It is generally accepted that the Russian state began with the calling of the Varangians to Rus' as rulers. How did this happen, and most importantly why. Throughout the first half of the 9th century, Slavic and Finnish tribes paid tribute to the Varangians. The Varangians came every month from overseas to collect it. In 862, the tribes gained strength and were able to drive them out of their lands. But according to one chronicle, immediately after this conflicts broke out between them.
Then, in order to stop internecine wars, the elders of the tribes decide to invite someone from the outside to the role of ruler. This ruler had to maintain a mentality and not follow the lead of any tribe. In this way, the elders wanted to achieve equality. They spent a long time looking through all possible candidates and decided to settle on the Varangians.
According to another version, Prince of Novgorod Gostomysl, before his death, ordered that his heir be a descendant of Rurik the Varangian, who was married to his daughter, whose name was Umila. Be that as it may, both legends agree on one thing. The elders of the tribes went to look for a Varangian ruler. Likhachev, in one of his translations of the chronicles, claims that the Varangians were nicknamed “Rus”. He said that the Krivichi and representatives of other tribes came to Rus' and asked to choose a prince who would rule their settlements.
Only three brothers agreed to such a strange proposal. Taking Rus' with them, they went to new lands, then to become princes there. The eldest of the three brothers, Rurik, became a prince in Novgorod, the middle brother Senius began to reign in Beloozero, and the youngest of the brothers Truvor remained in Izborsk. This is where the name Russian Land came from. Now the Varangians were responsible for peace and order between the tribes. They also oversaw the collection of taxes in order to support the army, and also guaranteed protection from foreign invaders.
According to another version, this entry in the chronicle was made by the Pechersk monks. They came up with this legend in order to highlight the independent position of Kievan Rus from Byzantine influence. According to Likhachev, this legend was created so that descendants would look for the origins of the government abroad. This was supposed to strengthen the people's faith in power, and also raise the authority of the entire dynasty to a significant level.
Some historians consider the Varangian legend to be very plausible, because it corresponded to all the stories of folklore about the emergence of individual states. Such stories can be viewed in the legend of the formation of any state. Some argue that when rewriting history, the monks called Russia not the Varangians, but the tribe that, along with the rest, came to ask for a prince for their tribes.
A significant argument to confirm this story is the record of the existence of the city of Staraya Rusa, which was made even before the Varangians appeared. This city stood on the territory of Novgorod. As a result, it becomes clear that the Russians appeared here long before the Varangian princes.
“Give me my great charm,
That charm obtained in the battle,
Obtained with the Khozar Khan in battle, -
For Russian custom I drink it to the dregs,
For the ancient Russian veche!For the free, for the honest Slavic people!
I drink Novagrad to the bell!
And even if he falls to dust,
Let its ringing live in the hearts of descendants -
Oh okay, oh okay, okay!”
These words, addressed to the “Asian” Snake Tugarin, were put into the mouth of Prince Vladimir the Red Sun in his ballad Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy. They perhaps most clearly reflected what can be called the “Novgorod myth” of Russian history. A myth not in the sense that phenomena and events that can be associated with Novgorod “freedom” did not exist, but in the sense that in the public’s ideas about Novgorod, in journalistic works and even in scientific works, dedicated to its history, scientific knowledge, ideology and cultural preferences are closely intertwined. We can say that each era and different directions of socio-political thought had its own Novgorod. Therefore, we can even talk about the existence of not one, but at least two myths about Novgorod and their countless variations.
Immediately after the fall of Novgorod's independence in 1478, the so-called “black myth” about Novgorod was born, representing the Novgorodians as eternal troublemakers, rebels, traitors and even apostates from the true faith. The Moscow chronicler, who worked shortly after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow, formulated these ideas in a short but succinct commentary on the earlier chronicle text that served as his source. Rewriting the message about the expulsion of one of the princes from Novgorod in the 12th century, the Moscow chronicler added the following to the earlier story: “This is how he was That is, “as he was.” the custom of the damned traitors.”
The image of the Novgorodians as “damned traitorous smerds” has since been resurrected more than once in scientific historiography, popular literature and journalism. As literary fashion changed and scientific knowledge accumulated, he “arran-lived” in different ways, but was always called upon to substantiate the same simple thesis: the elimination of the independence of Novgorod and its specific structure was natural, and therefore, ultimately justified.
In the 18th century, during the period when the power of the Russian autocracy was moving towards its zenith, everything that in Russian history deviated in one way or another from this autocratic trend was accepted to be criticized , but from a more rationalistic position. Gerhard Friedrich Miller was a German scientist who worked in Russia and the official historiographer of the Russian Empire (by the way, he, along with his opponent Lomonosov, was one of the first scientists who determined the Novgorod political system as a republican one) - he wrote, quite in the spirit of medieval chronicles, that the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan III, who annexed Novgorod, punished the Novgorodians for their “disobedience and rage.” At the same time, Miller reasoned that “it was necessary to pacify” Novgorod in order to “lay the foundation for the next high power and vastness of the Russian state.” Here already contained that component of the Novgorod black myth, which, changing depending on the ideological and scientific fashion, was preserved until the Soviet and even to the present time: Novgorod was doomed, and its annexation to Moscow was good in that it created the territorial basis of Russia and strengthened statehood.
In Soviet times, the black myth of Novgorod was enriched with social and class features that were inherent in Marxism, which was then dominant in historiography. It was argued that by the end of the existence of the Novgorod Republic, the Novgorod liberties essentially turned into a formality, and that only the ruling class - the boyars - were interested in maintaining independence, and the common people sought to join Moscow. Such assessments remain today. For example, a modern researcher of Novgorod, academician Valentin Yanin, emphasizes that the policy of the boyar government of Novgorod directed against Moscow was “devoid of support from the masses”; by the time Novgorod was annexed, the veche system was essentially destroyed and about some or “manifestations of democracy” at this time is no longer necessary to talk about. The loss of independence by Novgorod is assessed here purely positively, as having played “a highly outstanding role in the history of our Fatherland.”
In parallel with the black myth, there is also a “golden myth” about Novgorod. Its premises can be found in medieval Novgorod sources, in which the Novgorodians themselves proudly call themselves “free men.” However, its understanding dates back to a much later time and was reflected first not in scientific works, but in fiction and journalism.
The writer and playwright of the second half of the 18th century, Yakov Knyazhnin, in the tragedy “Vadim Novgorodsky” (dedicated, by the way, to a mythical character), exclaims through the mouth of one of the heroes:
“Until the ray of sun shines on our eyes,
On the square itself, which was once sacred to us,
Novgradsky where the people, exalted by freedom,
Subject only to being subject to laws and gods,
I submitted the charters to all countries."
