Synod list) survives to this day, more or less complete text of the first edition of "The Tale" pattern set in 1118 and still — as amended Dobryni Yadreykovicha 1225-1228 period.
Thus, in addition to possible inaccuracies when copying and quite likely a deliberate adjustment to "the moment", chronicles may be the distortion caused by the desire of the copyist to "improve" the text, making it easier to understand (or even "fix") between defended the events described from time chronicler of almost 200 years, but because he had known at best to oral legends.
What is said in the annals?
"Izgnasha Vikings overseas and Dasha im tribute and pochasha in themselves and do not rule over them whi truth and vsta rod to rod and things were made to any strife and voevati pochasha themselves to Xia. And decides to themselves, "Prince Poischem sobe others like us and would volodel sudil by law."And idasha overseas Kl Varangians to Russia. Bo Xia thee thus zvahut and varyazi point. Thou behold His FRIENDS zvutsya, Friends same Urmanov, Anglyane, Friends Gte, tacos and the BBC. Resch Russ, Chud, Slovenia and Krivichi: "The whole earth is our great and obilna and dress in her net, but oids knyazhit and rule over us." And izbrasha three bratya with his birth, poyasha on sobe all Russia. And pridosha stareishii Ryurik Sede in Novegorode, and the other on Sineus Beleozere, and the third Izborste Truvor. From the Varyag prozvasya Russian land. Noogorodtsy the kind Varyazhska, prezhe bo Bechet Slovenia "- Laurentian Chronicle 862g.
Ipatiev list kept two more facts. Rurik «First srubisha Ladoga city" — in the lower reaches of the Volkhov, near Lake Onega, on the northern edge of the Slavic lands. But the next year he moved, so to speak, into the center, "pridosha to Ilmer and cut down on the town of Volkhov and prozvasha and Novgorod."
Immediately it should be noted that the phrase "a dress there is no" does not mean a lack of order, as is usually treated Normanists — say, a mess we have here in Russia, come to us and arrange, clumsy, Ordnung, if you are not very difficult.
"In addition," in Old Russian language — an agreement with the ruler of the people. Compare with other passages from the Ipatiev Chronicle 1151g:
"And thus naryad stvorshe sobe in riches and the squad and Black klobutsi and Kayani, and tacos are not udumashe ichi ichi polkom opposes im beat, but pripustyache e to sobe, the same Xia Beaty with them," "And the ideal Mihalko to Suzhdal and iz Suzhdal to Rostov, and created lyudem entire outfit, and kissing the cross approve them. "
Note — in addition approved rite (kiss the cross). Lack of attire — is the lack of official power, nothing more.
"All our land is good and great and abundant vsem and naryadnik it forward; poidete us knyazheti to own us" — Revival Chronicle 859g.
Well, let us carefully analyze the text. Immediately raises the question — if the Vikings' izgnasha "and not" Dasha "they profit, how to look this background theory That's right — blednenko.
In addition, it is obvious from the text that the "Vikings" — is not an ethnic name, and the territorial (like the "Balts", for example), and they consist of many nations. So it could well drive vzashey some Vikings, and invite to rule — is another. Chronicler clearly distinguishes Russia from Varangian Varangian sveev (Swedes), Varangian Urman (Norwegians), Vikings-ready (the ancient population of southern Sweden and o.Gotland). That is, from the text chronicles the conclusion of the difference of from the Swedes, Norwegians and ready, with which my German peoples of Scandinavia, in fact, and exhausted. Vikings-"Friends" (other, list attached) were driven vzashey and treatment was a Varangian Rus. My word — though the text record, it is very difficult to understand how it was possible to advance the Norman theory seriously. Of course, based on a scientific methodology, not political reality. But let's not get distracted.
Running Normanists argument — that distinction chronicler Slavs and Russia: Rurik had brought his rus, and this ancient Russians so much that they decided to so-called — well, do not themselves have a name, think. Do not argue — Rus chronicler shares and … no, not Slavs. The word — one of the Slavic tribes.
'In summer 6367 [859 BC]. Imah tribute varyazi iz Zamora on chyudi on sloveneh on Mary and vseh krivicheh. "
But that's not all. Many historians, despite his profession, try to try on historical facts in their modern cultural context. As an example, in ancient times it was a common practice for humility and publish their theses / tracts not under his own name, and attribute them to the already well-known to authorities as a sign of respect (as a well-known example — see many of Plato's dialogues in which Socrates appears). In the present is simply not represented.
