Norman theory of the Russian state. Norman theory: where and whose

Russia is a riddle wrapped in a riddle placed inside a riddle.

W. Churchill

The Norman theory of state formation in ancient Rus' is based on the legend that the Slavic tribes could not govern themselves, so they turned to the Varangian Rurik, who came here to rule and founded the first dynasty on the Russian throne. In this material we will consider the main ideas of the Norman and anti-Norman theories, and also study the weaknesses of each of the theories.

The essence of the theory

Let's look at the brief essence of the Norman theory, which is presented in most history textbooks today. According to it, even before the formation of the Old Russian state, the Slavic tribes could be divided into two groups:

• Northern - paid tribute to the Varangians
• The southern ones paid tribute to the Khazars.

In 859, the Novgorodians expelled the Varangians and all the northern tribes began to be subordinate to the elder Gostomysl. According to some sources, this man was a prince. After the death of Gostomysl, an internecine war began between representatives of the northern tribes, as a result of which it was decided to send messengers to the son of the Varangian king (prince) and the daughter of Gostomysl Umila - Rurik. This is what the chronicle says about this.

Our land is large and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. Come reign and rule over us.

Chronicle of the call of Rurik

Rurik came to Novgorod. Thus began the reign of the Rurik dynasty, which lasted more than 5 centuries.

The origin of the theory

The emergence of the Norman theory dates back to the 18th century, when a number of German professors appeared at the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN), who formulated this theory. A key role in creating the theory of the Norman origin of the Russian state was played by Bayer, Schlozer and Miller. It was they who created the theory of the inferiority of the Slavs as a nation that was not capable of independent governance. It was under them that records first appeared in the old chronicles, on the basis of which the Norman theory was built. They were not embarrassed that almost all European countries have theories of the foreign origin of the state. In general, this was the first time in the world when foreign historians wrote the history of the country. Suffice it to say that an active opponent of the Norman theory was Mikhail Lomonosov, whose disputes with German professors often ended in a fight.

Controversial aspects of the theory

The Norman theory has a huge number of weaknesses that make it possible to doubt the veracity of this theory. Below is a table that presents the main questions about this theory and its main weak points.

The essence of foreign origin

The very idea of ​​a foreign origin of power is not unique to Norman theory, since in most European countries there are legends about the foreign origin of power. For example, Widukind of Corvey, about the origin of the English state, said that the Britons turned to the Anglo-Saxons and called on them to rule. Here are the words from the chronicle.

A great and vast land, abundant in many blessings, we entrust to your power.

Chronicle of Widukind of Corvey

Notice how similar the words in the English and Russian chronicles are to each other. I don't encourage you to look for conspiracies, but the similarities in the messages are obvious. And similar legends of foreign origin of power, when people turn to foreign representatives with a request to come and rule, are characteristic of almost all peoples inhabiting Europe.

Another fact is noteworthy - the information in the chronicle, as a result of which the brief essence of the Norman theory was subsequently formed, was initially transmitted orally, and appeared in written form only under Vladimir Monomakh. As you know, Monomakh was married to the English princess Gita. This fact, as well as the virtually verbatim coincidence of the text in the chronicles, allows many modern historians to say that stories about foreign rulers are fiction. But why was this necessary in those days, in particular for Vladimir Monomakh? There are two reasonable answers to this question:

1. Strengthening the authority of the prince and his elevation above all other people in the country.
2. Confrontation between Rus' and Byzantium. With the arrival of the first Russian ruler from the north, Vladimir Monomakh emphasized that this state had nothing in common with Byzantium.

The validity of the theory

If we consider the Norman theory not from the point of view of prejudice, but only on the basis of the facts that are in the arsenal of modern history as a science, then this theory cannot be seriously considered. The foreign origin of the state is a beautiful legend, but nothing more. If we consider the classical side of this issue, it turns out that the Slavs had nothing at all, but after Rurik appeared in the country, Kievan Rus appeared and the development of statehood began.

First of all, I want to note the fact that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Slavs had their own cities, their own culture, traditions and customs. They had their own, albeit not the strongest, army. Slavic traders and merchants were known both in the West and in the East. That is, these were signs of the emergence of statehood, which could only appear if the peoples inhabiting the territory of the East European Plain were developing well even before the arrival of the Varangians.