This refers, of course, to the veche square, and the Novgorodians - in accordance with the traditions of classicism literature - are stylized as republican heroes of Antiquity.
Novgorod, with its liberties, was especially popular among opposition writers. Radishchev dedicated a separate chapter to Novgorod in his “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” where he argued that “Novgorod had popular rule.” In his interpretation, the latter was, naturally, to blame for the conflict between Novgorod and Moscow. Dissatisfied with the “resistance ... of the republic,” the Moscow ruler “wanted to ruin it to the ground.”
Already in the 19th century, the Decembrist poet Kondraty Ryleev spoke even more harshly:
“And the veche to dust, and ancient rights,
And a proud defender of freedom
I saw Moscow in chains.”
“We are used to solving matters at the meeting,
Submissive Moscow is not an example for us.”
When in the 1860s, during the reign of Emperor Alexander II, the liberal “Great Reforms” began in Russia, the task of which was to abolish serfdom and modernize the country, the spirit of that time began to contribute to the search for the origins of democratic principles in Rus'. After all, one of the most important reforms was the establishment of elected local government bodies: zemstvos and city councils. In the same year of 1867 as the above-cited poem by A.K. Tolstoy, the book by legal historian Vasily Sergeevich “The Veche and the Prince” was published. It emphasized the importance of self-government in ancient Russian cities, and, of course, primarily in Novgorod.
The golden myth is still alive today. Defenders of Novgorod liberties argue with scientists who are supporters of Moscow. In one of these works, published relatively recently, one can read, for example, that “the veche Novgorod approached the capture of Moscow without exhausting its historical potential,” and it died not because of internal contradictions, but as a result of an attack from the outside.
Thus, even today the history of Novgorod causes heated discussions. In order to even try to understand their relationship with real historical facts, we will have to start from afar - from the earliest stages of the history of Novgorod, since the concept according to which the prerequisites for the republican system of Novgorod should be sought in ancient times is quite popular.
The oldest surviving chronicles of the late 11th - early 12th centuries tell how in the middle of the 9th century the Slavic and Finnish-speaking tribes of northern Rus' drove the Varangians, to whom they paid tribute, across the sea. When enmity began between them after this, they sent envoys to the Varangians and summoned the Varangian prince Rurik with his brothers Sineus and Truvor. According to one chronicle version, Rurik first reigned in Ladoga (now the village of Staraya Ladoga in the Leningrad region) and only then moved to Novgorod; according to another, he immediately arrived in Novgorod. It was Rurik who was to become the founder of the dynasty that ruled Rus' until the Time of Troubles.
The calling of the Varangians in the “Tale of Bygone Years” dates back to 862, and this date is considered the conditional beginning of Russian statehood, although there is no doubt about the unreliability of the oldest chronicle chronology (the division into years was made in the initial chronicle later, retroactively).
The chronicle story about Rurik caused in the 18th century, when the formation of scientific history was just beginning in the Russian Empire, heated debates between the so-called Normanists and anti-Normanists (from the word “Normans”, literally “northern people” - this is how the Scandinavians were called in the Middle Ages). The norms proceeded from the fact that since the tribes of the north of Rus' called the Varangians to rule, then the aliens, the Scandinavians, should be considered the founders of the Russian state. Anti-Normanists, in response to this, tried with all their might to prove that both the first Russian princes and the “Varangians” themselves from the chronicles were of non-Scandinavian origin. Anti-Normanists put forward different versions regarding the origin of the Varangians. For example, Lomo-nosov identified them with the Prussians - a Germanized people living in the Baltic region - considering the latter Slavs, although in fact they were Balts, related to modern Lithuanians and Latvians. Subsequently, they looked for Slavic, Finnish, Celtic and even Turkic roots among the Varangians.
Since the center of the story was the unification of the Novgorod Slovenes (one of the East Slavic pre-state territorial-political communities, along with the Polyans, Drevlyans, Krivichi, Vyatichi and others; they lived in the basin of Lake Ilmen), and Rurik, according to the chronicle, reigned precisely in Novgorod, That “calling of the Varangians” turned out to be closely connected with Novgorod history. In particular, the concept arose that the act of calling was a kind of agreement that limited the princely power and became the basis for the development of the republican system in later times. There are also historians who argue with this concept, believing that in fact the north of Rus' was captured by the Scandinavians, as was the case in a number of other regions of Europe. But, since all information about this is limited to late and legendary chronicle stories, any definite judgments are hardly possible here. We are not even talking about hypotheses, but about guesses.
The fact that the Varangians did not play a primary role in the formation of the state is clearly seen from the fact that the socio-economic and political system of Rus' turned out to be more similar to the structure of other countries of Central and Eastern Europe than to the structure of the Scandinavian kingdoms. In particular, in Rus', as in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, the state played a very significant role, including in the organization of economic life.
On the other hand, linguistic data clearly indicate that the names of the first Russian princes were Scandinavian and a significant part of the elite of early Rus' also bore Scandinavian names. Archaeological excavations have revealed a Scandinavian presence on the territory of Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries, including in the north-west. Probably, the presence in the princely army of experienced and well-armed warriors of Scandinavian origin played a definite role in the fact that the Rurik princes managed to unite under their rule the entire vast territory inhabited by the Eastern Slavs. This did not happen either among the Western Slavs or among the Southern Slavs, on whose territories several early medieval state formations arose.
The debate around the Norman theory currently has nothing to do with science and is purely political and ideological in nature. In a certain sense, they represent “shadow boxing,” since no “Normanism” as a unified theory currently exists. The overwhelming majority of both domestic and foreign scientists recognize the mentioned elements of Slavic-Scandinavian interaction as an obvious fact, but assess its scale and significance in the history of Rus' very differently.
Already in the second half of the 10th - early 11th centuries, Novgorod became a significant center for that time, second only to Kyiv - “the mother of Russian cities” and the residence of the eldest prince in the Rurik family. Relying on Novgorod, members of the ruling dynasty extended their power to neighboring territories. Subsequently, Novgorod was subject to a gigantic periphery, stretching from the headwaters of the Volga in the south to the White Sea in the north and from the Baltic Sea in the west to the spurs of the Ural Mountains in the east.
Despite the fact that Kyiv became the main center of Rus', Novgorod retained its importance. The princes knew that their dynasty began in the North-West (or believed in it, knowing the corresponding chronicle legends). Much later, at the beginning of the 13th century, the Vladimir prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, sending his son to reign in Novgorod, emphasized what an honor he had: “God has placed on you... eldership among all your brothers, and Novgorod the Great will have eldership as prince in all Russian lands." That is, his son - as the eldest among the brothers - will rightly rule in Novgorod, where princely power first appeared in Rus'.
Novgorod, however, went down in history not thanks to its princes (it never formed its own princely dynasty, as happened in most ancient Russian lands), but thanks to its specific political system, which many historians call republican.