But even Klyuchevskii noted that "Chronicle" is written clearly influenced by the concept "of the three brothers who founded the" widespread in many nations. Compare: Kyi, Schek and Horeb West Slavic Lech, Czech and Rus, Irish Amelaus, Sittarakus and Ivor, Scythian Arpoksai, Lipoksai and Koloksay; Armenian Kuar, Meltem and Horean. And for all of them are looming figure of biblical ancestors — Shem, Ham, Japheth.
Against this background of Rurik, Truvor and Sineus start losing concrete historical reality.Klyuchevskii also noted that "The Story", "modeled on the Byzantine chronographs usually begins the story of Old Testamenthistory "- compare yourself with the 1st Book of Samuel, Chapter 8 10.
O brothers Rurik Rybakov writes: "Brothers" was a Russian translation distorted Swedish words (optional, I have consulted with a translator who knows Swedish, Norwegian and Danish). About Rurik said that he came "with their labor» («sine use») and true warriors («tru war») », and not with the brothers. Especially because of these "brothers" in the annals of further mentioned.
But things get more interesting when you consider that more Lomonosov noted in his "objection to Miller's thesis": "… the Vikings and Rurik with his native who came to Novgorod, were knee slavenskogo, the language slavenskim came from ancient Russia were far not from Scandinavia … named Russ in Scandinavia and the northern shores of the Viking sea never ever heard … "[MV Lomonosov, Complete Works. v.6, M., L. 1952]. You see, how interesting: the root of "Rus" in the Scandinavian languages — borrowed for a Russian language — native, Rurik spoke Slavic … However, maybe, Mikhail Lomonosov was a Russian nationalist and fascist and made it all up? Call to the stand of other historians.
Contemporary Tatishchev University observes Strykovskogo words: "… a prince Rusko Begotten Wagram, or Vikings, had chosen" [VN Tatishchev, Russian History, Coll. coch. t.IV. Chap. 29., M.: SIC Ladomir, 1995].
Well, the only begotten — they are automatically and monolingual. Which is confirmed by the chronicler Nestor himself: "And slovensky language and Rusko is one …".
In the middle of XVI-century remembered for what language spoke Russ. Writes Gerard (Georg) Mercator, in his "Cosmographia":
"On the island that is alive people idolaters, injury or Ruthenians imyanuemye, rency, fierce for battle, fought ferociously against the Christians, for their idols were … they had a language Slovenian yes Vandal. Literacy teaching is not sought, but the commandment together have made, to read and write, of not only military affairs diligent hunters were … "
It is an island of Rügen, the last citadel of the famous northern paganism Arkona.
Ruga mentioned by Tacitus is uniquely identified with Russia. So, Princess Olga German chronicle constantly called «regina rugorum», but never — «regina rusorum». However, Olga — Princess Rusich. Thus, Ruga and Russ — are one and the same name in different transcription. In Otto of Bamberg says that "Ruga still have the name of the Ruthenians (or ruthenium) and the country they are called" Rusin "(RU)."
Thus, Ruga, Ruyan-wound-Ruthenians from the island of Rügen and the coast at the mouth of the Vistula apply for the "varyazi-Rus" first. Russia is the only "overseas"; tribe "Rus" in Scandinavia simply unknown.
Now back to the passing mentioned above chronicle the fact that Rurik founded the city, which "prozvasha Novgorod." Etymology of the name is obvious — the "new city". But where, then, is the old one? Tatishchev pointed Oldenburg (Stargrad), but before he Gelmold in "Slavic Chronicle" reported:
"Oldenburg, the one in the Slavic language called Starigard, meaning" old town ", is located in the land of Wagram, on the western side of the Baltic Sea, and the limit of glory … The city is this … inhabited inhabited brave men, as being on the front edge all the glory, they had neighbors Danes and Saxons, and all military conflicts or were first starting out, or if attacked others take the hit. "
So everything is quite clear: the principality of their own called the Slavs, known for their courage and bravery. There is nothing surprising in this. And this fact does not indicate that the de backward Slavic tribes themselves they can not create a system of governance applied to innovative and advanced Europeans, and so they tried that gratitude for the knowledge people have thrown their tribal naming and together began to call Russ , but strictly on the contrary — it clearly points to the fact that it was the state of the Slavs, the imperial consciousness, not melkotravchato-breeding, and the different tribes that retain their original name, though considered as one people. Actually, the invitation of Prince of neighboring Slavic adequately transferred by analogy to the present: the ruler of the other cities of the same country. I think no one "ordinary" in this situation it finds.
