Formation and development of community life
The main form of settlement of the Eastern Slavs was a small village of 2-3 courtyards.
- Courtyard
a) in each courtyard lived a large, complex family, which included several generations, led by a householder - a highway.
Several villages united into a community, which in the southern regions was called the verv, and in the northern regions - the world.
Since communal life prevailed and the villagers united into communities for economic interests, tribal life quickly disintegrated and was replaced by the volost - territorially neighboring.
As they settled in large areas, the bonds between the genera weakened, and the genera themselves disintegrated. This led to the fact that common family property was replaced by family property.
The community began to include communities of different clans and even tribes. This mixing process was especially intensive where the territories of different tribes bordered (river, portage or watershed) or where there was a joint colonization of new lands by different tribes.
- The development of feudal relations proper took place on the basis of the community.
With the emergence of cities in Russia in which there were many foreign trade and military squads, the clan system began to undergo even greater transformation.
- People from different places, clans, tribes united for joint military and trade affairs in cities.
Procurement for sale and the accumulation of income from goods sold led to the formation of capital. So the subsistence economy gradually begins to be replaced by money.
Old Russian stateformed in 882 r. as a result of the unification under the rule of Kiev of the two largest Slavic states - Kiev and Novgorod. Later, other Slavic tribes, the Drevlyans, the Northerners, the Radimichi, the Ulici, the Tivertsy, the Vyatichi and the Polyana, submitted to the Kiev prince. The Old Russian (Kiev) state in its form was an early feudal monarchy.
It existed until the middle of the 12th century. In the second half of the XI - the beginning of the XII century. on its territory, semi-states began to form:
Kievskoe
Chernigov
Pereyaslavskoe.
Answer: Norman theory (Normanism)- a trend in historiography that develops the concept that Russia comes from Scandinavia during the period of the expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe.
The Norman theory was formulated:
In the first half of the 18th century under Anna Ioannovna, the German historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Bayer (1694-1738)
Later, G. Miller and A. L. Schlozer.
The version was accepted by N.M. Karamzin, followed by M.P.Pogodin and other Russian historians of the 19th century.
According to norman theory the emergence of the Old Russian state:
The state of the Eastern Slavs was created by the Varangians (Normans).
There is a legend about the calling of the Varangians to rule the Slavs. In this regard, it is believed that the Slavs were at a low level of development and were not able to create a state. The Slavs were conquered by the Varangians, and the latter created state power.
Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs - Novgorod and then Kievan Rus.
Old Russian chronicles read:
In 862, to end civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugrians turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne. From where the Varangians were summoned, the chronicles do not report. You can roughly localize the residence of Russia on the coast of the Baltic Sea. In addition, the Varangians-Rus are placed on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (residents of the island of Gotland - modern Swedes)
However, sources indicate that by the time the Varangians appeared in Novgorod, the state has already developed there... The Slavs had a high level of both socio-economic and political development, which served as the basis for the formation of the state.
The moment of the origin of the Old Russian state cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy. Obviously, there was a gradual development of those political formations, which we talked about in the previous chapter, into the feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - the Old Russian Kiev state. In the literature, different historians date this event differently. However, most authors agree that the emergence of the Old Russian state should be attributed to the 9th century.
The question of how the Old Russian state was formed is not entirely clear. And here we come across the so-called Norman theory.
The fact is that we have a source at our disposal, which, it would seem, to some extent answers the question of the origin of the Old Russian state. This is the oldest collection of chronicles "The Tale of Bygone Years". The chronicle makes it clear that in the IX century. our ancestors lived in conditions of statelessness, although it does not speak about it directly. It is only about the fact that the southern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the Khazars, and the northern ones paid tribute to the Varangians, that the latter once drove out the Varangians, but then changed their minds and summoned the Varangian princes. This decision was caused by the fact that the Slavs had a fight with each other and decided to turn to foreign princes to establish order. The Varangian princes at first did not agree, but the Slavs persuaded them. Three Varangian princes came to Russia and in 862 sat on the thrones: Rurik in Novgorod, Truvor in Izborsk (near Pskov), Sineus in Beloozero.