Recently, some authors have avoided calling Novgorod a republic. They probably strive to maintain source accuracy in this way. Indeed, there is no such term in the sources; it is a scientific concept. The Novgorodians themselves called their political entity differently: at first simply Novgorod, and from the 14th century - Veliky Novgorod. The origin of the designation “Veliky Novgorod” is not known exactly, but it is interesting that for the first time - back in the 12th century - it appears not in Novgorod, but in southern Russian chronicles, specifically in the Kiev vault as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle. Perhaps this is due to the fact that southern Russian chroniclers sought in this way to distinguish “Novgorod the Great” on the Volkhov from Novgorod Seversky, territorially close to Kyiv, in the Chernigov land. And only then did this designation penetrate into the North-West of Rus', where it was picked up by the Novgorodians who were proud of their liberties. For them, the epithet “Great” emphasized the special significance and status of Novgorod.
At the same time, it is quite legitimate to talk about the formation of a republican system in Novgorod. And it is better not to use such frequently used definitions as “boyar” or “feudal republic”.
Very early in Novgorod, a nobility independent of the prince was formed - the boyars, or, as they were more often called in Novgorod at that time, “front” or “vyach-shie” (i.e., greater) men. The highest power belonged to the prince-governor appointed from Kyiv, but his own princely dynasty did not develop in Novgorod. Already from the end of the 11th century, together with the prince of Novgorod, a mayor elected by the Novgorodians themselves ruled. The veche - the people's assembly - became increasingly important.
Novgorod freedom was finally strengthened after the turbulent events of the 1130s, when the son of the Kyiv prince Mstislav the Great, Vsevolod, was expelled from there. After this, the princes were, as a rule, invited to Novgorod by the veche. Without the consent of the Novgorodians, the prince now could not make any important decisions, that is, princely power in Novgorod existed, but was limited: the prince could not interfere in the internal affairs of city government and remove officials. Together with the mayor, he administered justice, and during the war he led the Novgorod army.
Territorially, the city of Novgorod was divided into two sides - Sofia and Trade. The sides, in turn, were divided into ends (districts), and the ends into streets. The ends gathered their veches, and there they elected the Kon-Chansky headman (mayor). The streets were governed by street elders, also elected. Only members of the Konchan associations, i.e., townspeople, were considered full-fledged Novgorodians. The population of the vast Novgorod land actually did not take any part in the discussion and resolution of the most important political issues.
The citywide meeting - the veche - elected senior officials: the mayor, the thousand and the archbishop. There are different opinions regarding who had the right to participate in the veche, but the sources are unanimous: such a right belonged to the members of the Konchan associations. The mayor played the most important role among Novgorod officials. He headed the city government and the army, concluded an agreement with the prince, conducted diplomatic negotiations, and held court together with the prince. Tysyatsky represented the trade and craft population in the city administration and was in charge of the court on trade matters. The Novgorod archbishop was the head of the Novgorod diocese. From the middle of the 12th century, he was elected by the veche and approved by the Kiev Metropolitan. In addition to leading church affairs, the archbishop participated in making all the most important political decisions. The veche also elected an archimandrite, the head of Novgorod monasticism.
The political system of Novgorod is largely similar to the structure of other European medieval republics, in particular the West Slavic city republics of Western Pomerania (the Baltic coast of modern Poland and Germany), such as Szczecin or Wolin, the trading republics of Italy and Dalmatia: Venice, Genoa, Dubrovnik, etc.
The culture of Novgorod is extremely interesting. Actually, medieval Novgorod is, perhaps, the main reservoir of our knowledge about the culture and everyday life of Ancient Rus'. Novgorod is famous for its numerous churches, including such unique monuments as the oldest ancient Russian temple - St. Sophia Cathedral (XI century) or the Church of the Transfiguration on Ilyin Street with frescoes by the outstanding Byzantine master Theophan the Greek (XIV century). Thanks to Novgorod, we can get information about those aspects of life that were previously unknown. After all, the chroniclers were mainly interested in the actions of the princes and “big politics” in general. What ancient Russian people ate, what they played, how they raised their children - we learn all this and much more thanks to large-scale archaeological excavations that have been ongoing in Novgorod for several decades. Their most brilliant result, of course, was the discovery. Among them, even such non-trivial texts were discovered as a love letter and the boy Onfim learning the alphabet.
Northwestern Rus' was not devastated during Batu's invasion, although you also had to pay tribute to the Horde. In Novgorod, in the second half of the 13th - 15th centuries, the strengthening of the republican system continued. Although from the second third of the 13th century Novgorod recognized the supreme power of the Vladimir Grand Duke, in reality, however, the powers of the princes there gradually decreased. The princes no longer participated in government themselves, but sent governors who represented them in Novgorod. It was still believed that the highest power belonged to all the residents of Novgorod who gathered at the veche, but the Novgorod boyars became richer and more powerful. By the second half of the 15th century, more than 90% of the Novgorod lands were in their possession and in the possession of less noble landowners, as well as the church.
However, contrary to popular belief, even the lowest strata of the full-fledged population of Veliky Novgorod, until the very last years of its independence, did not want to lose their freedom and valued it. One of the chronicles tells about the indignation of the Novgorod “mob” at the assembly at the attempts of the boyars in 1477 to compromise with powerful Moscow and recognize the Moscow Grand Duke as their “sovereign,” i.e., undivided ruler. This indignation led to reprisals by the mob against those they considered traitors.
As Moscow strengthens and “gathers” Russian lands, its pressure on Novgorod becomes more and more noticeable. In 1471, at the Battle of the Sheloni River, the Novgorodians were completely defeated by the troops of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III, and in 1478 Novgorod was forced to surrender to his mercy without any resistance. The Novgorod Republic was liquidated, and its unique symbol - the veche bell, which called Novgorodians to meetings - was taken to Moscow. The history of the republican model of medieval Russian statehood was coming to an end and completely ceased to exist in 1510, when Moscow liquidated the second major Russian medieval republic - Pskov.
From the above it follows that the black myth of Novgorod is to a large extent not supported by data from sources. This, however, does not mean that it needs to be replaced with a golden myth and, following Radishchev and the Decembrists, imagine Novgorod as some kind of ideal democratic republic, crushed by authoritarian Moscow.
Firstly, the overwhelming majority of the population of the Novgorod land did not take part in political life, therefore there is no need to talk about democracy (at least of the modern type) here. Secondly, even if we consider the structure of medieval Novgorod to be democratic, then this democracy was medieval, and not liberal. The full population of Novgorod was perceived not as a community of individuals endowed with political and civil rights, but as a kind of collective personality, a community of “brothers” who should always think and act unanimously. If someone tried to contradict the will of the collective, what awaited him was not the opposition bench, but severe punishment, sometimes death. If the team broke up into more or less equal parts (usually it was a split between different Konchan associations), then in the absence of a solid “vertical of power” - and in Novgorod there was none - the situation is often it came to the point of armed clashes.
