It was not Rurik who made the ancient Russian state great.
On the contrary, this ancient Russian state introduced his name, otherwise it would be forgotten, into history."
Rurik … Recently, in historical science, the opinion is gaining more and more popularity that in fact Rurik is a legendary person, and in fact, in the form in which he is presented in the annals, did not exist. What made some researchers question the very real existence of this historical character?
This statement of the question is due to several reasons at once:
a) the absence in the Russian chronicles of any specific information about Rurik (“went there,” “said that”), tied to specific dates within the framework of his reign, except for information about his reign and death;
b) the presence in the same chronicles, in relation to the story about Rurik, numerous clichés that chroniclers drew in abundance from the Holy Scriptures and from folklore, which cannot but undermine the credibility of the historical reliability of the information they set forth;
c) the absence of any mention of Rurik in non-annalistic sources until the 15th century;
d) the absence, in contrast to the European traditions of princely (royal) naming, the popularity of the name of Rurik, as the founder of the dynasty, among his descendants.
Let's try to deal with these arguments in order.
Chronicle
First, let us consider in detail the chronicle evidence of the time of Rurik's reign, since there are very few of them. In fact, only these lines tell us about the reign of Rurik after his reign:. Further in the chronicle follows a story about Askold and Dir, their “separation from Rurik and the beginning of the reign in Kiev, ending in a laconic.
All this information is set out in one article dedicated to 862, but with the proviso that the events indicated took place two years later, namely, after the death of Sineus and Truvor, that is, it turns out that in 864 the impression is made from the text of the chronicle, that all this happened as if at the same time - the death of the Rurik brothers, their acceptance of sole power and the distribution of cities to their associates, after which the next chronicle testimony tells about the death of Rurik in 879 - fifteen years later. It is this fifteen-year gap that confuses the researcher. It would be strange to think that in these fifteen years nothing happened, did not change, there were no military campaigns, conflicts and other events that abound in the history of the early Middle Ages.
However, you can look at the chronicle news from the other side. From archaeological sources, we know that all cities named in this fragment of the Tale of Bygone Years existed either before Rurik's arrival in Ladoga (Polotsk, Rostov, Murom, possibly Beloozero), or arose at the turn of his reign (Novgorod). In already existing cities from the 9th century. the "Scandinavian trace" is clearly traced, that is, there were certain trading posts, with permanent garrisons, and, accordingly, there was the own power of some local, but rather newcomers, Scandinavian leaders. Was the authority of Rurik and his retinue such that these leaders, who had not obeyed anyone until that time, resignedly and without any resistance accepted his power, allowing him to put “their husbands” in their place? This assumption seems to be dubious to say the least. Most likely, they considered Rurik, at least, equal to themselves and hardly voluntarily relinquished power in his favor. So the process of seating "their husbands" in the cities, most likely, was very extended in time and was accompanied by some, let's put it mildly, "disagreements" with the local rulers, which Rurik probably resolved as was customary then in that cruel, but their just world - through the complete elimination of all opponents, including children, in order to exclude possible dynastic conflicts in the future.
Considering the geographical remoteness of the named cities from each other, the process of "distributing" them to "their husbands" could drag on and fifteen years here does not seem such a long time, especially if we take into account that huge territories and very extended river communications were put under control with numerous portages.
So, the fifteen-year gap in the annalistic news can be explained simply by the fact that in one single article devoted to 862, not a two-year, but a seventeen-year period fit. The lack of specific news about campaigns, battles and negotiations on their results can be explained by the desire of the chronicler to exclude any mention of alternative rulers in the annals, which entered the state of Rurik. Although in the end this information nevertheless leaked into her, it is enough to recall the same Askold and Dir, the Drevlyansky Mal and Rogvolod of Polotsk. Princess Olga most likely came from the same "alternative" dynasty.
Common chronicle plots
Let's move on to considering the chronicle clichés that, according to some researchers, undermine the credibility of the sources.
The first cliché that certainly comes from Christian mythology is the Trinity. There is no need to explain the sacred meaning of the number "three" for a Christian, especially an Orthodox, and, even more, for an Orthodox monk, which were all Russian chroniclers. Trinity can be traced through the entire Tale of Bygone Years as a red thread: three sons of Noah divided the land among themselves (Rus, among other possessions went to Japhet), three brothers Kyi, Shchekn and Khoriv found the “mother of Russian cities” Kiev, three brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor found the state of Rus. But this is not enough - Svyatoslav Igorevich also divides Russia into three parts, giving it to three brothers: Yaropolk, Oleg and Vladimir, the last of whom would later become the Baptist of Russia.
The circle is closed - one of the three brothers is the progenitor of the people of Russia, one of the three brothers gives the name to the capital of Russia, one of the three brothers is the ancestor of the rulers of Russia, one of the three brothers becomes her baptist. Everything is very neat and downright canonical. A change at any stage of this sacred number would significantly distort the picture, therefore the chronicler, who apparently lived in the time of Yaroslav the Wise, sincerely believing that he was doing everything correctly, wrote this way.
