Old Russian state Kievan Rus. Old Russian state (Kievan Rus)

1. At the end of the 9th century. the process of formation of a single Old Russian state took place. It consisted of two stages:

- the calling to reign in 862 by the inhabitants of Novgorod of the Varangians, led by Rurik and his squad, the establishment of the power of the Rurikovichs over Novgorod;

- the forced unification by the Varangian-Novgorod squad of East Slavic tribes settled along the Dnieper into a single state - Kievan Rus.

At the first stage, according to the generally accepted legend:

ancient Russian tribes, despite the beginnings of statehood, lived separately;
Enmity was common both within the tribe and between tribes;
in 862, the residents of Novgorod turned to the Varangians (Swedes) with a request to take power in the city and restore order;
at the request of the Novgorodians, three brothers arrived from Scandinavia - Rurik, Truvor and Sineus, together with their squad;

Rurik became the Prince of Novgorod and is considered the founder of the princely Rurik dynasty, which ruled Russia for more than 700 years (until 1598).

Having established themselves in power in Novgorod and mixed with the local population, the Rurikovichs and the Novgorod-Varangian squad began to unite the neighboring East Slavic tribes under their rule:

after the death of Rurik in 879, Rurik’s young son Igor (Ingvar) was proclaimed the new prince, and the military leader Prince Oleg became the de facto ruler;
Prince Oleg at the end of the 9th century. made campaigns against neighboring tribes and subjugated them to his will;
in 882, Kyiv was captured by Prince Oleg, the local Polyana princes Askold and Dir were killed;
The capital of the new state was moved to Kyiv, which was called “Kievan Rus”.

The unification of Kyiv and Novgorod in 882 under the rule of one prince (Oleg) is considered the beginning of the formation of the Old Russian state.

2. In connection with the formation of Kievan Rus, there are two common theories:

Norman, according to which the Varangians (Normans) brought the state to the Slavic tribes;
ancient Slavic, which denies the role of the Varangians and claims that the state existed before their arrival, but information in history has not been preserved; it is also hypothesized that Rurik was a Slav and not a Varangian.

Accurate archival evidence of this or that theory has not been preserved. Both points of view have their supporters and opponents. There are two theories about the origin of the term “Rus”:

“southern theory”, according to which the name came from the Ros River near Kiev;
“Northern theory”, according to which the name “Rus” was brought by the Varangians. A number of Scandinavian tribes, especially their elite - military leaders, managers, called themselves "Rus". In the Scandinavian countries there are many cities, rivers, names derived from the root “Rus” (Rosenborg, Rus, Russa, etc.). Accordingly, Kievan Rus, according to this theory, is translated as the state of the Varangians (“Rus”) with its center in Kiev.

Also controversial is the question of the existence of a single ancient Russian people and the centralized nature of the state of Kievan Rus. Most sources, especially foreign ones (Italian, Arabic), prove that even under the rule of the Rurikovichs, Kievan Rus, until its collapse, remained a union of different Slavic tribes. Boyar-aristocratic Kyiv, culturally close to Byzantium and nomads, was very different from the trading democratic republic of Novgorod, which gravitated towards the northern European cities of the Hanseatic Trade Union, and the life and way of life of the Tiverts living at the mouth of the Danube was very different from the life of Ryazan and the Vladimir-Suzdal land.

Despite this, in the 900s. (X century) there is a process of spreading the power of the Rurikovichs and strengthening the Old Russian state they created. It is associated with the names of the first ancient Russian princes:

Oleg;
Igor Rurikovich;
Olga;
Svyatoslav Igorevich.

3. In 907, the squad of Kievan Rus, led by Prince Oleg, made the first major foreign campaign of conquest and captured the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople (Constantinople). After this, Byzantium, one of the largest empires of that time, paid tribute to Kievan Rus.

4. In 912, Prince Oleg died (according to legend, from the bite of a snake hidden in the skull of Oleg’s horse).

His heir was Rurik's son Igor. Under Igor, the tribes were finally united around Kyiv and forced to pay tribute. In 945, during the collection of tribute, Prince Igor was killed by the Drevlyans, who with this step protested against the increase in the amount of tribute.