Thirdly, and finally, both many adherents of the black myth (especially among historians of the Soviet era) and adherents of the golden myth are characterized by some idealization of “real democracy” as such. The first believe that Novgorod was defeated because it abandoned it, because, in their opinion, the lower classes of society were separated from the government. The latter believe that Novgorod did not abandon democracy, and mourn its destruction in the 1470s. However, Novgorod “democracy” should not be idealized. It indeed existed until the very end of Novgorod’s independence, but it was a regime in its own way at least no more “soft” or “liberal” than the Moscow monarchy.
In addition, it is permissible to ask the question: was the preservation of a collectivist veche “democracy” really useful for the survival of Novgorod? In the Venetian and Dubrovnik republics that existed until the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, very early on the most “democratic” body of power - the people's assembly - lost all significance and actually ceased to exist. The consolidation of the aristocracy, which in both Venice and Dubrovnik had the undivided right to participate in political life, contributed to the stabilization of the regime and the elimination of the threat of internal split. Who knows what the fate of Veliky Novgorod would have been like if its elite had not split into pro-Moscow and pro-Lithuanian parties in the 1470s? If these boyar parties were not interested in mobilizing “clients” in their support - “thin men-everlasting”, as the chronicle calls them? What if they could work out a coherent policy?
One way or another, the history of Novgorod is a clear refutation of the theses wandering from article to article, from speech to speech about supposedly eternal Russian despotism, about the incompatibility of Orthodoxy with the republican system, in general, the fact that A.K. mentioned at the very beginning. Tolstoy ironically described it in one of his letters with the help of sighs: “God’s will!<…>There are no batogs Batog- a stick or thick rod used for corporal punishment in Russia in the 15th-18th centuries. if not from God." As a European medieval republic, Novgorod remains a most interesting and underestimated phenomenon in Russian history.
Our ancestors did not remember how and when state life began among the Russian Slavs. When they developed an interest in the past, they began to collect and write down the legends that circulated among them about the past life of the Slavs in general, and Russians in particular, and began to look for information in Greek historical works (Byzantine “chronicles”) translated into the Slavic language. A collection of such folk legends, combined with extracts from Greek chronicles, was made in Kyiv in the 11th century. and compiled a special story about the beginning of the Russian state and about the first princes in Kyiv. In this story, the story was arranged by year (counting the years, or “years,” from the creation of the world) and brought to 1074, to the time when the “chronicler” himself lived, that is, the compiler of this initial chronicle . According to an ancient legend, the first chronicler was the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor. The matter did not stop at the “initial chronicle”: it was redone and supplemented several times, bringing into one narrative various legends and historical records that then existed in Kyiv and other places. This happened at the beginning of the 12th century. Kyiv chronicle , compiled by the abbot of the Kyiv Vydubitsky Monastery Sylvester. Its collection, called the “tale of bygone years,” was copied in different cities and was also supplemented with chronicle records: Kyiv, Novgorod, Pskov, Suzdal, etc. The number of chronicle collections gradually increased; every locality had its own special chroniclers, who began their work with the “tale of bygone years,” and continued it each in their own way, outlining the history mainly of their land and their city.
Since the beginning of different chronicles was the same, the story about the beginning of the state in Rus' was approximately the same everywhere. This story is like this.
Overseas guests (Varyags). Artist Nicholas Roerich, 1901
In the past, the Varangians, coming “from overseas,” took tribute from the Novgorod Slavs, from the Krivichi and from neighboring Finnish tribes. And so the tributaries rebelled against the Varangians, drove them overseas, began to rule over themselves and build cities. But strife began between them, and city clashed with city, and there was no truth in them. And they decided to find themselves a prince who would rule over them and establish a fair order for them. They went overseas in 862 to the Varangians - Rus' (because, according to the chronicler, this Varangian tribe was called Russia just like other Varangian tribes were called Swedes, Normans, Angles, Goths) and said Rus' : “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no structure (order) in it: go reign and rule over us.” And three brothers volunteered with their clans and their squad (the chronicler thought that they even took the whole tribe with them Rus ). The eldest of the brothers Rurik was founded in Novgorod, the other - Sineus - on Beloozero, and the third - Truvor - in Izborsk (near Pskov). After the death of Sineus and Truvor, Rurik became the sovereign prince in the north, and his son Igor already reigned in both Kyiv and Novgorod. This is how a dynasty arose, uniting the tribes of Russian Slavs under its rule.
In the legend of the chronicle, not everything is clear and reliable. Firstly, according to the story of the chronicle, Rurik with the Varangian tribe Russia came to Novgorod in 862. Meanwhile, it is known that a strong tribe Rus fought with the Greeks on the Black Sea 20 years earlier, and Rus' attacked Constantinople itself for the first time in June 860. Therefore, The chronology in the chronicle is incorrect, and the year of foundation of the principality in Novgorod is inaccurately indicated in the chronicle . This happened because the years in the chronicle text were set after the story of the beginning of Rus' was compiled, and were set according to guesses, memories and approximate calculations. Secondly, according to the chronicle it turns out that Rus was one of the Varangian, that is, Scandinavian, tribes. Meanwhile, it is known that the Greeks did not mix the tribe they knew, Rus, with the Varangians; Also, the Arabs who traded on the Caspian coast knew the Rus tribe and distinguished it from the Varangians, whom they called “Varangs.” That is, the chronicle legend, recognizing Rus' as one of the Varangian tribes, made some mistake or inaccuracy .
(Scientists long ago, back in the 18th century, became interested in the chronicle’s story about the calling of the Varangians-Rus and interpreted it differently. Some (Academician Bayer and his followers) correctly meant the Normans by the Varangians, and trusting the chronicle that “Rus” was a Varangian tribe , they also considered “Rus” to be Norman. The famous M.V. Lomonosov then armed himself against this view. He distinguished between the Varangians and “Rus” and derived “Rus” from Prussia, whose population he considered Slavic. Both of these views passed into the 19th century. and created two scientific schools: Norman And Slavic . The first remains with the old belief that “Rus” was the name given to the Varangians who appeared in the 9th century. among the Slavic tribes on the Dnieper and gave their name to the Slavic principality in Kyiv. The second school considers the name “Rus” to be local, Slavic, and thinks that it belonged to the distant ancestors of the Slavs - the Roxalans, or Rossalans, who lived near the Black Sea back in the era of the Roman Empire. (The most prominent representatives of these schools in recent times have been: Norman - M.P. Pogodin and Slavic - I.E. Zabelin.)