Move on to other arguments Normanists.
As an argument in favor of the Norman theory many times mentioned agreements Oleg and Igor. Indeed, there is no serious reason to doubt their authenticity — it's one of the first documentary sources, listed on the first pages of our annals.
Start treaty with the Byzantines Oleg looks at first glance weighty argument in favor Normanists: "We kind of Ruska Carla Inegeld, Farley, Veremu, Rulav, Hoods, Ruad, Karn, Frelaf, Rual, Aktevu, Truan, Lida, Fost, stem ilk message from Olga, Grand Duke Ruska "(Laurentian Chronicle, 912g). It should be noted that historians agree that the text of the treaty in the annals rewritten from the original Greek, that is, transkiptsiya names underwent a double distortion (compare with single: John / John, Matthew / Matthew …). And the monk-chronicler of his day did not translate names, and existed for a couple of centuries before him.
In addition, even the name clearly linked to people not guarantee supplies to the people of its support. So konung Valdamar wore quite Slavic name, being a Dane. Gelmold in "Slavic chronicle" lists princes obodritov son Prince Gottschalk German name is Henry, his two sons are Slavic names Mstivoy and Svyatopolk, and the third — Scandinavian Knut.
Not to increase the volume of publications omit the intermediate steps and just bring ANALYSIS AS Pivovarov: Scandinavian names in the list — 5, Slavic — 5, one Celtic, Turkish, German and Roman. Thus, the hypothesis that the contract went to sign some Scandinavians, and, therefore, they also ruled — somehow questionable.
Far more logical to assume that Oleg sent to their neighbors to represent them exactly vigilantes of the Vikings (their service as soldiers of the rulers of various lands historically quite significant). It's funny that, pointing to the rule of foreigners, principally Normanists not pay attention to the oath by which they bring upon signing the contract: "The kings of the sameLeon and Alexander made peace with Oleg obliged to pay tribute, and swore to each other: they kissed the cross, and Oleg with men of his swearing led by Russian law, and they swore their weapons and Perun, their god, and the hair, the god of cattle, and approved the world. " Krestotselovanie Christian rulers is clear, but the post-Scandinavians would be better to mention one or the Torah, not Perun and Veles. Or, having conquered the Slavs, Varangians obeyed their ancestral gods? Not funny. Question that if Russia — the people who came from Scandinavia and won Slavs, why could he quickly changed his religion and who could compel him to do so, essentially ignored by almost all historians.
By the way, according to the Chronicle, Rurik and his "Rus" arrived in Novgorod in 860-s. (And this date is archaeological evidence). Meanwhile, the name "Russian land" already appears in the text of the treaty with Byzantium Oleg 907 g … Something too fast, you know.
Optional: I wonder why such a significant event, as the conquest of a large country in the south, not in any way reflect the actual Scandinavians in their celebrated sagas? On the small victories Vikings (the essence of which is the rapid raids and looting of the coast) news is more than enough, and now this win — and silence.
In the end, the Soviet Russia's first ambassador in Yemen was Bashkirs. Does this mean that Russian is the Bashkirs?