This interpretation raises at least two objections. Firstly, the factual material given in the "Tale of Bygone Years" does not give grounds for the conclusion about the creation of the Russian state by calling the Varangians. On the contrary, like other sources that have come down to us, it says that statehood among the Eastern Slavs existed even before the Varangians. Secondly, modern science cannot agree with such a primitive explanation of the complex process of the formation of any state. The state cannot be organized by one person or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of a complex and long development of the social structure of society. Nevertheless, the chronicle mention was adopted as early as the 18th century. a certain group of historians who developed the Varangian version of the formation of the Russian state. At this time, a group of German historians worked at the Russian Academy of Sciences, who interpreted the chronicle tradition in a certain sense. This is how the notorious Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state was born.
Already at that time, Normanism met with objections from the leading Russian scientists, among whom was M.V. Lomonosov. Since then, all historians dealing with Ancient Russia have divided into two camps - Normanists and anti-Normanists.
Modern domestic scientists predominantly reject the Norman theory. They are joined by the largest researchers of the Slavic countries.
The main refutation of the Norman theory is the rather high level of social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. The ancient Russian state was prepared by the centuries-old development of the Eastern Slavs. In terms of their economic and political level, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not even borrow the state experience from the newcomers.
The chronicle narrative contains, of course, elements of truth. It is possible that the Slavs invited several princes with their squads as military specialists, as was done in later times in Russia, and in Western Europe. It is reliably known that the Russian principalities invited not only the Varangian squads, but also their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, Torks. * However, it was not the Varangian princes who organized the Old Russian state, but the already existing state gave them the corresponding state posts. However, some authors, starting with M.V. Lomonosov, doubt the Varangian origin of Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, believing that they could also be representatives of any Slavic tribes. In any case, there are practically no traces of the Varangian culture in the history of our Motherland.
We do not know exactly when and how exactly the first principalities of the Eastern Slavs arose, preceding the formation of the Old Russian state, but in any case they already existed until 862, before the notorious “vocation of the Varangians”. In the German chronicle, since 839, Russian princes are referred to as Khakans - tsars.
But the moment of the unification of the East Slavic lands into one state is known reliably. In 882, Prince Oleg of Novgorod captured Kiev and united these two most important groups of Russian lands; then he managed to annex the rest of the Russian lands, creating a huge state at that time. The Russian Orthodox Church is trying to link the emergence of statehood in Russia with the introduction of Christianity. *
Of course, the introduction of Christianity was of great importance for strengthening the feudal state, since the church consecrated the subordination of the Orthodox to the exploiting state. However, the baptism of Rus took place no less than a century after the formation of the Kiev state, not to mention the earlier East Slavic states.
In addition to the Slavs, some neighboring Finnish and Baltic tribes entered the Old Russian Kievan state. This state, therefore, was ethnically heterogeneous from the very beginning. However, it was based on the ancient Russian nationality, which is the cradle of three Slavic peoples - Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians and Belarusians. She cannot be identified with any of these peoples separately.
More specifically, Norman theory should be understood as a trend in historiography, which is inclined to believe that the Vikings and Scandinavians (Normans) became the founders of Kievan Rus, that is, the first East Slavic state.
This Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state, the theory of wide dissemination achieved in the 18th century, during the so-called "Bironovism". During this period of historical development, most of the positions at the court were occupied by German nobles. It is important to note the fact that the composition of the Academy of Sciences also included a significant part of German scientists. Scientists I. Bayer and G. Miller can be called the founder of such a theory about the origin of Russia.
As it turned out later, this theory became especially popular under political phenomena. Also, this theory was later developed by the scientist Schletzer. In order to state their assertion, scientists have taken as a basis the messages from the famous chronicle called "The Tale of Bygone Years". Back in the 12th century, the Russian chronicler included in the chronicle a certain legend story that told about the calling of the Varangian brothers by the princes - Sineus, Rurik and Truvor.