Calling of the Varangians. Artist V. Vasnetsov
It would be most correct to imagine the matter in such a way that in ancient times our ancestors called “Rus” not a separate Varangian tribe, for there never was such a thing, but Varangian squads in general. Just as the Slavic name “Sum” meant those Finns who called themselves Suomi, so among the Slavs the name “Rus” meant, first of all, those overseas Varangian Swedes, whom the Finns called Ruotsi. This name “Rus” circulated among the Slavs in the same way as the name “Varangians,” which explains the chronicler’s combination of them into one expression “Varangians-Rus.” The principalities formed by overseas Varangian immigrants among the Slavs began to be called “Russians,” and the squads of “Russian” princes from the Slavs received the name “Rus.” Since these Russian squads acted everywhere together with the Slavs subordinate to them, the name “Rus” gradually passed on to both the Slavs and their country. The Greeks called only those northern Normans who entered their service as Varangians. The Greeks called Russia a large and strong people, which included both Slavs and Normans and who lived near the Black Sea. - Note auto.)
Note that when the chronicle talks about country , then Rus is called the Kiev region and in general the regions subject to the Kyiv princes, that is Slavic Earth. When the chronicles and Greek writers talk about people , then the Russian language is not the Slavs, but the Normans, and the Russian language is not Slavic, but Norman. The text of the chronicle gives the names of ambassadors from the Kyiv princes to Greece; these ambassadors are “from the Russian family,” and their names are not Slavic, but Norman (almost a hundred such names are known). The Greek writer Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Porphyrogenitus) cites in his essay “On the Administration of the Byzantine Empire” the names of the rapids on the river. Dnieper “in Slavic” and “in Russian”: Slavic names are close to our language, and “Russian” names are purely Scandinavian in origin. This means that the people called Russia spoke Scandinavian and belonged to North Germanic tribes (they were “gentis Sueonum,” as one German chronicler of the 9th century said); and the country, which was called Russia after the name of these people, was a Slavic country.
Among the Dnieper Slavs, Rus' appeared in the first half of the 9th century. Even earlier than the descendants of Rurik moved to reign from Novgorod to Kyiv, there were already Varangian princes in Kyiv who attacked Byzantium from here (860). With the appearance of the Novgorod princes in Kyiv, Kyiv became the center of all Rus'.
However, at this time an invitation came from Ladoga... Why did the peoples of Northern Rus' need to call the “Varangians” for their unification? There were several reasons, and important reasons. It is worth noting that reign in the Slavic states was always hereditary. Of course, the prince’s power was limited to the veche, but the first person he met could not lay claim to this position. Thus, the “Veles Book” very clearly separates princes from boyars and governors, despite the fact that boyars sometimes also headed important enterprises. In ancient times, it was believed that both good and bad qualities are inherited. Therefore, for example, his entire family was often executed along with the villain. And the veche could choose the prince only from the clan that had the right to do so - from the descendants of the great leaders of the past. By the way, this was also observed in chronicle times. No matter how capricious, no matter how raging the Novgorod veche was, driving out unwanted princes, it never nominated a candidate from its own ranks; such a thing would never have occurred to anyone. The new prince could be invited only from princely families, even if not Russian, but Lithuanian, but necessarily related to the ruling dynasties.
Remnants of the previous state structure of the Slavs - not at all a “veche republic”, but a “veche monarchy”, which survived until the 18th century, are also visible in the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where all free gentry had the right to elect and re-elect kings, dictate their will at the diets, but not a single magnate even tried to try on the crown himself, even though he was much richer than the king and maintained a larger army. Here, too, only candidates worthy of the crown by birthright were considered. If not from Poles, then from Hungary, France, Sweden, Lithuania, Germany, Russia.
It is worth recalling that with the light hand of N.M. Karamzin and the first translators, a significant distortion of the goals of the embassy sent to Rurik crept into Russian historical literature. It was translated: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it - come reign and rule over us.” Although the word “order” does not appear in any chronicle. Everywhere it is said either “there is no order in it,” or “there is no officer in it.” That is, there is no ruler or management system (in the Middle Ages unthinkable apart from a personal ruler), and not “order.” The ruling dynasty was cut short in the male line. Most likely, in the south there were still representatives of the ancient princely families, but they were tributaries of the Khazars, and, of course, there could be no talk of transferring power to them. And Rurik was the grandson of Gostomysl through a daughter line and remained his legal heir. The Slavs practiced this before. For example, in Czech legends, after the death of the childless Czech, the people called his nephew Krok to reign from his related Poles. Yes, in general, the separation in the chronicles of the “Varangians-Rus” from the Swedes, Goths, Norwegians, Anglo-Jutlanders suggests that the initiators of the invitation did not care who they invited. Otherwise, sending an embassy “overseas” would not have been necessary at all - the entire Baltic was swarming with Vikings.
One of the northern chronicles reports that the Slavic and Finnish tribes who lived in the northwestern region after their disasters and turmoil: “And they decided to themselves: we will look for a prince who ruled us and ruled us by right.” He rowed - that means he ruled and judged. And here lies another reason why the “Varangians” were preferred. As already noted, these tribes did not always live amicably among themselves and had some mutual claims and grievances. This means that the promotion of representatives of one tribe to leadership could automatically cause the displeasure of others. Why them and not us? They should have thought more before obeying. And the result would be a new civil strife. By inviting the “Varangians-Rus”, no one received an advantage over others. It was a compromise acceptable to everyone. And a candidate from outside could theoretically ensure impartiality, judge and dress fairly.
Probably, there were also factors that influenced Rurik’s personal choice - after all, Gostomysl also had some other daughters who were married to a foreign land. And they, one must think, also had offspring. But Rurik’s great fame in the Baltic probably had an impact - his prominent position is evidenced by the very fact that the Ladoga residents knew about him and had an idea of where exactly to send ambassadors. And besides, as we have seen, the attack on Ladoga in 852 was carried out by the Danish Vikings. But the Varangians were not in the habit of being content with a one-time raid on a rich place they liked. More often, they continued to visit along the explored path: for example, they attacked Paris 6 times. Moreover, pirates of different nationalities established their own favorite routes and formed more or less permanent “spheres of interest.” So, it was mainly the Danes who went to England, the Norwegians to France, etc. Consequently, there was a danger that the Danes would come again. But it was the Danes who were Rurik’s mortal enemies, the fight against them was a vital matter for him, and this increased the likelihood that he would respond to the call and become the best defender of Ladoga and its allies from subsequent invasions. Again, he remained an outcast, able to completely connect his interests with his new homeland. In a word, all the “pluses” came together.