Confrontation with Byzantium

In my opinion, one of the best proofs that the Norman theory is inferior is the fact of the confrontation between Rus' and Byzantium. If you believe the Western theory of the origin of the Russian state, then in 862 Rurik arrived and from that moment the formation of the state and the development of the Slavs as a nation began. That is, at the time of 862, the country must be in such a deplorable state that it is forced to turn to a foreign prince to come to rule. Moreover, already in 907, Prince Oleg, who was then called the Prophetic, stormed Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. It was one of the most powerful states of that time. It turns out that in 862 we had neither a state nor the makings to found this state, and just 45 years later Rus' defeats Byzantium in the war.

There are two reasonable explanations for what is happening: either there was no war with Byzantium, or the Slavs had a powerful state, the origins of which are still hidden. Taking into account the fact that there is a huge number of facts indicating the authenticity of the war between Rus' and Byzantium, as a result of which Constantinople was taken by storm in 907, it turns out that the Norman theory is an absolute fiction and myth. This is exactly how it should be treated, since today there is not a single real fact that can be used to defend this theory.

Tell me, is 45 years enough time to form a state and create a strong army? Let's say, although in reality this is impossible. Back in 866 (only 4 years had passed since Rurik’s invitation), Askold and Dir organized a campaign against Constantinople, during which they burned the entire province of this city, and the capital of the Byzantine Empire was saved only because the Russian army was in light boats, and A strong storm began, as a result of which most of the boats were destroyed. That is, it was only because of the lack of preparation for this campaign that Constantinople survived.

Founders of the theory and the role of Tatishchev

• Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), Russian historian. Considered the founder of the theory.
• Miller Gerard Friedrich (1705-1783), German historian. Moved to Russia in 1725. He is known for collecting copies of documents on Russian history (I emphasize - copies).
• Schloezer August Ludwig (1735-1800), German historian. He worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767, and from 1769 - an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Known for his study of The Tale of Bygone Years.
• Bayer Gottlieb Siegfried (1694-171738), German historian, founder of the Norman theory. Since 1725, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

A unique case is that the history of one state is written by historians from another state. Our history was written by the Germans and surprisingly, Rurik has German-Scandinavian roots. But “our Germans” played it safe and in their works referred to Tatishchev - they say, the Russian historian laid the foundation of the theory, and they have already finalized it.

Tatishchev's problem in this matter is important, since his name is often used to justify the Scandinavian origin of Rus'. I will not go into detail on this topic, since this is a story for a whole scientific presentation, I will only say the main things. Firstly, “Tatishchev’s story” was published after the author’s death. Moreover, the original (manuscripts) were lost and then restored by Miller, who became the editor and publisher of the book. That is, when we talk about the history of Tatishchev, we must understand that all materials were published by Miller. Secondly, all materials were published without historical sources!

It turns out that the book on which the Germans put forward the Norman theory, although Tatishchev is listed as the author, was published by the Germans themselves and without any reference to historical sources.

Problems of the anti-Norman theory

The Norman theory, which we briefly reviewed above, is not indisputable and has a huge number of weaknesses. The positions of the anti-Norman theory are also controversial today, since in attempts to refute the Scandinavian version of the origin of the Russian state, some historians further confuse an already complex topic.

The main problems of the anti-Norman theory are:

• Origin of the name “Rus”. There are 2 versions of the origin of the word: northern and southern. Anti-Normans completely refute the northern origin of the word, although both versions are controversial.
• Refusal to identify Rurik of Novgorod and Rerik of Jutland, despite the fact that many Western chronological sources find amazing parallels between these characters.
• Building a theory on the numerical minority of the Varangians, as a result of which they could not significantly influence Ancient Rus'. There is logic in this statement, but we must remember that the elite of the troops of ancient Rus' were the Varangians. Moreover, often the fate of the country and people depends not on the majority, but on a strong and more promising minority.

At the same time, the anti-Norman theory is actively developing in the post-Soviet period. Of course, there are plenty of problems in this development, but it is important to understand that the Norman and anti-Norman theories are extreme points, embodying diametrically opposed points of view. The truth, as we know, is somewhere in the middle.