Scientists tried in every possible way to prove the fact that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs is the merit only of the Normans. Also, such scientists spoke about the backwardness of the Slavic people.
So, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state contains well-known points. First of all, the Normanists believe that the Varangians who came to power are the Scandinavians who created the state. Scientists say that the local people were unable to do this act. Also, the Varangians had a great cultural influence on the Slavs. That is, the Scandinavians are the creators of the Russian people, who gave it not only statehood, but also culture.
Anti-Norman theory
Naturally, this theory, like many others, immediately found opponents. This statement was opposed by Russian scientists. One of the brightest scientists who spoke about disagreement with the Norman theory was M. Lomonosov. It is he who is called the initiator of the polemics between the Normanists and the opponents of this trend - the anti-Normanists. It is worth noting that the anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state says that the state arose due to the fact that this was accompanied by more objective reasons at that time.
Many sources say that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs existed long before the appearance of the Vikings on the territory. The Normans were at a lower level of political and economic development, in contrast to the Slavs.
Another important argument is that a new state cannot emerge overnight. This is a long process of social development of a society. The anti-Norman statement is called by some as the Slavic theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. It is worth noting the fact that Lomonosov, in the Varangian theory of the origin of the ancient Slavs, noticed the so-called blasphemous hint that a hundred Slavs were attributed to "inferiority", their inability to organize a state on their own lands.
On what theory the ancient Russian state was formed is a question that worries many scientists, but there is no doubt that each of the statements has its own right to exist.
In Russia, since its inception, patriotic forces have always opposed the Norman theory of the origin of national statehood. Its first critic was M.V. Lomonosov. Subsequently, he was joined not only by many Russian scientists, but also by historians from other Slavic countries. The main refutation of the Norman theory, they pointed out, is the rather high level of social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. In terms of their development, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not borrow the experience of state building from them. The state cannot be organized by one person (in this case Rurik) or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of a complex and long development of the social structure of society. In addition, it is known that the Russian principalities, for various reasons and at different times, invited the squads not only of the Varangians, but also of their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, and Torks. We do not know exactly when and how the first Russian principalities arose, but in any case they already existed until 862, before the notorious "vocation of the Varangians". (In some Germanic chronicles, since 839, Russian princes are called Khakans, i.e. tsars). This means that it was not the Varangian military leaders who organized the Old Russian state, but the already existing state gave them the corresponding state posts. By the way, there are practically no traces of Varangian influence in Russian history. Researchers, for example, have calculated that 10 thousand square meters. km of the territory of Russia, you can find only 5 Scandinavian geographical names, while in England, subjected to the Norman invasion, this number reaches 150.
It is hardly possible in the whole world to find a people or a sufficiently ancient political formation, the origin of which would be unambiguously recognized by the public and historians. On the one hand, the reason for this is the scarcity of historical and archaeological sources of the medieval era, on the other - and this is much more important - the desire, often not fully realized, to exalt their fatherland, to ascribe a heroic history to it. One of the fundamental themes of Russian historiography is precisely the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The first years of the existence of Kievan Rus, and even more importantly, the driving forces of its formation, became almost the most important topic of dispute among Russian historians for hundreds of years.
Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
Kievan Rus as a political centralized formation, as confirmed by all authoritative sources, appeared in the second half of the 9th century. Since the inception of historical science in Russia, there have been a variety of theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state. Various researchers tried to find the origins of Russian statehood in the Iranian elements (we are talking about the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes who once lived here), and the Celtic and Baltic (this group of peoples was still closely related to the Slavs). However, the most popular and most well-grounded have always been only two extremely opposite views on this issue: the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state and the anti-Norman theory, its antagonist. was first formulated a long time ago, back in the middle of the XIII century, by the royal court historian Gottlieb Bayer.