, the last dated mention of Rurik's actions in the West dates back to 854, when Lothair renounced his patronage. He could hold out for some time, but the hired Varangian squads, whose forces he used, would simply refuse a long and difficult defensive war - such actions did not promise booty and did not recoup losses. The people of Ladoga had connections with the Western Slavs, and if they knew about the situation in which Rurik found himself, this would be an additional argument in favor of choosing his candidacy. Of course, he would not have abandoned the captured region if things had gone well for him. That is, by the time he was called up, he was either already knocked out of Jutland or was suffering defeat. Although perhaps he hesitated for some time until the hopelessness of further war became obvious to him. And be that as it may, at that moment the invitation of Novgorod turned out to be very opportune for him. After all, he was already over forty-five, and the homeless pirate life in strange corners was no longer suitable for his age. The years required a more durable shelter (which he tried to achieve in the Jutland adventure).
Chronicles say that Rurik accepted the offer and in 862 came to Rus' with his brothers Sineus and Truvor. He himself sat down to reign in Ladoga (although chronicles often call Novgorod, based on the conditions of their time), sent Sineus to Beloozero, and Truvor to Izborsk. And two years later, after the death of the brothers, he gave their cities, as well as Rostov, Polotsk and Murom, to his boyars.
Sineus and Truvor, who strangely died overnight in 864, are not mentioned anywhere in Western sources, and the question of their very existence is now considered very controversial - the widely known version is that there never were such brothers: the chronicler simply inaccurately translated the words of some then from the Scandinavian source: “Rurik, his relatives (sine hus) and warriors (thru voring).” Most likely, we are talking about various detachments of his comrades. “Relatives” are the Obodrit Slavs who left with him after an unsuccessful operation to restore his father’s principality. And the “combatants” are ordinary Varangian mercenaries. In his previous forays into France and Spain, he always acted in conjunction with the Norwegians. Their common enmity with the Danes, who at that time were trying to crush Norway under their control, could also have brought them closer. Obviously, the Norwegians came to Rus' with him. And, by the way, the noted error with the translation indicates that during the time of Rurik some earlier “court” chronicles were written, which later became material for chronicle revisions. And that these chronicles were written not in Russian, but in Norman. Although theoretically, he really could have had some “brothers” from his inner circle. The Vikings had a custom of twinning, which was considered no less strong than blood kinship.
It is enough to look at the map to see how competently the prince deployed his forces. Ladoga controlled the very beginning of the waterway “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” And a passage into the depths of Russian lands from the Baltic. Beloozero blocked the road to the Volga, “to the Khazars.” And from Izborsk the squad could control the waterway through Lake Peipsi and the Velikaya River, as well as the roads from the west, from Estonia. Thus, Rurik secured the borders of his principality, covering possible directions of unwanted penetrations from the Baltic.
Interesting indirect information arises from the fact that by 864 new cities came under the jurisdiction of Rurik - especially Rostov and Murom. This means that he radically changed the policy of Novgorod Rus' and began an active fight against the Khazars. Because the Oka and Upper Volga were part of the zone of Khazar “interests,” and the Murom (Murom) and Merya (Rostov) tribes were tributaries of the Kaganate. Moreover, the reason for the war could have been the fact that the Meryans, as already noted, were previously part of the state of Gostomysl. Information about the clash with the Kaganate is confirmed by the Jewish “Cambridge Anonymous,” which lists the states and peoples with which Khazaria fought in the second half of the 9th - early 10th centuries. - Alania, Derbent, Zibuh (Circassians), Hungarians and Ladoga. And by the fact that two important cities remained with Rurik, we see that the struggle was victorious for him. Of course! Could the ramparts and palisades, the Pecheneg or Slavic detachments of the Khazar governors, stop the fierce professional warriors and their leader, who took impregnable Seville?
But in 864, an uprising suddenly broke out among the Slovenes under the leadership of Vadim the Brave, as reported in the Nikon Chronicle. What were his reasons? There must have been several of them connected. The Obodrite Slavs, although they were close relatives of the Ladoga residents, lived in different conditions; many differences must have accumulated between them in language, religion, and behavioral stereotypes. This did not play a special role in trade or medical-state contacts. The merchants who sailed the Baltic were accustomed to such differences and were tolerant of them, otherwise how could they trade? But the difference was immediately felt when most of the foreigners came to Rus', and even found themselves among the nobility. Well, Rurik’s squad was generally “international”, including a significant part of the Norman-Norwegians who occupied key positions under the prince. And he himself, being an exile, spent his entire adult life moving either among the Franks or among the ragtag and heterogeneous environment of the Vikings, picking up the corresponding habits and borrowings in the language. That is, instead of the “Slavic brothers” that most Slovenians imagined and would like to see, an ordinary army of Baltic thugs came to them, essentially no different from those Varangians who had been driven out earlier.
The discontent was to be aggravated by political reasons. The Eastern Slavs were accustomed to veche rule, which dictated the will of the princes and was probably especially rampant during the period of inter-government. Rurik began to introduce rule in the manner of Western kings - one-man rule. And perhaps even tougher. The kings were influenced by church hierarchs, their power was limited by large feudal lords, under them all sorts of collegial “things”, “althings”, “diets” remained for a long time. But Rurik was alien to the old Slavic boyars, the new one - from his warriors, had not yet had time to gain strength, and could a leader who was accustomed to command autocratically on board a pirate longship be considered with the veche and other “collegiality”? All sources agree that despite the violent temperament of the Vikings, they had iron discipline in their campaigns. Maintaining a professional squad also required a lot of money. But after the collapse of the Gostomysl power, such things as taxes were probably forgotten. And hardly anyone could have liked the return of the tax burden under Rurik. Hence the indication of the chronicle is clear: “That same summer, the Novgorodians were offended, saying: so be our slave, and suffer a lot of evil in every possible way from Rurik and from his family.”
There were probably religious reasons as well. The Eastern Slavs more fully and consistently managed to preserve the foundations of the ancient Vedic and Mithraic religions. Among the Baltic Wends, the same faith was already significantly different, having absorbed elements of Baltic and Germanic cults, where complex doctrines and rituals began to be replaced by acts of primitive idolatry. Well, the Varangian squads generally professed a kind of combined conglomerate of pagan beliefs, simplified to the extreme: “you give me - I give you.” Fragments of texts from the “Book of Veles” have already been cited above, emphasizing these differences. The issue of human sacrifice was expected to cause particular hostility. It has now been proven that before the arrival of the Varangians in Rus', such a custom did not exist. But the Baltic and Western Slavs had it. Although it is difficult to judge which tribes and how widespread this practice was. Western sources report sacrifices of captives by the Pomeranians, Poles, and Rugs.