Princess Olga, Igor's wife, who reigned from 945 to 964, continued his policies. Olga began her reign with a campaign against the Drevlyans, burned many Drevlyan settlements, suppressed their protests and avenged the death of her husband. Olga was the first of the princes to convert to Christianity. The process of Christianization of the ancient Russian elite began, while the majority of the population remained pagans.

5. The son of Igor and Olga, Svyatoslav, spent most of his time on campaigns of conquest, in which he showed very great strength and courage. Svyatoslav always declared war in advance (“I’m going to fight you”) and fought with the Pechenegs and the Byzantines. In 969 - 971 Svyatoslav fought on the territory of Bulgaria and settled at the mouth of the Danube. In 972, during his return from a campaign in Kyiv, Svyatoslav was killed by the Pechenegs.

6. By the end of the 10th century. the process of formation of the Old Russian state, which lasted about 100 years (from Rurik to Vladimir Svyatoslavovich), was basically completed. Its main results can be highlighted:

under the rule of Kyiv (Kievan Rus) all the main ancient Russian tribes were united, which paid tribute to Kyiv;
at the head of the state was the prince, who was no longer only a military leader, but also a political leader; the prince and the squad (army) defended Rus' from external threats (mainly nomads) and suppressed internal strife;
from the prince's wealthy warriors, the formation of an independent political and economic elite began - the boyars;
the Christianization of the ancient Russian elite began;
Rus' began to seek recognition of other countries, primarily Byzantium.

Filaret Denisenko, hiding behind the brand “Patriarch of Kiev and All Ukraine-Rus,” recently said regarding the upcoming celebration of the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus': “ This holiday is ours, Ukrainian. And you need to realize this, because we are talking about baptism Kievan Rus, not Moscow. There was no Moscow at that time, and therefore it was too early for them to celebrate” (1). In other words, Filaret understands “Kievan Rus” a certain state with its capital in Kyiv, which adopted Christianity more than a thousand years ago and which in no case should be confused with a completely different, later state - Muscovite Russia.

You don’t need to be an outstanding historian to know: Moscow really was in the 10th century. It hasn't happened yet. Just like there was no Ukraine. However, Rus' already existed. Filaret corrects: not Rus', but Kyiv Rus! That's what the state was called!

These features of the “patriarch’s” vocabulary are worth dwelling on. In this regard, let us take a short historical excursion. Firstly, in ancient times the concept of “Kievan Rus” never not used. The name of the country and people was just a word "Rus". As an ethnic self-name, it was already used in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks in 912 and 945. The Byzantines already called Rus' "Russia". In the “Sermon on Law and Grace” (mid-11th century) the “Russian language (i.e. people)” and “Russian land” are mentioned, in the “Tale of Bygone Years” - “Russian people” (1015), “ Russian people" (1103), in "The Lay of Igor's Campaign" - "Russian land", in "Zadonshchina" - "Russian people". Already from the 11th century. The form “Russian” (with two “s”) is also fixed. At the same time, initially the entire state territory was called Russia (in the “Sermon on Law and Grace”, the Laurentian Chronicle from 1015, the Ipatiev Chronicle from 1125). Only after the collapse of the unified statehood, the name “Rus” in the narrow sense of the word was assigned to the Middle Dnieper region and the Kiev region (in the Ipatiev region - from 1140, in the Laurentian region - from 1152).

The word “Rus” (along with the word “Russia”) has been used in historical science since its inception to designate the vast space in which Russian statehood was formed and developed in the 9th-14th centuries.

What about " Kyiv Rus"? Initially, this concept arose in historical science in the mid-19th century. V narrowly geographical sense: to designate small Dnieper region - Kyiv region. This is exactly how the historian S.M. began to use it. Soloviev (1820-1879), author of the famous 29-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times” (published since 1851) (2). He, in particular, distinguished between “Kievan Rus', Chernigov Rus' and Rostov or Suzdal Rus'” (3). The same understanding is found in N.I. Kostomarova (“Russian history in the biographies of its main figures”, 1872) (4), V.O. Klyuchevsky (“Complete course of Russian history”, published since 1904) (5) and other historians of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century. another meaning has appeared - chronological: “Kievan Rus” began to be understood first (Kyiv) period of Russian history(X-XII centuries). Marxist historians N.A. started talking about this. Rozhkov, M.N. Pokrovsky, as well as V.N. Storozhev, M.D. Priselkov et al. (6). If, within the framework of the first understanding, “Kievan Rus” was a geographical part of Rus', then under the second, it was the initial stage of Russian history. Both versions were based on the idea of the inseparability of the history of Rus'.