Somewhat later, his ideas were developed
other Germans - Gerard Miller and August Schletzer. The foundation for the construction of the Norman theory was a line from the famous chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years." Nestor described the origin of the ancient Russian state as a merit of the Varangian king Rurik and his army, which became the first military and palace elite in Russia. According to the document, they fought with certain Russians and managed to expel them from their lands. But this was followed by a period of turmoil and bloody civil strife in the Slavic lands. This made them again turn to the Rus and call them to reign from across the sea: "Our land is rich, but there is no order in it ...". In this story, German historians identified the mysterious Rus with the Scandinavian kings. This was confirmed by archaeological finds both then and later. The Varangians were indeed present on these lands in the 9th-10th centuries. And the names and their retinue were almost entirely of Scandinavian origin. Some Arab travelers also identified the Rus and Scandinavians in their records. On the basis of all these facts, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was born. She really had a fairly solid foundation and for many years was considered unshakable.
Antinormanist version
However, the very fact that the overseas kings were called to reign meant that the Slavs themselves were simply unable to form their own state in the Middle Ages, as other European peoples were able to do. This idea could not but cause indignation among patriotic intellectuals. The first who was able to confront the German scientists with sufficient reasoning and point out the flaws in their theory was the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. In his opinion, the Russians should have been identified not with foreigners at all, but with the local population. He pointed to the names of the local Rosava. Varangians,
those mentioned in the ancient chronicles were (according to Lomonosov) not Scandinavians at all, but Slavs, who are known to historians today as Vagry. Over time, the anti-Norman story gained momentum. However, the Normans have defended their positions for centuries. In the first decades of the existence of the Soviet state, the Norman theory was declared harmful and unpatriotic, which literally meant a veto on its further development. At the same time, development and archaeological opportunities were given a lot to the anti-Normanists. It was found that a number of foreign travelers of the 9th century called the Slavs the Rus. In addition, the emergence of state structures existed in the pre-Kiev time. An important argument was that the Scandinavians at that time did not create a state even in their homeland.
conclusions
Since the 1950s, both theories have developed quite freely again. The pile of new knowledge and facts, primarily archaeological, has demonstrated that it is impossible to completely abandon all the ideas of the Norman theory. Perhaps the last significant point in this dispute was Lev Klein's book The Dispute about the Varangians. It describes the whole genesis of the development of discussions between the parties, a detailed analysis of the arguments and sources. The truth was, as always, somewhere in between. The Vikings, being experienced fighters and traders, quite often appeared in the Slavic lands and had very close contacts with the local population. They had an important and undeniable influence on the formation of state structures here, bringing innovative ideas from all over the continent. At the same time, the emergence of Kievan Rus is not possible without the inner readiness of the Slavic society itself. Thus, it is very likely that there were Scandinavians (for the Middle Ages this was not at all a surprising fact), but their role should not be overestimated.
In our time, there are two hypotheses of the formation of the "old Russian state". According to the Norman theory, based on the Initial Russian Chronicle and numerous Western European and Byzantine sources, statehood was brought to Russia from outside by the Varangians (Rurik, Sineus and Truvor) in 862.
So, Norman theory is a trend in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the Slavic state. The concept of the Scandinavian origin of the state among the Slavs is associated with a fragment from the "Tale of Bygone Years", which reported that in 862, to end civil strife, the Slavs turned to the Varangians ("Rus") with a proposal to take the princely throne. As a result, Rurik sat down to reign in Novgorod, Sineus in Beloozero and Truvor in Izborsk.
The "Norman theory" was put forward in the 18th century. German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller, invited by Peter I to work at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. They tried to scientifically prove that the Old Russian state was created by the Varangians. An extreme manifestation of this concept is the assertion that the Slavs, due to their unpreparedness, could not create a state, and then, without foreign leadership, were unable to govern it. In their opinion, statehood was introduced to the Slavs from outside.