By the same theme applies to evidence of "Bertinskie annals." At 839g. to the Frankish emperor was the embassy from the Byzantine emperor Theophilus, who:
"… Also sent some people who claimed that they, that is the people they called Ros … thoroughly investigate the purpose of their arrival, the emperor learned that they were from people svionov, and, finding them more intelligence in the country, and in our country, than ambassadors of friendship, decided to hold them to myself until until you can find out for sure, if they were in good faith or not. " [Ann. Bert., A. 839. P.30-31 (5 str.288)]
But this text just is not a very strong argument "for" and "against" Norman theory. What is said about the actions of the emperor? He "knew that they were from people svionov", then found them "more intelligence." If Rus — Scandinavian people, then why be surprised? But if anything to do with Russia Scandinavia has …
Consider the following source — Liutprand Cremona. On this website Normanists prefer to refer without direct quotation. Simply states that Liutprand calls Rosov Normans. Like, Western writers have called the Norman Vikings, who attacked them from the sea. And if the Vikings Scandinavians, hence the Normans Liutprand none other can not be. But the fact is that the statement "the Vikings were the only Norsemen" simply not true. More Gideons pointed out that in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles of those who attack the coast of England, named not only given, but Wendy, that is, the Slavs. The "Saga of Olaf Tryugvassone" warriors joined Olaf in Yomsborge — one of the main centers of the Vikings — directly and immediately called Wendy, that is, the Slavs. Snorri the same in another saga, "On Harald sternly," reports the following:
"Steel Hakon there to defend the country from the Vikings who plundered many Danaveldi — Winds Austrvega and others, as well as Kurov." So the Normans, Vikings — this is not necessarily the Scandinavians. Referred to the Vikings, and some Slavs.
Now let's see why Liutprand Normanists prefer mentioned but not quoted. From his work "Antapodosis":
"Get to the north inhabit a nation, which the Greeks call on appearance rusios, we're on a site call the Nordmann. Indeed, in German means nord north and man — man, so something north of people and can be called Nordmann. " [Liudpr. Antap. V, 15. P.137-138 (5 str.291)]. No comment.
WHERE IS RUSSIA went
Now let's look normanistskuyu theory of the origin of the name "Rus". Even Normanists well aware that any of the people "Rus" in Scandinavia was not, and try to get around this by using theories vneetnicheskogo origin of the name. Very popular so-called "rowing" theory, which many Normanists proclaimed most reasonable and the most scientific. The reasoning looks like this: The Finns called Swedes ruotsi. Priilmenye area was Slavic-Nordic-Finnish contacts and Finnish ruotsi, as the name of the Swedes, the transition to the language of the Slavs in the twisted "Rus'".
Theory, to say the least, questionable: the Swedes in the annals of nowhere Rus are not named, and are called "svei" etc.; Finnish «ts» in Russian is passed as "ts" and not "with" … But the main thing — that The term "Finns" has historically in Russian two values: narrow — the name of the people inhabiting the country Finland, and has self "suomolyayset" and wide — the common name of the peoples, which also includes Veps, Estonians, Karelians, Komi, Mordovians , Udmurt and Mari. So, when we speak of the Slavic-Nordic-Finnish cooperation in Priilmenye, we have in mind a second, broad interpretation of the term. That is, with the Slavs and Scandinavians contact Chud-Estonians and all-Veps. And when the show naming Swedish Finns ruotsi, then we have the view of the first importance, as this ethnonym used for Swedes only Finns suomolyayset. A suomolyayset, called in the annals sum, made contact with the Slavs not previously XI century, that is to influence the emergence of the Slavic languages, the term "Rus" they could not if they wanted to. Others finnskie peoples Swedes ruotsi not called.
And in general — and how is it that the ethnonym "Rus" in different versions use completely different people? "Ros" in the Byzantine authors, "al-Rus" in Arabic, etc. So widely known ethnonym still in the early days of Kievan Rus is only possible if the "Rus" — self.
The root of the "Rus" dates back to the Old Norse word drots, which fully corresponds to the semantic and etymological Slavic word "Militia" (there is also a point of view that the root of the "Rus" is elevated to the top «roths», a value of "row, to take part in the voyage , "and in this case, the word" Russia "will be" participants voyage "). These words will eventually go back to the old Aryan root dreu-, had the meaning of "solid", "strong". From this root in different Aryan languages was quite a number of words, the number of them are, for example, such as "tree", "ancient", "healthy", "friend." In the old Germanic languages, the word is derived from this root meaning as the "leader": Dr OI. drottinn, etc OE. dryhtin. Derived from this root word meaning "squad", limited languages, which are in the Northern European group of languages — Slavic and Germanic. In addition to the Russian "squad", this Gothic drauhts, OI. drot, etc OE. dryht. Thus, the word "Rus" originally meant "squad", being not an ethnic designation, and the name of military units. Many cultures have survived tales about the Vikings as a thief who robbed-sailed, in the Russian chronicles as anything is not there — in maritime Vityaz unequivocally positive, and at the same — equal. Not rivals, but close in spirit allies.
