The Norman theory is its essence. Norman theory

NORMAN THEORY- a direction in the study of the Russian past, whose supporters consider the Scandinavians, Vikings, and Normans to be the founders of the Russian state. The thesis about the “calling of the Varangians,” which formed the basis of the theory, as well as itself, has been used for more than three centuries in scientific and political disputes as an ideological substantiation of the concept of the inability of the Slavs, and especially the Russians, for independent state creation and development in general without the cultural and intellectual help of the West .

The Norman theory was first formulated by German scientists who worked in Russia at the invitation of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences during the reign of Anna Ivanovna (second quarter of the 18th century) - G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L., who came to St. Petersburg a little later. Schletzer. Describing the history of the creation of the Russian state, they were based on the legendary story of a chronicler from Tales of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangian king Rurik by the Slavs to Rus', who gave the name to the first Russian princely dynasty(Rurikovich, 9–16 centuries). Under the pen of these German historians, the Normans (northwestern tribes of the Varangians, Swedish Vikings) were the creators of ancient Russian statehood, their representatives formed the basis of the ruling class of ancient Russian society (princes, boyars, the top command staff of their squads in the “times of military democracy”). M.V. Lomonosov, a contemporary of Bayer, Miller and Schletser, saw in the theory they put forward a political meaning hostile to Russia and pointed out its scientific inconsistency. He did not deny the authenticity of the chronicle story, but believed that the “Varangians” (Normans) should be understood as the tribes of the Goths, Lithuanians, Khazars and many other peoples, and not just the Swedish Vikings.

In the 19th century the Norman theory acquired in the official Russian historiography of the 18th–19th centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanists were N.M. Karamzin and many others. other historians of his time. S.M. Soloviev, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', did not see in this legend any basis for thinking about the infringement of national dignity.

By the 30–50s of the 19th century. the struggle between “Normanists” and “anti-Normanists” was at the same time a struggle between “Westerners” and “Slavophiles”. It especially worsened in the 60s of the 19th century. in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862. Opponents of the theory were then D.I. Ilovaisky, N.I. Kostomarov, S.A. Gedeonov (who was the first to try to prove the West Slavic origin of the Varangians), V.G. Vasilievsky. They drew attention to the fact that the thesis about the calling of the Varangians was first turned into a theory precisely during the “Bironovschina” (when many senior positions at the court were occupied by German nobles who sought to justify the cultural role of the West for “backward” Russia). At the same time, over the previous six centuries (12th–18th centuries), the legend of Rurik’s calling was included in all works on the history of Russia, but was never the basis for recognizing the backwardness of Rus' and the highly developed state of its neighbors. And yet, the argumentation of the “anti-Normanists” was weak even by the beginning of the 20th century. the victory of “Normanism” in Russian historiography seemed obvious. Even the outstanding Russian specialist in ancient Russian chronicle textology and archeography A.A. Shakhmatov, having established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes, was still inclined to the idea of ​​​​the “decisive importance” of the Scandinavian tribes in the process state building in Rus'. He even derived the very name of the ancient Russian state from the Finnish lexeme “ruotsi” - a designation for the Swedes and Sweden.

In Soviet historical science, the question of how the ancient Russian state was created and the truth or falsity of the Norman theory acquired obvious political significance. Historians who studied the ancient period of Russian statehood (B.D. Grekov, B.A. Rybakov, M.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Mavrodin) were faced with the need to give “a fierce rebuff to the reactionary bourgeoisie, trying to denigrate the distant past of the Russian people, undermine the feeling of deep respect for him on the part of all progressive humanity." Together with fellow archaeologists, they sought to find justification high degree the decomposition of the communal system among the Slavs by the beginning - mid-9th century, since only this could confirm the presence of internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state.

However, the “Normanists”, especially those who worked on studying the history of the ancient Russian state in foreign universities, did not give up their positions. Finding Norman elements in the organization of administrative and political governance, social life, cultures, Normanists tried to emphasize that they were decisive in determining the nature of a particular social phenomenon. By the early 1960s, the Normanists had become advocates of at least one of four concepts:

1) “The concept of conquest”, leaning towards the idea of ​​​​the conquest of Russian land by the Normans (shared by the majority of Russian historians)

2) “The concept of colonization” (T. Arne) – the seizure of Russian territory by the Normans by creating Scandinavian colonies.