However, at the end of the 19th century. an opposite theory took shape, according to which the historical destinies of Southern Rus' and Northern Rus' were very weakly connected, and Southern Rus' was proclaimed the historical predecessor of Ukraine alone. This theory, in particular, was intensively cultivated by M.S. Grushevsky (1866-1934). However, Grushevsky did not use the concept of “Kievan Rus”. He coined the term “Kiev State” (“Kiev State”), although he also used its synonym “Russian State” (“Russian State”) (7). Ukrainian nationalist historiography did not favor “Kievan Rus”: in the meanings of that time, it seemed to dissolve within the spatial or historical boundaries of greater Rus-Russia.

Approval of the concept of “Kievan Rus” in state-political sense - how official name of the East Slavic stateIX- XIIcenturies with its capital in Kyiv - happened only in Soviet times. In this sense, “Kievan Rus” was first used in Soviet history textbooks written after 1934, together with the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).” Textbooks were written at the direction of Stalin and underwent his personal editing ( 8). Academician B.D. Grekov, who was responsible for preparing sections until the 17th century, simultaneously prepared his main works: “Kievan Rus” (1939) and “Culture of Kievan Rus” (1944), which received the Stalin Prize. Grekov, following Grushevsky (since 1929, a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences), used the concept of “Kievan State”, but for the first time identified it with “Kievan Rus”. Since then, the concept of “Kievan Rus” began to be used precisely in this Stalinist meaning.

Grekov wrote: “I consider it necessary to point out once again that in my work I deal with Kievan Rus not in narrow-territorial sense of this term (Ukraine), namely in the broad sense of the “Rurikovich empire”, corresponding to the Western European “empire of Charlemagne” - including a huge territory on which several independent state units were subsequently formed. It cannot be said that the process of feudalization during the studied period of time throughout the entire vast expanse of the territory Kyiv State proceeded at a completely parallel pace: along the great waterway “from the Varangians to the Greeks” it undoubtedly developed more intensively and was ahead central interfluve [Volga and Oka, - F.G.]. A general study of this process only in the main centers of this part of Europe, occupied by the Eastern Slavs, seems to me in some respects admissible, but even then with constant consideration of the differences in the natural, ethnic and historical conditions of each of the large parts of this association” (9). So, Grekov directly denied the main pre-revolutionary use of the term “Kievan Rus” (“narrow-territorial”), and also noted that the territories of the vast “Kievan State”, where Moscow is now located, were poorly developed, and later generally began their independent development (as France and Germany after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire). This is exactly the scheme that is now being voiced by the “patriarch of all Ukraine-Rus.”

Did he really read the works of Grekov? Extremely doubtful. But the secret of such coincidences is revealed simply. Little Misha Denisenko went to Donetsk school in 1936. There, in the 3rd grade, he received a brand new textbook, “A Short Course in the History of the USSR,” 1937 edition, developed with the active participation of Grekov. It read: “Since the beginning of the 10th century, the Kievan Principality of the Slavs has been called Kievan Rus” (p. 13). Little Misha could well imagine the ancient Russian red-green border pillars from the time of Prince Oleg, on which the official name of the state was written: “Kievan Rus”. As stated in the same textbook, the “Russian national state” appeared only under Ivan III (p. 32). Thus, Misha learned: Kievan Rus has nothing to do with the Russians. Comrade Stalin, the main author of this textbook, was a friend of all schoolchildren, so Mikhail Antonovich firmly remembered “Kievan Rus” for many years. Let's not be demanding of him. He was just a proper Soviet schoolboy.

(2) “Kiev region (Rus in the narrowest sense)” (S. M. Soloviev, History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1993. Book 1. T. 1. Chapter 1. P. 25). “Askold and Dir became the leaders of a fairly large gang, the surrounding clearings had to submit to them... Askold and Dir settled in the glade town of Kiev... so the importance of Kiev in our history was discovered early on - a consequence of the clashes between Kievan Rus and Byzantium” (Ibid. Chapter 5 pp. 99-100).

(3) Ibid. T. 2. Ch. 6. P. 675.

