Bulgarian scholar on the Soviet historiography of the beginning of Russia "Historically pregleded". Sophia. 1970, book 3. Forty years ago, the famous Slavist V. A. Moshin noted that "the main condition for the right to study the question of the beginning of the Russian state should be familiarity with everything that has already been done in this area"1 . The article of the Bulgarian scientist Emil Mikhailov "Soviet historical science on the formation of the Old Russian state" cannot claim to be an exhaustive presentation of the issue. Nevertheless, the author not only managed to convey to the Bulgarian reader the position of Soviet historians on the fundamental problems of the beginning of Russia, but also raised a number of questions that require a new and thorough consideration. E. Mikhailov fully agrees with the general conclusion of Soviet scientists that the formation of the state is primarily a certain stage in the internal development of society. The author considers convincing data on the formation of statehood in the Dnieper region in the IV-IX centuries. At the same time, he reasonably notes that, in addition to the socio - economic side, this process also has a political, "concrete-historical" side. It is precisely in the assessment of a number of major political events that the author sees discrepancies among Soviet historians. He considers B. A. Rybakov to be "extreme", and B. D. Grekov, V. V. Mavrodin and some others to be "objective" anti-Normanists who recognize the more or less significant contribution of the Normans to the creation of the political superstructure of Ancient Russia. E. Mikhailov himself especially highlights the role of Oleg, under whose rule the Dnieper region and the Novgorod land merged into one state. It should be clarified that the "extreme" anti-Normanists can be attributed not only to B. A. Rybakov, who also, as E. Mikhailov himself notes, in a number of works recognizes the reality of Rurik and admits the Scandinavian origi ... Read more