The second cliché, which is much more widespread and is represented even in corners far from Europe, is the theme of strife and lack of order in the country before the new dynasty came to power, and the end of strife and the establishment of order after. Examples of such constructions can be found in the ancient Greeks and even in ancient Korea.
The third cliché, also very common, is the vocation of a foreigner as a ruler, as a person not involved in internal conflicts between local elites, who, therefore, is able to be objective and maintain law and order. That is, the authority called from the outside has great legitimacy. This cliché can also stem from Scripture (a plot with a vocation to the kingdom of Saul) and shortly before Rurik was used to compose the legend of Hengist and Horse.
In general, the legend of Hengist and Khors, or, as it is also called, the “legend of the vocation of the Saxons”, bears very close resemblance to the legend of the vocation of the Varangians - just striking and in some places not literal. I will not refrain from a quote taken from the chronicle of Vidukind of Corvey "The Deeds of the Saxons", written in the second half of the 10th century, describing the speech of the Britons' ambassadors to the Saxons:.
If we compare it with the Russian chronicle, and make allowances for "translation difficulties", then the idea arises not just of a coincidence, but of a direct borrowing, at least of the significant influence of the text of the Acts of the Saxons on the Russian chronicler.
Such influence, all the more, it seems possible that the "Tale of Bygone Years" was compiled, as researchers believe, at the court of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great, who was the son of the Saxon princess Gita Haroldovna. It is quite possible that along with the Gita, a copy of the Acts of the Saxons, later studied by Mstislav, also came to Russia. Mstislav, in turn, must have been actively involved in the writing of the "Tale" and could have included the corresponding passages in it.
Thus, what is called in historical science the concept of "source criticism" leads us to the conclusion that the "Legend of the Varangian Calling" is thoroughly imbued with mythological motives repeated in various (from the Bible to European chronicles) sources and hardly reflects with historical accuracy real events of the years, which are narrated.
Extra-chronicle sources
However, in and of itself, this does not at all speak about the complete "mythicality" and the hero of the "Tale" itself, does not refute his very existence. Rurik, even taking these considerations into account, could exist in reality and the fact that his deeds were mythologized after several centuries in itself cannot question his reality. Let's see if the name of Rurik was mentioned in any ancient Russian sources, except for the chronicles.
Historians have at their disposal a relatively small body of written sources, which can be confidently attributed to the X-XIII centuries. Even fewer of them are extra-annular. And there are very few of those from which it is possible to obtain information of a genealogical nature, since in the overwhelming majority these are texts of religious content, the exception, perhaps, is only "The Lay of Igor's Host." Still, there are such sources.
And the earliest of them is the "Word of Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion. It was compiled during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise and deserves a separate in-depth study, but within the framework of Rurik's theme, it makes sense to mention the following. In the part of the text where Illarion praises Yaroslav's father, Prince Vladimir, he lists his ancestors - Igor and Svyatoslav: etc. There is not a word about Rurik. Can this fact be explained by the "forgetfulness" of the metropolitan, or does it testify to the fact that they did not know about Rurik in his time? Or is the absence of Rurik's name in this list due to the fact that, according to tradition, it was customary to list the ancestors of a particular person only up to the second generation, creating a kind of sacred trinity? In my opinion, it is impossible to give an unequivocal answer to these questions.
Further, we can mention such a source as "Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir of Russia" by Jacob Mnich, also created in the XI century. There are lines like this: Rurik is also not mentioned, but in this case this can be explained by the fact that the author listed exactly the Kiev princes, and Rurik did not reign in Kiev.
In the "Lay of Igor's Host", despite the abundance of names mentioned in it, Rurik is also not mentioned, although, in fairness, it should be noted that there is no appropriate context to say that "this should have been here" in the work itself. That "violent Rurik" that is mentioned in the test of the Lay is Prince Rurik Rostislavich, the grandson of Mstislav the Great and a contemporary of the events described in the Lay.
For the first time, the mention of Rurik, as the ancestor of the ruling dynasty, is found already in the 15th century. The poem "Zadonshchina" contains the following lines:. Here we first come across, though not directly mentioning Rurik, but at least mentioning the patronymic of Prince Igor - Igor Rurikovich, which unambiguously for the first time tells us that Rurik is perceived by the author as Igor's father and, accordingly, the ancestor of the entire dynasty. But this is the 15th century! Six centuries have passed since the calling of the Varangians! Isn't the gap too big for the first mention of such an iconic figure?
Princely namebook
Now let us consider the third argument of the supporters of the purely legendary Rurik, concerning the princely namebook.
Indeed, for example, among the descendants of Charlemagne in Europe, the name Charles enjoyed considerable popularity, only there are ten French kings with this name, not to mention the other dukes and princes of the blood. Or, for example, the first reliably known Polish king from the Piast dynasty - Mieszko I repeated his name in the descendants at least four times, and the founder of the Serbian royal dynasty of Nemanichs Stefan Urosh passed on his name to a good ten descendants, and there are many such examples.