(4) “Then Kievan Rus was disturbed by the Pechenegs, a nomadic and equestrian people. For about a century they had been attacking the Russian region and, under Vladimir’s father, during his absence, they almost took Kyiv. Vladimir repulsed them with success and, caring both about increasing military strength and increasing the population in the region adjacent to Kiev, populated the cities or fortified places he built along the banks of the Sula, Stugna, Trubezh, Desna rivers with settlers from different lands, not only Russian- Slavic, but also Chud” (http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/history/kostomar/kostom01.htm).

(5) Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. A complete course of lectures in three books. Book 1. M., 1993. S. 111, 239-251.

(6) Rozhkov N.A. Review of Russian history from a sociological point of view. Part 1. Kievan Rus (from the 6th to the end of the 12th century). Ed. 2nd. 1905; Pokrovsky M.N. Russian history from ancient times. T. 1. 1910; Kievan Rus. Collection of articles ed. V.N. Storozheva. Volume 1. 2nd revision. ed. 1910. Preface; Priselkov M.D. Essays on the church-political history of Kievan Rus of the X-XII centuries. St. Petersburg, 1913.

(7) See: Grushevsky M.S. History of Ukraine-Rus (1895); him, Essay on the history of the Ukrainian people. 2nd ed. 1906. pp. 5-6, 63-64, 66, 68, 81, 84.

(8) Dubrovsky A.M. Historian and power: historical science in the USSR and the concept of the history of feudal Russia in the context of politics and ideology (1930-1950s). Bryansk: Bryansk State Publishing House. University named after acad. I. G. Petrovsky, 2005. P. 170-304 (Chapter IV). http://www.opentextnn.ru/history/historiography/?id=2991

(9) Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus. M., 1939. Ch. 4; http://bibliotekar.ru/rusFroyanov/4.htm

Denial of the greatness of Russia is a terrible robbery of humanity.
Berdyaev Nikolay Alexandrovich

The origin of the ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus is one of the biggest mysteries in history. Of course, there is an official version that gives many answers, but it has one drawback - it completely rejects everything that happened to the Slavs before 862. Are things really as bad as they write in Western books, when the Slavs are compared to semi-wild people who are not able to govern themselves and for this they were forced to turn to an outsider, a Varangian, so that he could teach them reason? Of course, this is an exaggeration, since such a people cannot take Byzantium by storm twice before this time, but our ancestors did it!

In this material we will adhere to the basic policy of our site - presentation of facts that are known for certain. Also on these pages we will point out the main points that historians use under various pretexts, but in our opinion they can shed light on what happened on our lands in that distant time.

Formation of the state of Kievan Rus

Modern history puts forward two main versions according to which the formation of the state of Kievan Rus occurred:

Norman. This theory is based on a rather dubious historical document - “The Tale of Bygone Years”. Also, supporters of the Norman version talk about various records from European scientists. This version is basic and accepted by history. According to it, the ancient tribes of the eastern communities could not govern themselves and called upon three Varangians - the brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor.
anti-Norman (Russian). The Norman theory, despite its general acceptance, looks quite controversial. After all, it does not answer even a simple question: who are the Varangians? Anti-Norman statements were first formulated by the great scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. This man was distinguished by the fact that he actively defended the interests of his Motherland and publicly declared that the history of the ancient Russian state was written by the Germans and had no basis in logic. The Germans in this case are not a nation as such, but a collective image that was used to call all foreigners who did not speak Russian. They were called dumb, hence the Germans.

In fact, until the end of the 9th century, not a single mention of the Slavs remained in the chronicles. This is quite strange, since quite civilized people lived here. This question is discussed in great detail in the material about the Huns, who, according to numerous versions, were none other than Russians. Now I would like to note that when Rurik came to the ancient Russian state, there were cities, ships, their own culture, their own language, their own traditions and customs. And the cities were quite well fortified from a military point of view. This somehow loosely connects with the generally accepted version that our ancestors at that time ran around with a digging stick.

The ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed in 862, when the Varangian Rurik came to rule in Novgorod. An interesting point is that this prince carried out his rule of the country from Ladoga. In 864, the associates of the Novgorod prince Askold and Dir went down the Dnieper and discovered the city of Kyiv, in which they began to rule. After the death of Rurik, Oleg took custody of his young son, who went on a campaign against Kyiv, killed Askold and Dir and took possession of the future capital of the country. This happened in 882. Therefore, the formation of Kievan Rus can be attributed to this date. During Oleg's reign, the country's possessions expanded through the conquest of new cities, and international power also strengthened as a result of wars with external enemies, such as Byzantium. There were good relations between the Novgorod and Kyiv princes, and their minor conflicts did not lead to major wars. Reliable information on this matter has not survived, but many historians say that these people were brothers and only blood ties restrained bloodshed.