3) “The concept of political cooperation” between the Swedish kingdom and Russia. At first, the role of the Varangians in Rus' was that of merchants who knew foreign countries well, and later - of warriors, navigators, and sailors.

4) “The concept of a foreign elite” – creation upper class in Rus' by the Varangians (A. Stender-Petersen).

Their anti-Normanist opponents drew attention to the following points in their argumentation.

1) Representatives of the South Baltic Pomeranian Slavs, who were part of large tribal confederations of tribes, in the 8th–10th centuries. dominated the southern shores of the Baltic and determined much in the history, religion, and culture of this region, influencing the destinies and development of the Eastern Slavs, especially its northwestern region, where the first centers of Russian statehood arose - Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod. But these were not Varangians, but Pomeranian Slavs.

2) The ancient ties of the Pomeranian Slavs with the East Slavic lands were reflected in the linguistic community of the South Baltic and Novgorod (Ilmen) Slavs. The Tale of Bygone Years also says that the Slavic language and the Varangian-Russian language “are one in essence.” The chronicle found confirmation that - in the opinion of its author - there were Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and there were “Varangians - Rus'”, and the chronicler distinguished separately the Scandinavian and separately the Varangian-Russian ethnic community.

3) The existence of some ancient Russian princes Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor, etc.) and Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Varangians left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus', because those of them that lived in Rus' were assimilated (glorified).

4) The Normans themselves (Varangians) recognized high level development of Gardariki - “the country of cities”, as they called Rus'.

5) The foreign origin of the ruling dynasty is typical of the Middle Ages; the legend about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' is no exception (German dynasties originate from Roman ones, British ones from Anglo-Saxon ones).

Today, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been completely clarified. The debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists is renewed from time to time, but due to a lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean towards a compromise option, and a moderate Normanist theory arose. According to it, the Varangians had a serious influence on the ancient Slavs, but being small in number, they quickly adopted the Slavic language and culture of their neighbors.

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva

It is hardly possible in the whole world to find a people or a sufficiently ancient political entity whose origins would be unambiguously recognized by the public and historians. On the one hand, this is due to the scarcity of historical and archaeological sources medieval era, on the other hand - and this is much more important - the desire, often not fully realized, to glorify one’s fatherland, to attribute a heroic history to it. One of the fundamental themes Russian historiography This is precisely the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The first years of the existence of Kievan Rus, and even more important, driving forces its formation became almost the most important topic dispute between Russian historians for hundreds of years.

Norman theory origin of the ancient Russian state

Kievan Rus as political centralized formation, as confirmed by all authoritative sources, appeared in the second half of the 9th century. Since its inception historical science In Russia, there were a variety of theories about the origin of the ancient Russian state. Various researchers tried to find the origins of Russian statehood in Iranian elements (we are talking about the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes that once lived here), and Celtic, and Baltic (this group of peoples was still closely related to the Slavs). However, the most popular and most justified have always been only two extremely opposing views on this issue: the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state and the anti-Norman theory, its antagonist. was first formulated quite a long time ago, back in the middle of the 13th century, by the royal court historian Gottlieb Bayer.

Somewhat later his ideas were developed

other Germans - Gerard Miller and August Schlozer. The foundation for the construction of the Norman theory was a line from the famous chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Nestor described the origin of the ancient Russian state as the merit of the Varangian king Rurik and his army, which became the first military and palace elite in Rus'. According to the document, they fought with some Russians and managed to expel them from their lands. But after this there followed a period of unrest and bloody civil strife in the Slavic lands. This forced them to turn to the Russians again and call them from overseas to rule: “Our land is rich, but there is no order in it...”. In this story, German historians identified the mysterious Rus with the Scandinavian kings. This was confirmed by archaeological finds both then and later. The Varangians were indeed present in these lands in the 9th-10th centuries. And the names and their retinues were almost entirely of Scandinavian origin. Some Arab travelers also identified the Rus and Scandinavians in their records. Based on all these facts, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was born. It really had a fairly solid justification and long years was considered unshakable.