It remains to note that the main representatives of the anti-Norman theory are: M.V. Lomonosov, S.A. Gedeonov. Criticism of the Norman theory came mainly from Lomonosov, which is why most modern historians refer to his works.

The Norman theory is a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.

The term “Varyags” itself arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the line of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers who analyzed Nestor's narrative about the calling of the Varangians almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing the Varangian-Russians as immigrants from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G.F. Muller, Thunman, Schletser, etc. ). But back in the 18th century, opponents of this “Norman theory” began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).

However, until the sixties of the 19th century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Safarik and Miklosic. However, since 1859, opposition to Normanism arose with new, unprecedented force.

Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, it was really founded by the Scandinavians, that is, the Swedes.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the Old Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment the Varangians were called to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, “of whom Rurik and his brothers were, were not of Slavic tribe and language... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.”

M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of this “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.

Noting the role of the Slavs in the development of world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus, Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially clearly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where “the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves.” But the class contradictions that tore apart ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of popular rule: the Novgorodians “fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to gain a majority.” And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “Our land is great and abundant, but we have no outfit; Yes, you will come to us to reign and rule over us.”

Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.

In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refuted the Norman theory: “The Normans were not the dominant tribe, they only served the princes of the native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find any obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society there can be no talk of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period” (S.M. Solovyov, 1989; p. 26).

So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).

However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could have occurred not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate government, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.

In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and most likely these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also those cut down here in Rus'. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.

Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some settle here - some become princes, some warriors, some remain traders. Subsequently, the Slavs and Varangians together continue the journey “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.

Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states had long since emerged, into the Middle Ages, placing Rus' on one stage of development with them.

And although the Norman theory has not received absolute historical confirmation, we can say that with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared:

Shipbuilding, sailing, seafaring, navigation by the stars.
Expansion of trade relations.
Warfare.
Jurisprudence, laws.
The Scandinavians put Rus' on the same level of development as other developed countries.

The Norman theory is a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.

The term “Varyags” itself arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the line of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers who analyzed Nestor's narrative about the calling of the Varangians almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing the Varangian-Russians as immigrants from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G.F. Muller, Thunman, Schletser, etc. ). But back in the 18th century, active opponents of this “Norman theory” began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).

However, until the sixties of the 19th century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Safarik and Miklosic. However, since 1859, opposition to Normanism arose with new, unprecedented force.

Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, it was really founded by the Scandinavians, that is, the Swedes.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the Old Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment the Varangians were called to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, “of whom Rurik and his brothers were, were not of Slavic tribe and language... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.” Some pre-revolutionary and most Soviet historians, although from different methodological positions, disputed this theory.

Thus, Academician B.A. Rybakov argued that the Varangians appeared in Eastern Europe when the Kievan state (which supposedly arose in the 6th century) had already taken shape and was used only as a hired military force. He considered the chronicle information about the peaceful “calling of the Varangians” to be a late insertion, invented under the influence of the political situation that developed in Kyiv during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh. “Rus”, in his opinion, is a derivative of the Ros River (the right tributary of the Dnieper south of Kyiv).

M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of this “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.

Noting the role of the Slavs in the development of world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus, Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially clearly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where “the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves.” However, during that period, the class contradictions that tore apart ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of popular rule: the Novgorodians “fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to gain a majority.”

And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “Our land is great and abundant, but we have no outfit; Yes, you will come to us to reign and rule over us.”

Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.

In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refuted the Norman theory: “The Normans were not the dominant tribe, they only served the princes of the native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find any obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society there can be no talk of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period” (S.M. Solovyov, 1989; p. 26).

So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).

However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could have occurred not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate government, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.

In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and most likely these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also those cut down here in Rus'. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.

Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some settle here - some become princes, some warriors, some remain traders. Subsequently, the Slavs and Varangians together continue the journey “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.

Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states had long since emerged, into the Middle Ages.

And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared:

Shipbuilding;

Sail handling, navigation;

Navigation by stars;

Expansion of trade relations;

Warfare;

Jurisprudence, laws.

It was the Scandinavians who put Rus' on the same level of development as other developed countries.