Formation of statehood

Kievan Russia was a truly powerful state, respected in other countries. Its political center was Kyiv. It was a capital that had no equal in its beauty and wealth. The impregnable fortress city of Kyiv on the banks of the Dnieper has long been a stronghold of Rus'. This order was disrupted as a result of the first fragmentations, which damaged the power of the state. It all ended with the invasion of the Tatar-Mongol troops, who literally razed the “mother of Russian cities” to the ground. According to the surviving records of contemporaries of that terrible event, Kyiv was destroyed to the ground and lost forever its beauty, significance and wealth. Since then, the status of the first city did not belong to it.

An interesting expression is “mother of Russian cities,” which is still actively used by people from different countries. Here we are faced with another attempt to falsify history, since at the moment when Oleg captured Kyiv, Rus' already existed, and its capital was Novgorod. And the princes got to the capital city of Kyiv itself, descending along the Dnieper from Novgorod.

Internecine wars and the reasons for the collapse of the ancient Russian state

Internecine war is that terrible nightmare that tormented the Russian lands for many decades. The reason for these events was the lack of a clear system of succession to the throne. In the ancient Russian state, a situation arose when after one ruler there remained a huge number of contenders for the throne - sons, brothers, nephews, etc. And each of them sought to realize their right to rule Russia. This inevitably led to wars, when supreme power was asserted with weapons.

In the struggle for power, individual contenders did not shy away from anything, even fratricide. The story of Svyatopolk the Accursed, who killed his brothers, is widely known, for which he received this nickname. Despite the contradictions that reigned within the Rurikovichs, Kievan Rus was ruled by the Grand Duke.

In many ways, it was the internecine wars that led the ancient Russian state to a state close to collapse. This happened in 1237, when the ancient Russian lands first heard about the Tatar-Mongols. They brought terrible troubles to our ancestors, but internal problems, disunity and the unwillingness of princes to defend the interests of other lands led to a great tragedy, and for 2 long centuries Rus' became completely dependent on the Golden Horde.

All these events led to a completely predictable result - the ancient Russian lands began to disintegrate. The date of the beginning of this process is considered to be 1132, which was marked by the death of Prince Mstislav, popularly nicknamed the Great. This led to the fact that the two cities of Polotsk and Novgorod refused to recognize the authority of his successor.

All these events led to the collapse of the state into small fiefs, which were controlled by individual rulers. Of course, the leading role of the Grand Duke remained, but this title was more like a crown, which was used only by the strongest as a result of regular civil strife.

Key events

Kievan Rus is the first form of Russian statehood, which had many great pages in its history. The main events of the era of Kyiv's rise include the following:

862 - the arrival of the Varangian Rurik in Novgorod to reign
882 – Prophetic Oleg captured Kyiv
907 – campaign against Constantinople
988 – Baptism of Rus'
1097 – Lyubech Congress of Princes
1125-1132 - reign of Mstislav the Great

Everyone is primarily interested in the question, where did this beautiful and powerful power called Kievan Rus come from? Where did the Russians come from? Who are they and whose descendants are we? There are many theories on this topic, some popular and some not so popular. After all, the name "" appears in foreign chronicles only in the 8th century. This is why the question arises about the origin of the name of the state... The first theory is called Varangian. She tells us that Rus' came from a tribe of Norman conquerors who incredibly often attacked European countries, traveling inland thanks to boats and the presence of rivers. They were extremely cruel and this cruelty was in their souls, they were real Viking warriors...