Indeed, and who from the "foreign archetypal images", in fact, closer to the Russian Knights? Snobby European knight in armor, which is not able to climb on a horse on their own? French bully? The Englishman with his psyche "gentleman" that in Russia called snobbery and arrogance? Poles with his ambition?
This is no place east of detachment from reality, and in many western determinism. This is the northern line — full awareness of their duty and doing it no matter what. Only in the north it is a betrayal of a betrayal, not by cunning or forced necessity …
But back to the topic. The last time the document, the socio the word "Russia" is Russian Pravda of Yaroslav the Wise. According to her, at the beginning of XI century "Ruthenians" called "Gridin, enjoy koupchina, enjoy yabetnik, enjoy Swordsman" that is, representatives of guards, merchants and public administration. By the second half of the XI century. — Date of the Tale of Bygone Years — the original meaning of the word "Rus" was forgotten, which led to attempts to present it on the events of the IX. as the name of a particular Varangian people.
At the same time it is necessary to emphasize the fact that it is in the north of the Russian Plain is the name registered rich toponymy, which is absent in the Middle Dnieper: Roos, Porus, Okoloruse south Priilmenye, Roos on the Volkhov, Ruthenians at Luga Russka on Volozhbe in Ladoga, etc . on All of these names are on the territory of the principality of Novgorod native Slavs.
Chronicles also specifically say how the name "Rus" was in the Middle Dnieper. Russ called Oleg army, which came from the north: the Novgorod First Chronicle reports that Oleg "Besch varyazi men Slovenia and thence away prozvashaya Rus'. It follows that it is Oleg squads consisting of the Vikings and the word brought to the current Ukrainian lands name "Rus".
MOTHER RUSSIAN CITIES
Now let's think about whether the principality of Kiev State?
Geography of Russia of that time, in short: most of it was in the Dnieper basin, occupying the watershed that separates the pool from the Pripyat River Dniester. It consisted of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl Toompea, Belgorod, Korsun. Many cities have been geographically separated Novgorod, where he was governor of Kyiv Prince was separated from Kiev impassable forests and swamps. Consequently, it is impossible to speak of territorial unity. There is no strong political unity — the territory of Kievan Rus split into many small holdings. Therefore, it is necessary to find a factor that unites the Russian lands. Klyuchevskii wrote, "Kiev was the rallying point of the Russian trade, to him massed trading boats from all over, from the Volkhov, the Western Dvina, the Upper Dnieper and its tributaries. Who owned … Kiev, he held in his hands the key to the main gate of Russian trade …. All this can be achieved only by the combined forces of all the Eastern Slavic tribes. " [Kliuchevsky, "The course of Russian history. Part I », M., Thought, 1987, p.156-158]. Thus, the unifying factor is trade, which is closely related to military affairs. Kiev was the main defensive outpost in the fight against steppe dwellers, good location made it a center of Russian trade in Kiev, all cities of Russia shared the trade interests of Kiev. The high level of foreign trade clearly indicates statehood.
The Princes collected tribute from subject tribes, and it was precisely the fact that the present is called taxes. If the prince's retinue was a robber gang, racketeering, the population of the places en route to the collection of tribute, "simply fled would have gone deeper into the tribal areas", which did not happen [B.A.Rybakov, "Kievan Rus and the Russian Duchy of XII-XIII centuries ", Moscow," Nauka ", 1982str. 321-322, 325]. This suggests that the prince had the right to subject, that is, the legitimacy of power, which is one of the main features of statehood. According to Danilevsky, the state in the full sense of the word we can say, "from the moment when the prince stopped to go to polyude" that is, when his deputies on the ground just gained legitimacy. [IN Danilevsky, "Old Russia through the eyes of his contemporaries and successors," Moscow, "Aspect Press", 2001. page 166].
The argument on the other hand, the origin of both the legitimacy of power, which also speaks of statehood. In "The Tale of Bygone Years" read, "Oleg reche Askoldu and Dirovi:" you carry the prince nor the kind prince, but Az Kniazha am old, "and vynesosha Igor:" And behold there syn Rurik. " And ubisha Askolda and Dir. "
Finally, let's consider why Norman theory is dismissed as a forgery unique so far.