Anti-Normanist version

However, the very fact that overseas kings were called to reign meant that the Slavs themselves were simply unable to form their own state independently in the Middle Ages, as other European peoples were able to do. Such an idea could not but cause outrage among patriotic intellectuals. The first who was able to sufficiently argue against German scientists and point out the flaws in their theory was the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. In his opinion, the Rus should not be identified with foreigners, but with the local population. He pointed out the names of the local Rosava. The Varangians,

mentioned in ancient chronicles were (according to Lomonosov) not Scandinavians at all, but Slavs, who are known to historians today as the Vagr. Over time, the anti-Norman story gained momentum. However, the Normanists defended their positions for centuries. In the first decades of the existence of the Soviet state, the Norman theory was declared harmful and unpatriotic, which literally meant a veto on its further development. At the same time, the development of archaeological opportunities gave a lot to the anti-Normanists. It was discovered that a number of foreign travelers of the 9th century called the Slavs Rus. In addition, the emergence of state structures existed back in pre-Kiev times. An important argument was that the Scandinavians at that time had not created a state even in their homeland.

conclusions

Since the 1950s, both theories have again developed quite freely. The accumulation of new knowledge and facts, primarily archaeological, demonstrated that it was impossible to completely abandon all the ideas of the Norman theory. Perhaps the last significant point in this dispute was Lev Klein’s book “The Dispute about the Varangians.” The entire genesis of the development of discussions between the parties is described here, detailed analysis arguments and sources. The truth turned out, as always, somewhere in the middle. The Vikings, being experienced fighters and traders, appeared quite often in the Slavic lands and had very close contacts with the local population. They had an important and undeniable influence on the formation of government structures here, bringing innovative ideas from all over the continent. At the same time, the emergence of Kievan Rus does not seem possible without the internal readiness of the Slavic society itself. Thus, it is very likely that there were Scandinavians (for the Middle Ages this was not at all amazing fact), however their role should not be overestimated.

More specifically, the Norman theory should be understood as a direction in historiography, which tends to believe that the Varangians and Scandinavians (Normans) became the founders of Kievan Rus, that is, the first East Slavic state.

This Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state became widespread in the 18th century, during the so-called “Bironovschina”. During that period of historical development, most positions at court were occupied by German nobles. It is important to note the fact that the Academy of Sciences also included significant part German scientists. The founders of such a theory about the origin of Rus' can be called scientists I. Bayer and G. Miller.

As we found out later, this theory became especially popular under political phenomena. Also, this theory was later developed by the scientist Schletzer. In order to present their statement, scientists took as a basis messages from the famous chronicle called “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Back in the 12th century, the Russian chronicler included in the chronicle a certain story-legend that told about the calling of the Varangian brothers - Sineus, Rurik and Truvor - by the princes.

Scientists have tried in every possible way to prove the fact that statehood Eastern Slavs- this is the merit of only the Norman. Such scientists also spoke about the backwardness of the Slavic people.

So, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state contains well-known points. First of all, Normanists believe that the Varangians who came to power are the Scandinavians who created the state. Scientists say that the local people were not able to do this act. Also, the Varangians had a great cultural influence on the Slavs. That is, the Scandinavians are the creators of the Russian people, who gave them not only statehood, but also culture.

Anti-Norman theory

Naturally, this theory, like many others, immediately found opponents. Russian scientists opposed this statement. One of the most prominent scientists who spoke about disagreement with the Norman theory was M. Lomonosov. It is he who is called the initiator of the controversy between the Normanists and the opponents of this movement - the anti-Normanists. It is worth noting that the anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state suggests that the state arose due to the fact that it was accompanied by reasons that were more objective at that time.

Many sources insist that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs existed long before the Varangians appeared on the territory. The Normans were at a lower level of political and economic development, unlike the Slavs.

Another important argument is that a new state cannot arise in one day. This is a long process of social development of a particular society. The anti-Norman statement is called by some as the Slavic theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. It is worth noting the fact that Lomonosov, in the Varangian theory of the origin of the ancient Slavs, noticed the so-called blasphemous allusion to the fact that the Slavs were attributed to “defectiveness”, their inability to organize a state on their own lands.

According to exactly what theory the ancient Russian state was formed is a question that worries many scientists, but there is no doubt that each of the statements has its right to exist.