Researchers believe that the name “Rus” came from then. This theory was put forward by German scientists Bayer and Miller, who really believed that Kievan Rus was founded by the Normans (immigrants from Sweden). They refer to the fact that it was the Norman princes who helped the Russian people master the art of war. No matter what anyone says, the Normans played an incredible role in the creation of the state and gave rise to the Rurik dynasty.
The second most important theory of the origin of the name of the state and the Russians themselves is a theory that claims that the name comes from a river, a tributary of the Dnieper, called Ros. The tributary of the Rosi is in turn called the Rosava. On the territory of Volyn in Ukraine there is a river Roska... Therefore, Rus' could actually be named after rivers, although some believe that these rivers are named after the state...
It is worth mentioning that there is another theory of the origin of the state. A scientist from the United States named Pritsak put forward the theory that Kievan Rus was founded by the Khazars. But why then was it necessary to separate from the Russians? After all, the Khazar state was as big as Rus'. Moreover, in my opinion, the traditions of the Khazars and Russians are very different to enable us to call them one people with common roots. So, it is extremely saturated even at the beginning, not to mention in its further development...
The history of Kievan Rus has many facts that simply forced the Russians to create their own state. First of all, historians believe that it was the emergence of feudal relations that contributed to the creation of the state, as in all other European states. Then it should be said that our ancestors needed to defend themselves from enemies, the main of which were Byzantium. Their common ethnic origin only united the Russians even more. The development of trade also forced the Russians to create a state. As for Kyiv, thanks to its economic and geographical location, it began to play a huge role in relations with other states.
Scientists say that Kievan Rus was formed around the 9th century AD. It was then that a state appeared with its center in Kyiv. The heyday of Rus' occurred in the period 978-1054, when Rus' significantly expanded its territories and achieved both political and cultural development. The third period is characterized by the disintegration of the state into separate principalities. We can say with all confidence that I would never have divided the land between my sons if I had known what it would lead to...
It is worth remembering that Rus' was also developed in a cultural sense. It’s no joke to say that the children of the Kyiv prince knew several languages and were extremely educated, which cannot be said about the dynasty of other European states.
Militarily, Kievan Rus was a huge force. The best of the best of Russian warriors served with the Byzantine legions thousands of miles away from their own. Just look at the well-known example of the defense of Sicily from the Arabs in 1038-1041. Thanks to the Russian corps, Byzantium was able to leave the island behind.
The authority of Kievan Rus in Europe was unconditional. Therefore, we can be truly proud of our ancestors, who even stopped the Mongol-Tatar invasion and saved all of Europe, weakened from ruin.

The article “Kievan Rus” has disappeared from the Russian-language Wikipedia. Instead of it now - “Old Russian State”. The cradle of the “three fraternal peoples” has been handed over to the warehouse of history.

Russia and Ukraine are moving away from each other not only in politics, but also in interpretations of common history. Back in the 80s, we were taught that Kievan Rus is the cradle of three fraternal peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. But the new “feudal fragmentation” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union is slowly migrating into the works of researchers and school textbooks.

In Ukraine, since the early 90s, the concept of the Chairman of the Central Rada, Mikhail Grushevsky, who at the beginning of the 20th century declared Rus' exclusively an “ancient Ukrainian state,” became official. Russia remained silent for a long time and finally struck back.

The familiar phrase “Kievan Rus” is now quietly disappearing from scientific works and school textbooks of the Russian Federation. It is replaced by the term “Old Russian State”, which has no geographical references to Kyiv, which found itself abroad. Politics is once again reshaping history for the masses.

In fairness, we note that Kievan Rus as the official name of the early medieval state of the Eastern Slavs never existed. The chronicles, on the basis of which modern historians build their schemes, called this power simply Russia, or Russian land. It is under this name that it appears in the “Tale of Bygone Years,” written by the contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh, the Kyiv monk Nestor at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries.

But the same justice forces us to recall that the term “Kievan Rus” was coined not in Kyiv, but in... Moscow, in the 19th century. Some researchers attribute its authorship to Nikolai Karamzin, others to Mikhail Pogodin. But it came into wide scientific use thanks to Moscow University professor Sergei Solovyov (1820-1879), who widely used the expression “Kievan Rus” along with “Novgorod Rus”, “Vladimir Rus” and “Moscow Rus” in the famous “History of Russia from Ancient Times” " Soloviev adhered to the so-called “change of capitals” concept. The first capital of the ancient Slavic state, in his opinion, was Novgorod, the second was Kyiv, the third was Vladimir-on-Klyazma, the fourth was Moscow, which did not prevent Rus' from remaining one state.