Back in the late fifteenth century, the Grand Duke of Moscow, have already started titulovat themselves kings, there was a purely political necessity formally raise their family in the eyes of European monarchs. In the XV-th century the Kremlin appears and proclaims the idea: "Moscow — the Third Rome, and the fourth will not happen." In other words, Moscow declared itself the direct heir and successor of the Byzantine Empire, which was a stronghold of Orthodoxy. Moscow rulers had something to justify their right to such continuity and at the same time confirmed its royal title, which does not want to recognize them for other monarchs.
According to this concept, the disgraced Metropolitan Spyridon received from the Grand Duke Vasili Third task to develop appropriate pedigree Moscow dynasty.
Spyridon this assignment done. Soon came his work entitled "The Message," in which he took the starting point of the Flood: from Noah brought pedigree Egyptian Pharaoh "Seostra" (Sezostrisa), and a direct descendant of this pharaoh did the Roman Emperor Augustus. In August was the brother of Prus, gained possession of the area of the Vistula River, which by its name has since called Prussian land. A straight line from Prus Spyridon brought race Rurik and the result of all these constructions was that "the rulers of Moscow and the beginning pokolenstvo Seostra comes from, the first king of Egypt, and of Augustus Caesar and the king, this is August pooblada universes. And spreading the essence of this day is known. " What is?
When Peter the Great and his immediate successors, the trend "the advantages of foreign origin" in the Russian nobility has increased, so that the Norman theory rested on quite fertile soil. And as she was abroad with excellent pleasure adopted and approved, giving our neighbors the "scientific" basis in order to look at the Russian down upon as an inferior race.
Such a position of the Europeans and Russian Westerners, of course, is not accidental. The whole concept amounts to a denial of Westerners in the deep foundations of the Russian ethnos masculinity and correlates very well with it the negation ability of independent Russian state social being.
It is very significant, as are Normanists to the phenomenon in the history of Russia, Cossacks — definitely active, "male" component of the Russian ethnos. Cossacks, it turns out, there were … straight from the Vikings. "As part of Russian history, we can think of [the Vikings] as forerunners for the Cossacks' [GV Vernadsky. Ancient Russia, page 323.] But that's not all: the ancestors of the Cossacks are remnants … Khazars, Svyatoslav not finished [L. Gumilev. Ancient Rus and the Kipchak steppe 945-1225 years. In.: Rhythms of Eurasia, M., "Progress", "Ekopros", 1993, page 528.]. For special color is clear that the Khazars professed Judaism. Cops and Jews — not a sight for the faint of heart!
However, the fact that they are trying to disguise a pseudoscientific arguments Normanists and other "enlightened Europeans," is very simple: the Russian civilization never was little, she always covers Eastern and even Central Europe, and in the best of times — as Central Asia and Siberia, and she was always time.The, but it formed the ethnic groups were not random amorphous conglomeration, but part of a whole harmonious. There was no small people "Rus", from which supposedly grew up modern Russia. Rusichi — is the Slavic tribes that make up the whole, and later — and other peoples, vassal Russian, and in the true sense of the word — younger brothers, and not ethnic parasites, which is true with respect to certain ethnic groups of our time.
The Russian people have originally imperial character.Now, we note only that the Norman theory was only an ideological expression of real domination, transferring specific dominance of foreigners in the state apparatus Russia XVIII-XIX centuries. back on the time axis, the creation myth of the legitimacy of the idea of "Russian nerus should rule."
In the old days … non-Russians laid the foundations of the Russian state …
In … X-XI-th centuries gave the non-Russian Russian literature, and religion …
XVIII century … in the non-Russian study Russian culture …
… In the XX century — the basics of liberalism, democracy and a market economy …
And maybe that's enough?
Maybe I should not look at the newly arrived intellectuals, happily explaining its benefits "ryuski myuzhik" and look at the actual Russian? To the people who founded the country, occupying 1/6 of the land on the planet. Who first went into space. The wings of a familiar mate in private notes long before he supposedly invented writing and signed utensils which pot for that, for half a millennium before the time when European kings learned to write ordinances for ourselves, not proud of their illiteracy. Those people who have never betrayed in world politics, despite deserving the behavior of "allies." Which, in the end, did not know of such an achievement of European civilization as "bloholovka" (for the ladies of high society — of precious materials), but instead went to the barbaric bath …
Russian should shake off the myths of inferiority instilled and remember who they are.