And the Vikings considered such sacrifices to be the simplest and most natural way to thank their harsh gods for good luck or to ask them for new favors. It is known, for example, that even the famous pirate Hrolf, who was baptized and became the Duke of Normandy, made large contributions to the church before his death, but at the same time ordered the slaughter of a hundred captives on the altar, in order to appease Odin, just in case. They could send the victim overboard to appease the gods in a storm - which is reflected in the epic about Sadko. And the practice of human sacrifice came to Rus' precisely with the Varangians.
Thus, Leo the Deacon says that Svyatoslav’s warriors in Bulgaria stabbed captives and captives during the full moon, and before the decisive battle they slaughtered roosters and babies, although his description of these events revealed many frauds, and this news may be ordinary slander. But we also find references to such rituals in the Kyiv chronicles. Moreover, on especially solemn occasions, to commemorate a military victory or to ask for one, and perhaps on some important holidays, they also sacrificed fellow tribesmen, chosen by lot “from among the youths and maidens.”
But the Eastern Slavs, in their customs and psychological stereotypes, differed from the Saxons, who were even ready to fight to the death, setting aside the right of their children, brothers and sisters to go to the gods, exposing their breasts to the clergyman’s knife. The Ladoga priesthood was probably also indignant. Moreover, the role of the Magi in the life of society was undermined. Under veche rule, they were supposed to have a strong influence on the mood of the masses, coordinating policies and internal decisions with the “will of the gods.” But it is unlikely that the visiting Varangians took their opinions into account. In their campaigns, they were accustomed to communicate with the gods without the mediation of priests. And the main manager in their simple rituals was the same leader. By the way, it is possible that it was precisely the weakening of ancient religious foundations and the beginning of confusion in matters of faith that subsequently facilitated the victory of Christianity in Rus'. After all, the image of the All-Good Christ for the Eastern Slavs turned out to be much closer to their familiar image of the good Dazhbog than the bloody Baltic cults.
Finally, one more probable reason for the uprising can be named. Rurik's army went to the Oka and Volga, waging war with the Khazars. And the Kaganate hardly came to terms with its defeats and the threat of losing other Slavic and Finnish subjects from under its power. The Khazar merchants were very experienced diplomats and spies. And they had to do their best to fuel discontent with Rurik, try to undermine and undermine his rear. However, Rurik suppressed the uprising. “That same summer, Rurik killed Vadim the Brave and many other Novgorodians who were his confederates” (svetniki - that is, accomplices, accomplices).
And after that he placed his boyar-governors in Beloozero, Izborsk, Rostov, Polotsk, Murom. It was probably from this fact that Nestor, who kept silent or did not know about the uprising, concluded that Rurik’s brothers, who had previously ruled in Izborsk and Beloozero, died at the same time. And a number of modern historians go even further and explain their synchronous death as an uprising. But the Nikon Chronicle speaks only about the speech of the Slovenians against Rurik; the Krivichi and Ves are not mentioned in this regard. And the very word “svetniki” suggests that there was a conspiracy, and not a general widespread uprising. Therefore, another explanation seems more logical - that for the first two years Rurik tried to rule on the basis of voluntary submission, after all, the population of the region itself called on him. And only after the rebellion did he begin to “tighten the screws” and create a rigid administrative system, appointing his governors to the subject cities.
There are no further territorial acquisitions for the prince. It can be assumed that, having drawn conclusions from the manifested discontent, he assessed the fragility of his state. And he decided to be satisfied with what had been achieved for now, taking up the internal strengthening of his power and its borders. Archaeological data show that it was in the second half of the 9th century, under Rurik, that stone walls were erected in Ladoga and Izborsk. Traces of large military settlements dating back to this time were discovered on the Volga, near Yaroslavl (Timirevskoe settlement), and not far from Smolensk (Gnezdovo). Excavation data indicate that Scandinavians and some Western Slavs from the Baltic states lived there. Obviously, these settlements were border outposts and customs cordons, located on the borders of the state and blocking the most important roads - the path “to the Khazars” and “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” This assumption is confirmed by the nature of the finds. Let's say there was a large fortress in Gnezdovo, numerous Arab, Byzantine and European coins, imported things, and scales were found here. That is, passing merchants stopped here, their goods were inspected, weighed and assessed, and duties were paid, in money or in kind. Obviously, some kind of bargaining was going on right there, there were transshipment bases for traders, their resting places under the protection of the local garrison before the further journey.
It is especially worth emphasizing one important aspect of Rurik’s activities. In the Baltic and North Sea at this time, the Viking outrages continued with might and main. They completely terrorized England, several times plundered and burned cities along the Elbe, Rhine, Weser, and Moselle, repeatedly raided the lands of the Baltic Slavs, and on the east coast they continually destroyed Courland. By the middle of the 10th century. even Jutland, itself a pirate nest, was completely devastated by the Varangian raids. Only in Rus' after Rurik came to power there was not a single pirate invasion! And the fact that Rus' - by the way, the only European state that had access to the sea - gained security from Baltic predators is the undoubted merit of Rurik.
True, the Varangians began to appear on the Volga - but only to trade with the Khazars. The prince no longer fought with the Kaganate. And Khazaria, it seems, was in no hurry to upset the balance that had developed on its northern borders. The war with Rurik threatened raids by the Baltic Vikings. And the Khazar merchants, who traded all over the world, knew perfectly well what it was. Here the matter threatened such losses, in comparison with which the loss of tribute from Mary and Muroma would look like a mere trifle. But maintaining peace with the Varangians made it possible to more than compensate for the losses incurred due to the flow of slaves, which now poured through Ladoga into Khazaria from the pirate Baltic. Thus, at the end of the 9th or beginning of the 10th centuries, when several Norman squadrons reached the Caspian Sea, more than 10 thousand slaves and slaves from France and the Netherlands spilled into the markets of the East. And, undoubtedly, the Principality of Ladoga grew considerably richer due to the duties levied on such “transit”.
What about the moral side of this? But at that time people had their own morals, different from ours. Even in Christian countries, Western Europe and Byzantium, slavery was the order of the day. And if at times some bishops and traitors redeemed slaves out of charity, it was only on the grounds of religious “infringement” - Christians who had fallen into captivity among pagans or Muslims. And the institution of slavery itself did not outrage them at all. And not a single thinker or theologian spoke against him. And for those who found themselves in captivity, it was, of course, a tragedy, but not at all the end of life. We got used to it and adapted. Ibn Fadlan tells how in Bulgar the Varangians, who brought captives to sell, joked with those who had just been put up for auction and treated them to delicacies. And the girls themselves, in anticipation of the next bargaining, caressed their owners and flirted with them. If the slaves eventually found their way to the Arab East, then the woman had a chance to take an honorable place in the harem, and the man to become a warrior for some emir. That is, to receive an even higher status than the majority of the indigenous inhabitants of this country. Of course, other things happened, but everyone lived in hope for the best.