Modern researchers, overcoming the extremes of Normanism and anti-Normanism, came to the following conclusions: the process of the formation of the state began before the Varangians, the very fact of their invitation to reign indicates that this form of power was already known to the Slavs; Rurik, a real historical figure, being invited to Novgorod to play the role of arbiter and, perhaps, defender from the “overseas Varangians” (Svei), seizes power. His appearance in Novgorod (peaceful or violent) has nothing to do with the birth of the state; the Norman squad, not burdened by local traditions, more actively uses the element of violence to collect tribute and unite Slavic tribal unions, which, to a certain extent, accelerates the process of the formation of the state.

The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, just not to give the Normanists a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the polemics on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the leading role in considering this issue. After his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists (Ilovaisky, Gedeonov) continued their polemics, the majority of representatives of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea was established about the victory of the Normanistic concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work. Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history.” Presnyakov A.E. Wilhelm Thomsen about the most ancient period of Russian history. Also the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the overwhelming majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter, in Rus' “the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg.” This statement perfectly illustrates the situation that developed in Russian science at that time - in fact, you couldn’t imagine a worse situation.

Already by the forties, the positions of Russian scientists on the Norman survey were formulated by M.I. Artamonov: the Varangians penetrated Rus' early, but they stood at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, and therefore could not bring either a higher culture or statehood to Rus'; they only joined the local process of state formation.

In the post-war years, the anti-Normanist movement developed. First of all, these are articles by B.D. Grekov with criticism of the Normanist works of T. Arne and the Finnish philologist V. Kiparsky: “On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'” and “Anti-scientific fabrications of the Finnish “professor”, the latter of which was published in 1950. Even more detailed criticism of the Norman theory was contained in the works of S. .V. Yushkova In general, what happened in science was what should have happened: the polemics of Soviet science with Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle with the scientific constructions of the last century they began to move on to specific criticism of currently existing and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main trends in foreign science.

History of Normanism and Anti-Normanism

The Norman theory was formulated in the 1st half of the 18th century under Anna Ioannovna by the German historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Bayer (1694-1738), later by G. Miller and A. L. Schlözer.

The nationalist-patriotically minded M.V. Lomonosov, who was joined in the 19th century by D.I. Ilovaisky and others (proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians). Lomonosov, in particular, argued that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). The weakness of the first anti-Normanists includes their versions, based mainly on logic and intuition, but not supported by historical evidence.

One of the first Russian historians of the mid-18th century, V.N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on the so-called Joachim Chronicle, the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

In the 1930s, Soviet historiography, after a short break, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The political confrontation with Nazi Germany forced the leadership of the USSR to intervene in the historical dispute from an ideological position. The main argument was recognized as the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism, F. Engels, that “the state cannot be imposed from the outside,” supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonist theory of the linguist N. Ya. Marr, officially promoted at that time, which denied migration and explained the evolution of language and ethnogenesis with class point of view.

The ideological setting for Soviet historians was the proof of the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the “Rus” tribe. Characteristic excerpts from a public lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin, given in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:

“It is natural that the “scientific” servants of world reaction strive at all costs to discredit and denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the importance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[…]
These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that the thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from beyond the sea,” which long ago should have been archived along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the serpent, the tempter, the global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a weapon in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[...]
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the comments of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Synopsis of a textbook on the History of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state emerging at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials from the history of the Russian state. Thus, in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, there is and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the “wild” East Slavic tribes.”

Normanists' arguments

Old Russian chronicles

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym “Germans,” uniting the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.

The chronicles left in Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians of Rus' (before 944), most of them with a distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. The chronicle mentions the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium in 912: Rurik(Rorik) Askold, Dir, Oleg(Helgi) Igor(Ingwar), Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Goods, Ruald, Karn, Frelove, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list of the treaty of 944.

Written evidence from contemporaries

Written evidence from contemporaries about Rus' is listed in the article Rus' (people). Byzantine and Western European authors identify the Rus as Swedes (Annals of Bertin, 839), Normans or Franks. With rare exceptions, Arab-Persian authors describe the Rus separately from the Slavs, placing the former near or among the Slavs.

The most important argument of the Norman theory is the essay of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus “On the management of the empire” (g.), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and interpretation of names in Greek.
Table of threshold names:

At the same time, Konstantin reports that the Slavs are tributaries (paktiots) of the Ros.

Archaeological evidence

see also

Notes

Links

• E. S. Galkina, “Secrets of the Russian Kaganate” - in chapter. “The First Battles for the Russian Kaganate” examines the history of Normanism.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the “Norman theory” is in other dictionaries:

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

NORMAN THEORY, a direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of statehood in Ancient Rus'. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century. G. 3. Bayer, G. F. Miller and others N. t ... Russian history

A trend in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Dr. Rus'. Formulated in the 2nd quarter. 18th century G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and others. The Norman theory was rejected by M.V.... ... Political science. Dictionary.

According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Rus' were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.

Background

It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. Subsequently, many major Russian historians adhered to this theory, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.

The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully outlined by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered virtually proven.

In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory took hold in the wake of the growth of ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.

Today, the moderate Norman theory prevails, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.

Two ethnonyms

The key terms used by the “Normanists” are “Varangians” and “Rus”. They are found in many chronicle sources, including in the Tale of Bygone Years:

“And they said to themselves [the Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi]: “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'.”

The word “Rus” for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically related to the Finnish term “ruotsi”, which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. Thus, linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that from “Ruotsi” the name “Rus” can be formed purely philologically.

Norman philologists do not ignore other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - “Rhodes” (Swedish “rowers”) and “Roslagen” (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, “Rhodes” could well turn into “Russians”.

However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alan tribes, which is known as "Roksolans".

“Varyags” (other scan. “Væringjar”) “Normanists” also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, focusing either on the social or on the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, mercenary warriors without an exact localization of place of residence and specific ethnicity.

Sigismund Herberstein in “Notes on Muscovy” (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word “Varangian” and the name of the tribe of Baltic Slavs - “Vargs”, which, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians “were from different tribes and languages.”

Chronicle evidence

One of the main sources that brought to us the idea of ​​“calling the Varangians to reign” is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.

Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.

Moreover, being a collection of different chronicles, “The Tale of Bygone Years” offers us three different references to the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Rus'.

In the “Novgorod Chronicle,” which absorbed the “Initial Code” that preceded the Tale from the end of the 11th century, there is no longer a comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to Rurik’s participation in the founding of Novgorod, and then explains that “the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian family.”

In the Joachim Chronicle compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

Linguistic evidence

It has now been precisely established that a number of words in the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, and words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely steward). A number of names also passed from Old Scandinavian to Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor.

An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and “Russian” languages.

Each “Russian” name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, “Varuforos” (“Big Pool”) clearly echoes the Old Icelandic “Barufors”.

Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their insignificant number.

Archaeological evidence

Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, at the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects with the image of a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs.

Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson dating back to the mid-10th century.

It is known that in 992, the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the burial ceremony of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the construction of a mound. Russian archaeologists discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread all the way to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.

However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian objects in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Rus', the burials were carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local rites.

Alternative view

Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Rus' existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of the northern and southern Slavs.

Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: “after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called polyans, the speech was Slavic.” The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people.

The Slavic theory was developed by 19th century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.

The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - the Obodrites, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym “Rusy”.

The Rus and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper region.

A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the “Russian Kaganate”, put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the Russian state was located between the Dnieper and Don. The ethnonym “Rus”, according to this hypothesis, appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.

What does genetics say?

Genetics could answer the question about the ethnicity of the founders of the Old Russian state. Such studies were carried out, but they gave rise to many contradictions.

In 2007, Newsweek published the results of studies of the genome of living representatives of the Rurikovich house. It was noted that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich family) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard universities, disagrees with such conclusions, noting that “there are no Swedish haplotypes.” He defines his belonging to the Rurikovichs by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov’s research, could indeed have lived in the 9th century, but its Scandinavian origin is questioned.

“The Rurikovichs are either carriers of haplogroup R1a, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of haplogroup N1c1,” the scientist concludes.

Elena Melnikova, a professor at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the situation can be clarified by analyzing DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in northern Russia.