It is possible, however, to give a lot of opposite examples, when the name of the ancestor of the dynasty becomes especially revered and, to some extent, forbidden for descendants, but in these cases it is not used at all, while the name of Rurik was still used among his descendants, as at least twice.
Let's try to figure out who and when in ancient Russia used the name "Rurik" for the princely naming convention.
For the first time we meet this name at the great-grandson of Yaroslav the Wise Prince Rurik Rostislavich Peremyshl. Rurik Rostislavich was the eldest great-grandson of Yaroslav the Wise and, if inheritance in a direct descending male line was practiced in Russia, he would become the first contender after his father Rostislav Vladimirovich and grandfather Vladimir Yaroslavich for the grand-ducal table. However, his grandfather, Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod, the eldest son of Yaroslav the Wise, died before his father, without having been to the great reign and thus deprived all his descendants of the right to supreme power in Russia, making them outcasts.
Rostislav Vladimirovich, unable to resist his uncles Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, who organized a kind of triumvirate, was forced to flee "from Russia" and settled in Tmutarkani. There he showed himself to be a very capable ruler and an energetic warrior, which caused serious concern in the Greek Chersonesos. In 1067 Rostislav, before reaching the age of thirty, became a victim of poisoning committed by a Greek dignitary sent to him.
After himself Rostislav left three sons: Rurik, Volodar and Vasilka. Names for the prince's namebook are not at all peculiar, moreover, all these three names in the princely namebook are encountered for the first time. What was the outcast prince thinking, deprived of hereditary rights by his uncles, giving his sons such names? What message did he want to convey to his relatives at the helm of the authorities? If in this way he wanted to emphasize his belonging to the princely family, to justify his violated hereditary rights, then this may mean that already in the early 60s of the XI century. Russian princes saw themselves as descendants of Rurik. Some researchers think so, explaining the choice of the names of the rest of Rostislav's sons by allusions to the names of the baptist of Russia Vladimir, who received the Christian name Vasily - Volodar and Vasilko. However, this explanation seems unconvincing. Why Volodar and not Vladimir? And why Rostislav called his third son the distorted baptismal name of his great-grandfather, and not, for example, the everyday name of his grandfather - Yaroslav. Then the message about which supporters of such a point of view are talking would be much more obvious - three sons, named one in honor of the ancestor of the dynasty, the second in honor of the baptist of Russia, the third in honor of the closest common ancestor with the offenders-uncles. It seems that Prince Rostislav's choice of names for his sons was due to other reasons, unknown and incomprehensible to us, but in no way connected with an attempt to emphasize his belonging to the princely family.
The second and last case of naming the prince by the name of the ancestor of the dynasty is recorded already in the 12th century. This refers to the already mentioned Prince Rurik Rostislavich from the Smolensk princely house. This prince was born around 1140, when the content of the chronicle of Nestor was, of course, known and its copy was in every prince's house. Rurik was the second son of his father, Prince Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk, and all his brothers had names that were widespread among the princes: Roman (elder), Svyatoslav, Davyd and Mstislav. What reasons could have prompted his father to give his second son such an “exotic” name in the princely environment, we again can only guess. In this case, the prince was not an outcast, on the contrary, he owned and ruled one of the most powerful and populous principalities in Russia, was one of the most influential nobles of the ancient Russian state, so he did not need to prove his belonging to the ruling clan.
There were also no significant events in the Smolensk princely house or in the Smolensk land at the time of the birth of Rurik.
Thus, we cannot explain in either case, why the princes called their children by the name Rurik. But, more importantly, we cannot explain why, despite the fact that there were such cases, which indicates the absence of the taboo of this name, there are only two of them. The only satisfactory explanation seems to be that, on the one hand, for some reason this name did not have any sacred meaning for the Russian princes, and on the other, again, for some reason, it was not popular. Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the Christian-mystical plane, but I have not found any reliable research in this area.
Conclusion
Summarizing what has been said, it should be stated that the position of researchers who assert the complete legendary character of Rurik is sufficiently supported by facts and reasoning to be seriously considered by the scientific community and exist as a scientific hypothesis.
If we talk about the "Rurik problem" in general, then at present, given the set of sources that researchers in this field have, it is not possible to draw unambiguous conclusions about all the circumstances of his life, reign and personality of interest to professional researchers and history buffs. … However, historical science is constantly developing, in any case, in my opinion, it has completely succeeded in putting an end to disputes about the origin of Rurik. Perhaps, in the future, new archaeological or textual sources will be discovered that will allow scientists to deepen and concretize their knowledge in this area. Let's hope that the mysteries of the history of such an iconic and controversial character, which Rurik was and remains for our history, will eventually be solved.
List of used literature
Volkov V. G. Are all Rurikovich descended from one ancestor?
Lebedev G. S. The Viking Age in Northern Europe and Russia.
Litvina A. F., Uspensky F. B. The choice of a name among Russian princes in the X-XVI centuries. Dynastic history through the prism of anthroponymy.
Petrukhin V. Ya. Rus in the 9th-10th centuries. From the vocation of the Varangians to the choice of faith.
Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries.
Tolochko P. P. Ancient Russia.