The term “Kievan Rus” gained popularity thanks to the Moscow historian of the 19th century. Sergei Solovyov

After Solovyov, “Kievan Rus” penetrated from scientific works into books for secondary schools. For example, in the repeatedly reprinted “Textbook of Russian History” by M. Ostrogorsky (as of 1915, it went through 27 editions!) on page 25 you can read the chapter “The Decline of Kievan Rus.” But in pre-revolutionary Russia, history remained an elitist science. Half the population remained illiterate. An insignificant percentage of the population studied in gymnasiums, seminaries and real schools. By and large, the phenomenon of mass historical consciousness did not yet exist - for the men who met 1917, everything that happened before their grandfathers happened “under Tsar Pea.”

There was no need for the concept of “the cradle of three fraternal peoples” by the tsarist government either. Before the Great October Revolution, Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians were officially considered three Russian nationalities. Consequently, they were still, figuratively speaking, lying in the same Russian cradle. No one was going to move it a thousand years ago - into the half-dugouts of the chronicle glades, Drevlyans and Krivichi, who from their 10th century also did not care what their descendants in the 20th century would call them - “Old Russian” or “Old Ukrainian” tribes. Or ancient Belarusian, as an option.

Everything was changed by the revolution and... Stalin. Promising the masses a wonderful communist future, the Bolsheviks set out to remake the past with no less zeal. More precisely, to rewrite his picture. The work was personally supervised by the leader and teacher, who was distinguished by his enviable hard work and organizational skills. In the mid-30s, Soviet schoolchildren received the textbook “A Short Course in the History of the USSR,” where, without any doubt, it was clearly and unambiguously written, as if cut with an ax: “Since the beginning of the 10th century, the Kievan Principality of the Slavs has been CALLED KIEVAN RUS.” This textbook was intended for third graders. Thus, with the help of Stalinism and totalitarianism, the phrase “KIEVAN RUS” was hammered into the heads of several generations for the FIRST TIME. And who would dare to argue with Comrade Stalin and his People’s Commissariat of Education that this is exactly what it was called in the 10th century? To hell with this story! Here we would survive during the GREAT FRACTURES!

For high school students. Map from the history textbook of M. Ostrogorsky 1915

ACCORDING TO THE LEADER'S INSTRUCTIONS. As many as twenty pages were occupied by a section called “Kievan Rus” in the Stalinist textbook “History of the USSR” for the 8th grade, edited by Professor G. Pankratova. By the way, despite the fact that official Soviet historical science fought with the Varangians until the collapse of the Soviet Union, denying their contribution to the creation of Rus', Pankratova’s textbook was not free from the remnants of pre-revolutionary Normanism. At least he did not deny the Scandinavian origin of the founder of the Rurik dynasty.

I quote this “History of the USSR” for the 8th grade, preserving all the features of the original spelling in Ukrainian - in the language in which students of Ukrainian schools in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic studied this ideologically important subject: “Through the lands, occupied with similar words, passing the water road that joined the Baltic Sea from the Black Sea: “the path from the Varangians to the Greeks,” then from the land of the Varangians - Scandinavia - to Byzantium... This road in the 9th century. the Varangian bands walked around, searching for profit, as the inhabitants of Scandinavia were called in Contiguous Europe - the Normans... Alongside the Varangian bands with their squads, they squatted around the most important points on the “way from the Varangians to the Greeks” “And they imposed tribute on a large part of the Slovenian population. Sometimes they fell into poverty or subjugated themselves to the local Slavic princes and stood in their place. After the retelling, in the middle of the 9th century. One of these pranksters is Rurik, having established himself in Novgorod, who was the key from midnight to the Dnieper way.”

Academician Grekov grabbed his head. This is what one of the history conferences looked like in the late 40s. Everything according to Stalin's orders!

Then there was a story about the Novgorod prince Oleg, who captured Kyiv from people with clearly non-Slavic names Askold and Dir. But the schoolchildren could only guess what kind of connection he had with his predecessor Rurik and why this clearly strong-willed aggressive action of the Novgorod prince in relation to Kiev should be considered the “unification” of the small Slavic states - Novgorod and Kyiv - under the rule of Prince Oleg.