In 1749, Miller made a speech at a ceremonial meeting of the Academy of Sciences in connection with the anniversary of Elizabeth Petrovna's accession to the throne, in which he formulated the main provisions of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of the Russian state. The main theses of his report were that: 1) the arrival of the Slavs from the Danube to the Dnieper can be dated not earlier than the reign of Justinian; 2) the Vikings are none other than the Scandinavians; 3) the concepts "Varangians" and "Rus" are identical.
The first to speak out against the Norman theory was M.V. Lomonosov. He and his supporters began to be called anti-Normanists. Lomonosov argued that the Slavs were ahead of the Varangian tribes in terms of development, which at the time of their call to Novgorod did not know statehood: moreover, Rurik himself was a native of Porussia, a Rus, that is, a Slav.
So, the anti-Norman theory is based on the concept of the impossibility of bringing statehood from the outside, on the idea of \u200b\u200bthe emergence of the state as a stage in the internal development of society.
Over the next centuries, the struggle between the two directions in determining the reasons for the origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs becomes political. Pre-revolutionary historiography (N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, V. Klyuchevsky), recognizing the Norman version, emphasized the fact of the people's voluntary calling of the supreme power, in contrast to the West, where the formation of the state took place as a result of conquest and violence.
Researchers B. Grekov, S. Yushkov, M. Tikhomirov, recognizing the internal reasons for the formation of the Kiev state, did not deny the role of the Varangians in accelerating this process. But gradually militant anti-Normanism is being established in Soviet historiography as a reaction to the position of foreign historiographers who denied the role of the Slavs in creating their own state.
Today, there is no extreme confrontation between supporters and opponents of the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state. We are talking about the degree of the Varangian influence on the formation of statehood among the Eastern Slavs. Most historians recognize the introduction of special relations between the prince and the squad on the Slavic soil, the approval of the Rurik dynasty, but they are not inclined to exaggerate this influence, since, as he noted back in the 18th century. M. Lomonosov, in terms of political, economic and cultural development, they lagged behind the Slavs.
The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists became especially acute in the 30s of the XX century against the background of the aggravated political situation in Europe. The fascists who came to power in Germany used the existing theoretical concepts to justify their aggressive plans. Trying to prove the inferiority of the Slavs, their inability to develop independently, German historians put forward the thesis about the organizing role of the German principle in Poland, Czech Republic, and Russia.
Today, a significant part of researchers tend to combine the arguments of the "Normanists" and "anti-Normanists", noting that the preconditions for the formation of a state among the Slavs were realized with the participation of the Norman prince Rurik and his squad.
No matter how different the opinions of historians, one thing is important - the fact of the founding of 862 in Novgorod of the princely dynasty, which ruled for more than seven centuries, was perceived by the chronicler as a kind of starting point for historical time, and the unification under the rule of Oleg Novgorod and Kiev lands - as a repeated moment in historical destinies of the Eastern Slavs. As one of the Russian historians remarked, “through the beautiful fog of folk legend, history ... is visible only from the time of Oleg”. Sung by A.S. Pushkin the Prophetic Oleg is not a legendary figure, but a historical one.
In the modern era, the scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory, which explains the emergence of the Old Russian state as a result of a foreign initiative, has been fully proved. However, its political meaning is dangerous today.
The “Normanists” proceed from the proposition that the Russian people are supposedly primordial backwardness, which, in their opinion, is not capable of independent historical creativity. It is possible, as they believe, only under foreign leadership and according to foreign models.
The main evidence of the emerging statehood was: the widespread use of agriculture with the use of iron tools, the disintegration of the clan community and its transformation into a neighboring one, the growth in the number of cities, the emergence of a squad, i.e. as a result of economic and socio - political development, statehood began to take shape among the eastern Slavic tribes.
Thus, the formation of the state of Rus (the Old Russian state or, as it was called for the capital, Kievan Rus) is the natural completion of a long process of decomposition of the primitive communal system in one and a half dozen Slavic tribal unions.
The established state was at the very beginning of its path: primitive communal traditions for a long time retained their place in all spheres of life of the East Slavic society.
old Russian state Norman theory