In Lviv, at the Lychakiv cemetery, one of the tombstones is an interesting image of the ancient Greek muse Klio. Let us remind readers that Cleo was the muse of the past (history) among the Greeks. This image is interesting in that Clea is performed with her head bent down, which means her subordinate position. And, simply put, this is an allegorical transmission of the fact that the science of the Past very often bowed its head before the powerful of this world.
We devote our next essay to an attempt to illuminate one of the most interesting, mysterious and contradictory segments of the former Eastern Slavs, Rusyns, this time of the so-called Kievan Rus. Why so called? Let's get to the heart of the matter.
In the science of the past, the debate has not ceased for a long time: "rus", "ros" - whose words are these, Slavic or foreign? Scientists have accumulated many thoughts on this matter. One of the most common: "rus" is the self-name of the Scandinavian Vikings who came to the Slavs headed by Prince Rurik. The second: "rus" is a Turkic word brought to the Slavs from the Khazars. The third: "Rus" is a gift to the Slavs from the Goths, in particular, from the self-designation of one Germanic tribe that lived in the Dnieper region and was called "gross".
The doctrine, which is habitual and familiar to us from school, based on the "Tale of Bygone Years" (PVL), refers the emergence of Russia to the 9th century, in particular: "from the Vikings, you were called Rus, and the first mad was Slovenia."
And, of course, all lovers of the thesis about the savagery and illiteracy of the Slavs clap their hands together. But, my friends, let us be aware that the Tale of Bygone Years came to us in the census of the 16th century, and it was discovered even later, in the 18th century. Be that as it may, the case with the annals is not very simple. If the PVL refers "Russia" to the 9th century, then another source, in the census of the same 16th century, "The Life of Stephen of Sourozh", speaks of the "rossky army" headed by Prince Bravlin already in the 8th century. Strange, isn't it? How could Russia end up in the 8th century, which should appear among the Slavs only at the end of the 9th century?
And then it's even more interesting. The Vertinsky annals, a Western European source, say that in 839 some ambassadors of the "Russian Khakan" visited the Emperor Louis. This is interesting because the Dnieper, according to the chronicle, only in 852 will be called the Rus Land. And here are the ambassadors, and even in Western Europe. With all this, the author of the Vertinsky Annals says that he still considers these Russians to be Suevs, that is, Swedes. In other words, the ancients understood that Russia and the Suevi were not the same thing.
Let's move on. Is there in Sweden, perhaps ever, a tribe named "Rus", "Rus"? No, there has never been such a tribe or nationality in Sweden. And all medieval authors associate Russia only with the Northern Black Sea region. Why, then, in the science of the past, the idea of the Norman origin of Russia arose?
The fact is that in the embassies of the Russian rulers there were indeed Scandinavians, Suevi, who made up most of the ambassadors. But this is not surprising, since the Suevi (Vikings) were well acquainted with the rules and customs of European courts, they personally knew many courtiers and kings. The Slavs certainly did not have such diplomatic experience.
Promotional video:
It should also be noted that among the military graves in Russia VIII-IX centuries. Normans are an insignificant number in comparison with the burials of Slavic soldiers. Therefore, we conclude that the presence of a certain number of Normans in the state life of the Eastern Slavs does not give grounds to assert the Norman origin of Russia, especially since the former Sweden does not know any Rus, except for the one they called “Rusland” or “Gardarika” located on the banks of the Dnieper.
In 852, as the Rus Chronicle testifies, our land began to be called Rus. This message should be understood as a kind of state act that clearly established the self-name already well-established among the people. As for the aforementioned "Kievan Rus", it never existed, except in the imagination of historians, who thus tried to substantiate why for many centuries the capital of Rus - Kiev, had nothing to do with the Russian state.
Separately, we will dwell on the annals, the annals of Russia, for it is on their basis that the prevailing idea of medieval Russia is compiled. Firstly, native believers should understand that not a single ancient chronicle has survived to our time, but all of them exist in censuses dating from the 15th-17th centuries. Secondly, the Old Russian chronicles, and the vaults of the same Russian Chronicle, seriously contradict each other in their dating. For example, the Laurentian Code reports that Prince Oleg died in 912 and was buried in Kiev. What contradicts the Novgorod vault, claiming that this prince died in 922 in the city of Ladoga, where he was buried. Both stories are recognized by science as authentic. Thirdly, the ancient Russian chronicles contradict foreign sources of the same time in describing many events. For example, the chronicle statesthat Olga was baptized in Constantinople by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, while the emperor himself writes in his notes that Olga arrived already baptized, and in addition with her priest. Unlike the ancient Russian chronicles, not a single source of Byzantium, Bulgaria or any other people knows anything about the baptism of Rus in 988. Fourthly, despite the fact that the chronicles are considered the first written monuments of Rus, foreign sources claim that the Slavs had a written language long before the appearance of both the annals and Christianity in general. In particular, Germanic priests repeatedly point out that their names were carved on the idols of the Slavic Gods (I hope the reader understands that they could not have been written in the alphabet created by Christian priests for the needs of the Christian church). Arab travelers point outthat on the memorial grave signs the pagans of as-Sakaliba (as the Arabs called the Slavs) wrote the names of the dead, as a rule, nobles and kings.
All this and much more gives us the right and serves as a reason for revising and rethinking the most contradictory statements of the official science about the Past (history). What we will continue to do in the next articles.
Bohumir MYKOLAEV