Stalin's textbook also lied about Rurik. After all, he established himself in Novgorod not “according to legend,” but according to the message of “The Tale of Bygone Years” by Nestor the Chronicler, who talks about the decision of the Novgorodians: “In the year 6370 from the creation of the world (in 862 AD) the Varangians were driven overseas, and they did not give them tribute, and began to control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation rose up, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and some Varangians are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders, and so are these. The Chud, the Slovenians, the Krivichi and all said to the Russians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came and the eldest, Rurik, sat down in Novgorod... And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed.”

Not a word about Kievan Rus, right? Only about Russian land. And initially in the north - in the Novgorod region. This Rus' was already multinational. Indeed, in addition to the Slavic tribes of the Slovenians and Krivichi, among those who called on the Varangians, the Finnish people Chud and Vse are listed (the first lived in the Baltic states, the second - east of Lake Neva). These are the very Finno-Ugrians hated by our nationalists (they consider them the ancestors of the “Muscovites”), who, according to the chronicle, became Russia earlier than the Kyiv glades! After all, the Rurikovichs had yet to conquer the glades so that they too would “Russianize.” As Nestor says: “The glades that are now called Russia.”

Oh, what a story! Well, she doesn’t want to unconditionally surrender to politics! After all, if you believe Nestor, it turns out that not only Kievan Rus, but even just Rus, Kiev was not before its capture by the Novgorod prince Oleg, whose squads consisted of Scandinavian Varangians (“Rus”), northern Slavs (Slovenes and Krivichi) and Finns (chud and weigh).

VARYAGS KEEP SILENT! Stalin was, first of all, a politician, not a historian. He introduced the myth of Kievan Rus into the mass consciousness through schools and universities in order to divert attention from the long period that preceded it.

According to the chronicle, the Novgorod prince Oleg captured Kyiv in 882. By this time, the Varangians had ruled in the north, in the region of Ladoga and Novgorod, for almost a century. Sailing from across the Baltic Sea, they took tribute from the Slavic and Finnish tribes. Ladoga became the first stronghold of the Vikings. Novgorod, after Rurik established himself there, was second. The names of the first Russian princes were of Scandinavian origin. Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingvar), Askold (Haskuld) speak for themselves. They are very different from the Slavic Vladimirs and Svyatoslavs.

All this raised numerous questions about the true history of the origins of Rus', which Stalin did not want to answer. So why not move the conversation to another topic? Why delve into the history of the appearance of the Varangians in Novgorod and evaluate their role in the creation of the Old Russian state? Let's just write that Oleg fell into Kyiv from Novgorod, without going into the details of his origin. And we will call Rus' Kyiv, so that the inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine will remember that they, too, at least a little, are still Russian.

Academician Grekov carried out Stalin’s instructions to introduce Kievan Rus into the consciousness of the masses

Comrade Stalin proclaimed that Rus' was founded not by the Swedes, but by the Slavs, and gave appropriate instructions on this matter. None of the historians could even imagine disobeying him. A decisive battle was declared against the historical “sabotage” and machinations of the Normanists! “Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the comments of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Outline of the textbook on the history of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period... already in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism there are no and cannot be place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the wild East Slavic tribes,” wrote Vladimir Mavrodin, dean of the history department of Leningrad University, in 1949 in his work “The Fight against Normanism in Russian Historical Science.”

By this moment, the unfortunate Normanists - both the dead, like the pre-revolutionary Karamzin and Solovyov, and the living, huddled under the pulpit, were finally “broken” by Academician Boris Grekov. This Lysenko from history, born in Mirgorod and teaching before the revolution in a girls’ gymnasium, had already become famous for his precise execution of Stalin’s instructions in the monographs “Kievan Rus” and “Culture of Kievan Rus”, published in 1939 and 1946. He didn't have much choice. Boris Grekov hung on Stalin's hook: in 1930 he was arrested in the so-called “Academic Case”, remembering that in 1920 the future academician ended up in Crimea with Wrangel. Fellow historians understood well that Grekov was inventing “Kievan Rus”, serving the order of the regime. But to object to him meant to argue with Stalin.

All these details were forgotten over time. Today's Ukrainian schoolchildren, who are taught this very never-existent Kievan Rus, know nothing either about Grekov or about his true inspirer with the Caucasian mustache. They also don’t ask unnecessary questions in order to pass the tests without any problems. But you and I know that Rus' was just Russia. And not ancient. And not Kyiv. It will not be possible to privatize it or hand it over to the archives of history. I am sure that amazing transformations still await this country. We are simply not able to imagine them yet.