And one must think that the Slovenians and Krivichi and Meryans did not mind at all that by participating in such an enterprise, their state received additional profit. Allowing their prince to build fortresses, maintain an army to protect them, and at the same time not burden his subjects with unnecessary taxes. Having established his power and strengthened the principality, Rurik began to pursue a fairly active international policy, establishing contacts with Western states. In 871, Louis the German, in a letter to the Byzantine emperor Basil the Macedonian, spoke of four kaganates existing at that time in Europe - Avar, Bulgarian, Khazar and Norman. By which is meant the power of Rurik. And by the way, the very fact that after the arrival of the Varangians the Russian Kaganate turned into the “Norman” Kaganate testifies to its identity with Lodoga, and not with Kiev. As well as the fact that information about him comes from Germany to Constantinople, and not vice versa. By the way, later the first Kyiv princes from the Rurik dynasty called themselves “khagans”.
And then Rurik appears again in Western chronicles. In 873 - 874 he made a very large-scale diplomatic tour of Europe for that time, met and negotiated with Charles the Bald, Louis the German and Charles the Bold, Lothar’s heir. Their topic is unknown. True, G.V. Vernadsky, following some Western historians, repeats the version that Rurik was trying to return the same “fief in Friesland” to him, but this is an obvious absurdity. Would a person who owns a vast and rich principality, and at an advanced age at that, trudge overseas to beg for a miserable piece of land on which he has almost never lived? But he really could negotiate with the Western powers so that, under some conditions or for some kind of compensation, he could return his father’s principality with joint forces, considering this his unfulfilled duty in life. Perhaps they were talking about an attempt to form an alliance against Denmark, Rurik’s blood enemy. If so, then his negotiations were unsuccessful. However, here one more hypothesis can be put forward, which we will discuss later, in the appropriate place.
But at this time, perhaps during the mentioned travels, the prince further strengthens his alliance with Norway. In 874 he returned to Ladoga and married Efanda from the family of Norwegian kings. (Perhaps he was looking for a bride at the German courts?) This marriage is also recorded by Western sources. And Efanda’s brother Odda, known in Rus' as the Prophetic Oleg, either became or was already Rurik’s right hand and advisor.
By the way, the above facts completely refute the hypothesis put forward by some of our historians that Rurik was a simple impostor hired by the Ladoga residents to protect their borders, and then seized power by force and appropriated the princely title. First, his hereditary princely rights were recognized in Ingelheim at the court of Louis the Pious and then Lothair. Even if we do not take into account his pedigree, we can remember that he received flax directly from the emperor, that is, in the Frankish feudal hierarchy he corresponded, at a minimum, to the degree of count. And the title of “Kagan” already corresponded to the king. And secondly, despite the robber morals, origin was given paramount importance in Scandinavia, so the Norwegian king would under no circumstances have passed off his close relative as a simple rootless pirate, even a very successful one.
Although the prince was over sixty, he still had the strength to create a son with Efanda. And in 879, Rurik died, leaving as heir Igor, who, according to the chronicles, was “a great child.” And Oleg became the prince’s guardian and regent. There is also news of the inheritance of Rurik's possessions by another person in German chronicles. That is, contacts existed with Northern Russia, and the events taking place there were already considered necessary to monitor.
It is believed that Russian statehood began with the Rus as rulers. Why and how did this happen? In the ninth century, throughout its first half, the Krivichi, Slovenes, Meri and Chuds (Finnish and Slavic tribes) paid tribute to the Varangians coming from across the sea. In 862, these tribes drove out the Varangians, but conflicts immediately began between them - one of the chronicles (Novgorod) reports this.
Then the elders of the tribes, in order to stop the strife, decide to invite rulers from the outside. Such a ruler will remain neutral and will not defend the interests of any one tribe, and there will be equality and the end of civil strife. We thought about various foreign candidates: Varangians, Poles, Danubians. They chose the Varangians.
There is another version. Before his death, the Novgorod prince Gostomysl ordered that his heir be a descendant of the Varangian Rurik, married to his daughter Umila. One way or another, he says that the elders of the Finnish and Slavic tribes went to look for the prince among the Varangians-Rus, overseas. D.S. Likhachev, in his translation of the above-mentioned chronicle, writes that the Varangians had the nickname “Rus”, that the Slovenes, Chud, Krivichi, etc. came to Rus' and asked to choose one of their own to reign in their tribes.
They chose three brothers who agreed to the proposal. Taking all of Rus' with them, the brothers came to new lands and began to reign: Rurik, the eldest of the brothers, in Novgorod, Sineus in Beloozero, and Truvor was planted in Izborsk. This is how the name appeared - Russian Land. Now the Varangians - the Rus - were responsible for peace and order in the tribes, for collecting tribute to support the army, and for guaranteeing protection from external enemies.
Another version (expressed by D.S. Likhachev), according to which the “calling of the Varangians” was a later insertion into the chronicle. The legend was created by the Pechersk monks to emphasize the independence of Kievan Rus from the influence of Byzantium. This legend, according to Likhachev, is a reflection of the medieval tradition of looking for the origins of dynasties of rulers among the ancients, and certainly from the foreign nobility. This will supposedly increase the authority of the dynasty and add significance in the eyes of local subjects.
Other researchers of ancient history believe that the “Varangian” theme fully corresponds to the wandering folklore story about how state power arises and where the roots of the ruling dynasty grow from. Similar plots are observed in the legends of different nations. In other chronicles (Lavrentievskaya, Ipatievskaya, Trinity), the monks who rewrote the Tale of Bygone Years call Russia not the Varangians, but one of the tribes that, together with the Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi, came to invite the Varangians to the principality.
A weighty argument in favor of this version is the fact that the city of Staraya Rusa existed on the banks of the Rusa River even before the appearance of the Varangians, and it was located on Novgorod territory. Thus, the Russians were already here before the calling of the Varangian princes; they, along with other tribes, could be part of the delegation sent to the Varangians. Evidence of this version can be found in the ancient records of the “Vladimir Chronicler”, “Abridged Novgorod Chronicler”, “Degree Book” of Metropolitan Macarius and “Chronicle of Pereslavl of Suzdal”.
There are disagreements regarding the city where Rurik was imprisoned in the principality. Some chronicles (Lavrentievskaya, Novgorodskaya) claim that this is Novgorod, others (Ipatievskaya) say that first Rurik ruled in Ladoga, and when his brothers died, he founded Novgorod. The second version was probable: archaeologists claim that the most ancient buildings of Novgorod date back to the tenth century, and Ladoga is much older. And the strongest argument in favor of this hypothesis: near Novgorod there is the Rurik settlement, the residence of the prince, and it is older, as archaeologists have proven, than Novgorod itself.