In Russia, patriotic forces have always opposed the Norman theory of the origin of national statehood, since its appearance. Its first critic was M.V. Lomonosov. Subsequently, he was joined not only by many Russian scientists, but also by historians of other Slavic countries. The main refutation of the Norman theory, they pointed out, was the fairly high level of social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. In terms of their level of development, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not borrow the experience of state building from them. The state cannot be organized by one person (in this case Rurik) or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of the complex and long development of the social structure of society. In addition, it is known that the Russian principalities various reasons and at different times they invited squads not only of the Varangians, but also of their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, and Torks. We do not know exactly when and how the first Russian principalities arose, but in any case they already existed before 862, before the notorious “calling of the Varangians.” (In some German chronicles, already from 839, Russian princes were called Khakans, i.e. kings). This means that it was not the Varangian military leaders who organized the Old Russian state, but the already existing state that gave them the corresponding government posts. By the way, there are practically no traces of Varangian influence in Russian history. Researchers, for example, calculated that per 10 thousand square meters. km of the territory of Rus', only 5 Scandinavian geographical names can be found, while in England, which was subjected to the Norman invasion, this number reaches 150.

direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century. G. Bayer, G. Miller and others.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NORMAN THEORY

direction in historiography, supporters of which consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Dr. Rus'. N. t. was formulated in German. scientists who worked in St. Petersburg. AN in the 2nd quarter. 18th century - G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and others. A.L. Shletser, who arrived in Russia, later became a supporter of N. t. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of Ancient Rus. The state was inspired by the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Rus' in 862, which, as chronicle researchers have established, is a later interpolation. This news was introduced, apparently, in the 12th century. in order to counteract the desire of Byzantium to impose political policies on Rus'. dependence together with the dependence of the church on Byzantium. Already during the period of the formation of N. t. its political character was revealed. meaning aimed at representing Dr. Rus' is an extremely backward country, the Slavs and their descendants are a people incapable of independence. ist. development, and the Germans and Normans - by force, edges from the very beginning of the Russian. history is called upon to guide Russia, its economy and culture. All R. 18th century N. T. was criticized by M. V. Lomonosov, who in connection with this began studying the history of the East. Slavs He pointed to the scientific the insolvency of N. t. and its political hostility to Russia. meaning. In the nobility-monarchy. historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. the views of the “Normanists” acquired the character of an official one. versions of origin Rus. state H. M. Karamzin even saw the special advantages of the east. from the Slavs that they themselves allegedly voluntarily elected a monarch. way of government and called in foreign sovereigns. To a greater or lesser extent, the majority of the bourgeoisie were “Normanists”. historians. S. M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the East. Slavs and transfer to the 9th century. concepts about national dignity characteristic of modern times. The struggle between the “Normanists” and the “anti-Normanists” especially intensified in the 60s of the 19th century. in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862. The opponents of N. t. were certain nobles and bourgeois. historians - D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, V. G. Vasilievsky and others. They criticized the department. specific provisions of N. t., but could not reveal its anti-scientific nature. In Sov. historiography of N. t. was overcome in the 30-40s. as a result of the works of a number of owls based on Marxist-Leninist methodology. historians and archaeologists. B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. V. Yushkov, V. V. Mavrodin and others established that the Eastern Slav. society reached in the 9th century. the degree of decomposition of the communal system when the internal ones have matured. prerequisites for the emergence of the state. The presence of certain other Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Dr. Rus' was formed on the inside. social-economic basis. They left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Dr. Rus'. The Norman Varangians who were in Rus' quickly merged with the indigenous population and became glorified. Since the 20s. 20th century provisions of N. t. included integral part in bourgeois Russian concept history, which Western historians adhere to. Europe and USA. The most prominent representatives of scientific literature in the West are: in the USA - G. Vernadsky, in England - G. Pashkevich, A. A. Vasiliev, N. Chadwick, in Denmark - philologist A. Stender-Petersen, in Sweden - T Arne, H. Arbman, in Finland - prof. V. Kiparsky. Normanist views are set forth in general works and school textbooks Western countries Europe and USA. N. t. acquired a particularly acute political sound in the environment" cold war"against the USSR and other socialist countries after the end of World War II. The version about the historical "lack of independence" of the Russian people served as an argument to justify aggressive plans against the USSR and the spread of ideas hostile to the Russian people about their past and present. Many monographs and articles on certain issues of N. t. Modern Normanism is characterized by a generally defensive position in relation to the works of Soviet scientists. Supporters of N. t. strive to defend positions on certain issues: on the composition of the ruling class in Old Rus' , about the origin of large land ownership in Rus', about trade and trade routes of Old Rus', about archaeological monuments of Old Russian culture, etc., in each of which Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, determining. Modern "Normanists" "also claim that Norman colonization of Rus' took place and that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for establishing the rule of the Normans. "Normanists" believe that Ancient Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden. Regardless of the subjective intentions of the department. scientists, supporters of N. t., and their relationship to the USSR and the Soviet Union. people, N. t. is untenable in science. relation and the bourgeoisie is used. propaganda in politics purposes hostile to the interests of the USSR. Lit.: Tikhomirov M. N., Rus. historiography of the 18th century, "VI", 1948, No. 2; him. Slavs in the "History of Russia" by prof. G. Vernadsky, ibid., 1946, No. 4; his, Chadwick's Revelations about the beginning of Russian. history, in the same place, 1948, No. 4; him. The origin of the names “Rus” and “Russian Land”, in the collection: SE, 1947, vol. 6-7; Grekov B.D., Kievan Rus, M., 1953; him, On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus', Izbr. works, vol. 2, M., 1959; him, Antiscientific. fabrications of the Finnish “professor”, ibid.; Rybakov B. A., Craft Dr. Rusi, M., 1948; him. Dr. Rus, M., 1963, p. 289-300; Yushkov S.V., Socio-political. structure and law of the Kyiv State, M.-L., 1949; Mavrodin V.V., Old Russian education. state-va, L., 1945; him. Essays on the history of the USSR. Old Russian state-vo, M., 1956; Shaskolsky I.P., Norman theory in modern times. bourgeois science, M.-L., 1965; Lowmlanski H., Zagadnienie roli norman?w w genezie panstw slowianskich, Warsz., 1957. Works of the Normanists: Thomsen V., Nachalo Rus. state-va, M., 1891; Vernadsky G., The origins of Russia, Oxf., 1959; Paszkiewicz H., The origin of Russia, L., 1954; him. The making of the Russian nation, L., 1963; Stender-Petersen A., Varangica, Aarhus, 1953; his, Russian studies, Aarhus, 1956 (“Acta Jutlandica”, t. 28, No. 2); his, Geschichte der russischen Literatur, Bd 1, M?nch., 1957; him. Der ?lteste russische Staat, "HZ", M?nch., 1960, Bd 91, H. 1; Arne T. J., La Su?de et l´Orient, Uppsala. 1914; his, Die Var?gerfrage und die sowjetrussische Forschung, "Acta archeologica", 1952, t. 23; Arbman H., Svear i?sterviking, Stockh., 1955. A. M. Sakharov. Moscow.

Supporters of which considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. The Norman theory was formulated by German scientists working at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the second quarter of the 18th century - G.3. Bayer, G.F. Miller. Later, A.L., who came to Russia, became a supporter of the Norman theory. Schlözer. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of the Old Russian state was the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Rus' in 862.

The negative side of the Norman theory lies in the presentation of Ancient Rus' as a backward country, incapable of independent state creativity, while the Normans act as a force that from the very beginning of Russian history influenced the development of Russia, its economy and culture. In the mid-18th century, M.V. criticized the Norman theory. Lomonosov, who pointed out its scientific inconsistency and political meaning hostile to Russia. In the noble-monarchist historiography of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Norman theory acquired the character official version origin of the Russian state (N.M. Karamzin). CM. Soloviev, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', refused to see in this evidence of the underdevelopment of the Eastern Slavs and to transfer to the 9th century the concepts of national dignity characteristic of the new time. The struggle between “Normanists” and “anti-Normanists” and between Slavophiles and Westerners especially intensified in the 1860s in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862, when polemics that had a pronounced political character developed around many issues of Russian history. Opponents of the Norman theory were historians D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonov, V.G. Vasilievsky, who criticized its individual specific provisions.

Norman theory in the 20th century

In Soviet historiography in the 1930-1940s, the influence of the Norman theory was overcome. The work of historians and archaeologists B.D. played a decisive role in this. Grekova, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, S.M. Yushkova, V.V. Mavrodin, who established that East Slavic society reached in the 9th century the degree of decomposition of the communal system when the internal prerequisites for the emergence of a state had matured. The presence of Old Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and Norman Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Norman Varangians who were in Rus' merged with the indigenous population and became glorified. Soviet historiography claimed that the Normans left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus'.
In Western historiography of the 20th century, the Norman theory was part of the concept of Russian history, which some researchers adhered to. Supporters of the Norman theory sought to defend their positions on certain issues: about the composition of the ruling class in Ancient Rus', about the origin of large land ownership in Rus', about trade and trade routes Ancient Rus', about the archaeological monuments of ancient Russian culture, in each of which Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, determining. Supporters of the Norman theory argued that Norman colonization of Rus' took place, that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for the establishment of the state system, that Ancient Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden.