Norman theory. How did the state appear in Rus'?
The Norman theory is one of the most important controversial aspects of the history of the Russian state. This theory in itself is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was charged with some kind of secondary importance, seemingly based on reliable facts, the Russian people were ascribed a terrible failure even in purely national issues. It’s a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Rus' was firmly in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory.
Moreover, among ardent supporters Norman theory In addition to foreign historians and ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time The position of the Norman theory in science in general was strong and unshakable. Only in the second half of our century did Normanism lose its position in science. IN given time The standard is the statement that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the entire struggle between Normanists and anti-Normanists, the first searched for this very evidence, often fabricating it, while others tried to prove the groundlessness of the guesses and theories derived by the Normanists.
According to the Norman theory, based on a misinterpretation of Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the eastern Slavic tribes and constituted the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the Rurik princes. What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which translated into the generally accepted calendar is the year 862.
They drove the Varangians over the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to fight against themselves more and more, and there was no truth in them, and generation after generation rose up, and more and more fought against themselves. And we decided within ourselves: “Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us rightfully.” And I went to the Varangians, to Rus'; This lot is called Varyazi Rus', as all the druzii are called Svie, the druzii are Urman, Anglyan, druzii Gate, tako and si. Decided to Rus' Chud, and Sloveni, and Krivichi all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it, let you come to reign and rule over us.” And the 3 brothers were chosen from their clans, and girded all of Rus' around them, and came to Sloven the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik settled in Ladoz, and the second, Sineus, on Bela Lake, and the third Izbrst, Truvor. And from those the Varangians were nicknamed the Russian Land..."
This excerpt from an article in PVL, taken on faith by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists claim that the Varangians who came were Scandinavians and they practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and, secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural influence on Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is completely clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, while at the same time subjugating them to themselves.
Although this construction was first mentioned by the compiler of the chronicle and since then, for six centuries, has usually been included in all works on the history of Russia, it is well known that the Norman theory received official dissemination in the 30-40s of the 18th century during the “Bironovschina”, when many the highest positions at court were occupied by German nobles. Naturally, the entire first composition of the Academy of Sciences was staffed by German scientists. It is believed that the German scientists Bayer and Miller created this theory under the influence of the political situation. A little later, Schletzer developed this theory.
Some Russian scientists, especially M.V. Lomonosov, immediately reacted to the publication of the theory. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of violated dignity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like Lomonosov. It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. The catch is that opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially took the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the primary source chronicle story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.
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 consequence, to end of the 19th century 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 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.” 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.
It should be noted that in the 18th and early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but did not specifically address this problem. For almost two centuries in the West there were only a few Norman scientists, except for the already mentioned V. Thomsen, one can name T. Arne. The situation changed only in the twenties of our century. Then interest in Russia, which had already become Soviet, increased sharply. This was also reflected in the interpretation of Russian history. Many works on the history of Russia began to be published. First of all, the book of the greatest scientist A.A. should be named. Shakhmatov, dedicated to the problems of the origin of the Slavs, the Russian people and the Russian state.
Shakhmatov's attitude to the Norman problem has always been complex. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicling played important role in criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on a textual and logical analysis of the chronicle, he established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes. But at the same time, he, like the overwhelming majority of Russian scientists of that time, took a Normanist position! Within the framework of his construction, he tried to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period of the history of Rus'.
The emergence of statehood in Rus' seemed to Shakhmatov as a sequential appearance in Eastern Europe three Scandinavian states and as a result of the struggle between them. Here we move on to a certain concept, clearly defined and somewhat more specific than those previously described. So, according to Shakhmatov, the first state of the Scandinavians was created by the Norman-Russians who came from overseas at the beginning of the 9th century in the Ilmen region, in the area of the future Staraya Russa. It was this that was the “Russian Khaganate”, known from the entry of 839 in the Bertin Annals. From here, in the 840s, Norman Rus' moved south, to the Dnieper region, and created a second Norman state there, with its center in Kyiv.
In the 860s, the northern East Slavic tribes rebelled and expelled the Normans and Rus', and then invited a new Varangian army from Sweden, which created a third Norman-Varangian state led by Rurik. Thus, we see that the Varangians, the second wave of Scandinavian newcomers, began to fight against Norman Russia, which had previously arrived in Eastern Europe; The Varangian army was victorious, uniting the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into one Varangian state, which took the name “Rus” from the defeated Kyiv Normans. Shakhmatov derived the very name “Rus” from the Finnish word “ruotsi” - a designation for the Swedes and Sweden. On the other hand, V.A. Parkhomenko showed that the hypothesis expressed by Shakhmatov is too complex, far-fetched and far from the factual basis of written sources.
Also, a major Normanist work that appeared in our historiography in the 20s was the book by P.P. Smirnov "The Volga Road and the Ancient Russians". Widely using the news of Arab writers of the 9th-11th centuries, Smirnov began to look for the place of origin of the Old Russian state not on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” as was done by all previous historians, but on the Volga route from the Baltic along the Volga to the Caspian Sea. According to Smirnov's concept, on Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. The first state created by Russia - the "Russian Kaganate" - emerged. In the Middle Volga, Smirnov searched for the “three centers of Rus'” mentioned in Arab sources of the 9th-10th centuries. In the middle of the 9th century, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Ugrians, the Norman Rus from the Volga region went to Sweden and from there, after the “calling of the Varangians,” they again moved to Eastern Europe, this time to the Novgorod land.
The new construction turned out to be original, but not convincing and was not supported even by supporters of the Norman school. Further, cardinal changes occurred in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists. This was caused by a certain surge in the activity of anti-Normanist teachings, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the old school were replaced by scientists of the younger generation. But until the mid-30s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit. Archaeologists were the first to come up with anti-Normanist ideas, directing their criticism against the provisions of the concept of the Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, who published his work “Sweden and the East”.
Archaeological research by Russian archaeologists in the 30s produced materials that contradict Arne’s concept. The theory of Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in subsequent decades. An attempt was made, by analyzing the toponymy of the Novgorod land, to confirm the existence in these places significant number Norman colonies. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion about the importance, when studying this problem, to take into account not only interethnic, but also social relations in Rus'. However, these critical speeches have not yet changed the overall picture. The named scientist, as well as other Russian researchers, opposed individual Norman positions, and not against the entire theory as a whole.
After the war, what should have happened in science 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 existing and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main trends foreign science.
By that time, there were four main theories in Norman historiography:
1) Theory of conquest: The Old Russian state was, according to this theory, created by the Normans, who conquered the East Slavic lands and established their dominance over the local population. This is the oldest and most beneficial point of view for the Normanists, since it is precisely this that proves the “second-class” nature of the Russian nation.
2) The theory of Norman colonization, owned by T. Arne. It was he who proved the existence of Scandinavian colonies in Ancient Rus'. Normanists claim that the Varangian colonies were real basis to establish the rule of the Normans over the Eastern Slavs.
3) The theory of the political connection of the Kingdom of Sweden with the Russian state. Of all the theories, this theory stands apart because of its fantastic nature, not supported by any facts. This theory also belongs to T. Arne and can only claim to be a not very successful joke, since it is simply made up from the head.
4) A theory that recognized the class structure of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. and the ruling class as created by the Varangians. According to it, the upper class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them. The creation of a ruling class by the Normans is considered by most authors to be a direct result of the Norman conquest of Rus'. A proponent of this idea was A. Stender-Petersen. He argued that the appearance of the Normans in Rus' gave impetus to the development of statehood. The Normans are a necessary external “impulse”, without which the state in Rus' would never have arisen.
The Russian state under Ivan IV the Terrible.
Ivan IV the Terrible ascended the throne as a three-year-old boy (1533). As a seventeen-year-old youth (1547), for the first time in Russian history, having been crowned king, he began to rule independently. In June of the same year, a huge fire burned almost all of Moscow; The rebellious townspeople came to the tsar in the village of Vorobyovo demanding that the perpetrators be punished. “Fear entered my soul and trembling into my bones,” Ivan later wrote. Meanwhile, much was expected from the tsar: the years of his childhood, especially after the death of his mother, Elena Glinskaya, passed in a difficult atmosphere of hostility between boyar factions, conspiracies and secret murders. Life presented him with difficult challenges.
The process of creating a single Russian state mostly completed. It was necessary to centralize it - create unified system central and local authorities administration, approve uniform legislation and courts, troops and taxes, and overcome differences inherited from the past between individual regions of the country. It was necessary to carry out important foreign policy measures aimed at ensuring the security of the southern, eastern and western borders of Russia.
The first period of the reign of Ivan IV - until the end of the 50s. - passed under the sign of the activities of the Elected Rada, a circle of the tsar’s closest advisers and like-minded people: the Kostroma landowner A. Adashev, Prince A. Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, Archpriest Sylvester, clerk I. Viskovaty and others. The direction of the transformations was determined by the desire for centralization, and their spirit - convening in 1549 the first body in Russian history representing various social strata (boyars, clergy, nobility, service people, etc.) - Zemsky Sobor. The council of 1549 is called by historians the “cathedral of reconciliation”: the boyars swore to obey the tsar in everything, the tsar promised to forget previous grievances.
Until the end of the 50s. The following reforms were implemented:
A new Code of Law was adopted (1550), designed to become the basis of a unified legal system in the country;
Feedings were abolished (the procedure under which the boyar-governors lived at the expense of funds collected in their favor from the territories under their control);
The system of public administration became harmonious through orders - the central bodies of executive power (Razryadny, Posolsky, Streletsky, Petition, etc.);
Localism (the principle of occupying positions according to nobility of origin) was limited;
A rifle army armed with firearms was created;
The “Code of Service” was adopted, strengthening the local noble army;
The taxation procedure was changed - a taxation unit (plow) and the amount of duties levied on it (tax) were established. In 1551, the church council adopted “Stoglav” - a document regulating the activities of the church and aimed at unifying (establishing unity) rituals.
The success of reform efforts was supported by foreign policy successes. In 1552, the Kazan Khanate was conquered, and in 1556, the Astrakhan Khanate. At the end of the 50s. The Nogai Horde recognized its dependence. Significant territorial growth (almost doubling), security of the eastern borders, prerequisites for further advancement in the Urals and Siberia were important achievements of Ivan IV and the Chosen Rada.
Since the late 50s, however, the tsar’s attitude towards the plans of his advisers and towards them personally changed. In 1560, cooling took the form of hostility. One can only guess about the reasons. Ivan IV dreamed of true “autocracy”; the influence and authority of his associates, who had and, moreover, defended their own opinions, irritated him. Disagreements on the issue of the Livonian War became the last straw that overflowed the cup: in 1558, war was declared on the Livonian Order, which owned the Baltic lands.
At first everything went well, the Order disintegrated, but its lands went to Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, with whom Russia had to fight until 1583. By the mid-60s. The difficulties of the outbreak of the war became clear; the military situation was not in Russia's favor. In 1565, Ivan the Terrible left Moscow for the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, demanded the execution of traitors and announced the establishment of a special inheritance - oprichnina (from the word "oprich" - outside, except). Thus began a new era in the history of his reign - bloody and cruel.
The country was divided into oprichnina and zemshchina, with their own Boyar Dumas, capitals, and troops. Power, uncontrolled at that, remained in the hands of Ivan the Terrible. An important feature of the oprichnina is the terror that fell on the ancient boyar families (Prince Vladimir Staritsky), and on the clergy (Metropolitan Philip, Archimandrite German), and on the nobles, and on the cities (pogrom in Novgorod in the winter of 1569-1570, terror in Moscow in the summer of 1570). In the summer of 1571, the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey burned Moscow: the oprichnina army, which was rampant in plunder and robbery, showed complete military failure. On next year Ivan the Terrible abolished the oprichnina and even forbade the use of this word in the future.
Historians have long and fiercely debated the reasons for the oprichnina. Some are inclined to see in it the embodiment of the delusional fantasies of a mentally ill tsar, others, reproaching Ivan IV for using the wrong means, highly value the oprichnina as a form of struggle against the boyars who opposed centralization, while others admire both the means and the goals of the oprichnina terror. Most likely, the oprichnina was a policy of terror aimed at establishing what Ivan the Terrible himself called autocracy. “And we were always free to give favors to our slaves, and we were also free to execute them,” he wrote to Prince Kurbsky, by slaves meaning his subjects.
The consequences of the oprichnina are tragic. Livonian War, despite the desperate efforts of the tsar, the courage of the soldiers (for example, during the defense of Pskov in 1581), resulted in the loss of all conquests in Livonia and Belarus (the Yam-Zapolsky truce with Poland in 1582 and the Treaty of Plus with Sweden in 1583). Oprichnina weakened Russia's military power. The country's economy was devastated; to keep peasants fleeing violence and unbearable taxes, laws on reserved summers were adopted, abolishing the St. George's Day rule and prohibiting peasants from changing their masters. Having killed his eldest son with his own hands, the autocrat doomed the country to a dynastic crisis, which began in 1598 after the death of his heir, Tsar Fedor, who ascended to his father’s throne in 1584. The Troubles of the early 17th century. considered a distant but direct consequence of the oprichnina.
Norman theory suggests that the people of Rus' come from Scandinavia during the period of Viking expansion, which in Western Europe called Normans. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the “Tale of the Calling of the Varangians” contained in the Tale of Bygone Years.
For the first time, the thesis about the origin of the Varangians from Sweden was put forward by King Johan III in diplomatic correspondence with Ivan the Terrible. The Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei de Erlesund tried to develop this idea in 1615 in his book “Regin Muschowitici Sciographia”. His initiative was supported in 1671 by the royal historiographer Johan Widekind in “Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie”. Olaf Dahlin's History of the Swedish State had a great influence on subsequent Normanists.
The most important arguments of the Norman theory are the names of the first Russian princes and ambassadors of the “Russian family” listed in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 912, as well as the essay of Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (c. 949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages : “Russian” and Slavic, where most “Russian” names reveal Scandinavian origin. Additional arguments of the Normanists are also numerous archaeological evidence on the territory of Russia and the word “ruotsi/rootsi” of the Finns and Estonians, meaning Sweden in their languages, and which should have turned into “Rus” when this word was borrowed into the Slavic languages.
Normanism rested on the following grounds
1. News of the Russian Chronicle (that is, the story about the calling of the Varangians).
2. The path from the Varangians to the Greeks, described in the same chronicle, and the names of the Dnieper rapids associated with it, given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
3. The names of the princes and squads, especially according to the treaties of Oleg and Igor.
4. News of Byzantine writers about the Varangians and Rus'.
5. The Finnish name of the Swedes is Ruotsy and the name of the Swedish Upland is Roslagen.
6. The news of the Bertin Chronicles about three Russian ambassadors and the news of Liutprand about the Russes-Normans.
7. News of Arab writers.
8. Scandinavian sagas.
9. Later connections of Russian princes with the Scandinavians.
In historiography, the Norman hypothesis was formulated in the 18th century by German academicians at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller and A. L. Schlözer. This theory was also adhered to by Karamzin and, after him, by almost all major Russian historians of the 19th century.
Disputes around the Norman version at times took on an ideological character in the context: could the Slavs independently, without the Norman Varangians, create a state. IN Stalin's time Normanism in the USSR was rejected at the state level, but in the 1960s, Soviet historiography returned to the moderate Norman hypothesis with the simultaneous study alternative versions origin of Rus'. Foreign historians consider the Norman version as the main one.
Anti-Normanism- a direction in historiography, supporters reject and refute the Normanistic concepts of the origin of the first ruling dynasty of Rus', and the creation of the Russian state.. Without denying the participation of the Scandinavians in political processes in Rus', anti-Normanism criticizes the exaggerated, within the framework of the Norman theory, significance of such participation. One of the recent works of supporters of anti-Normanism was the monograph by V.V. Fomina. Starting with V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov, supporters of anti-Normanism emphasized and emphasize the manifestation of domestic statehood in Scythia and Sarmatia, Gothia and Hunnia, the Bosporus Kingdom and Azov Bulgaria, the Turkic Kaganate and Khazaria, the “northern archonies” of early medieval Byzantium.
The most prominent anti-Normanist of the 19th century was D. I. Ilovaisky. He considered the chronicle story about the calling of the Varangians to be completely legendary, and on this basis everything connected with Rurik was rejected. D.I. Ilovaisky was a supporter of the southern origin of Rus'. He defended the original Slavicity of the Bulgarians, the great role of the Slavs in the Great Migration of Peoples and the important role of the Slavs in the union of the Huns.
The Slavic hypothesis was formulated by V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov. It comes, firstly, from another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years. And secondly, from the message of the Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh, whose data on Eastern Europe is one of the oldest (840s), and who believed that the Rus are a Slavic people.
In Russian historiography of the 19th century, the Slavic theory was not widespread. Its two most prominent representatives were S. A. Gedeonov and D. I. Ilovaisky. The first considered the Rus to be Baltic Slavs - obodrites, the second emphasized their southern origin. In subsequent times (especially since the 1930s), this direction, closely linked with criticism of the Norman hypothesis, was developed by Soviet historians.
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. The theory was then opposed by D.I. Ilovaisky, N.I. Kostomarov, S.A. Gedeonov (who was the first to try to prove the Western Slavic origin Varyagov), 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 of 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” - the creation of the 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. IN Tales of Bygone Years It is also said 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 the high level of 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
Literature
Mavrodin V.V. The fight against Normanism in Russian historical science. L., 1949
Lovmyansky X. Rus' and the Normans. M., 1985
Rus' and the Varangians. M., 1999
Collection of Russian historical society. Anti-Normanism. M., 2003, No. 8 (156)
Gedeonov S.A. Varangians and Rus'. M., 2004
On modern stage In Russian historiography, quite a lot of attention is paid to the Norman problem. Since the mid-90s, books have appeared that have not been published before or have not been published for a very long time. Such books include the works of S. Lesny, Arbman, S.L. Klein, D.I. Ilovaisky, S. Gedeonov. The most prominent supporters of Normanism of the period under review include V.Ya. Petrukhin, L.S. Klein, E.A. Melnikova, S.G. Skrynnikov, A.G. Gorsky, T. Jackson, R.G. Skrynnikov. Opposite historical direction presented by such historians as A.G. Kuzmin, V.V. Fomin, M.Yu. Braichevsky, V.A. Moshin.
The Norman theory found its most vivid expression in the articles of R.G. Skrynnikov “Wars of Ancient Rus'” and “Ancient Rus'. Chronicle myths and reality." In the spirit of classical Normanism, the author proves the identity of Rus' and the Normans, citing the testimony of John the Deacon, Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, as well as Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911-944. Skrynnikov believes that dozens of Viking leaders participated in Rus' in the second half of the early 10th century. But historical documents brought to us only a few of them: Rurik, Askold, Dir, Oleg and Igor. Skrynnikov also proves that society in ancient Rus' was bilingual. For the Russians, the main language remained the Scandinavian language, and they needed Slavic only so that they could manage their Slavic tributaries. Skrynnikov suggests that in Rus' the Norman squad, as in Scandinavia, composed sagas about their heroes. Skrynnikov explains the absence of these sagas in Rus' by the lack of writing among the Scandinavians. But later the heroic epic of the Russians underwent changes: the squad Prince of Kyiv forgot native language, and the sagas turned into Slavic ones.
Another historian V.Ya. Petrukhin also stands on the position of Normanism. He defends the northern origin of the name “Rus”, again from the word “ruotsi”. Petrukhin interprets the terms “Varangians” and “Rus” as socionyms, that is, as Norman warriors, and not the ethnic group itself.
But the most outstanding and most militant Normanist of our days is Lev Samuilovich Klein, who in Soviet time who himself actively denounced the Norman theory, and then after the collapse Soviet Union quickly changed his position on this issue to the opposite. Klein himself explained this by saying that his previous position was forced and was a tactical device due to the habitual odiousness of the term and the inevitability of the ideological struggle with the West. In 2009, Klein’s book “The Dispute about the Varangians” was published. The history of the confrontation and the arguments of the parties,” written by him back in 1960, but never published before.
“The Norman dynasty,” says Klein, “united the previously scattered Slavic tribes under the control of one Rurikovich family. The Normans managed to introduce some of their customs into government, law and culture.”
Andrei Nikolaevich Sakharov should be recognized as the leading representative of the anti-Normanists. Recognizing the reality of the fact that Rurik was called to rule in Novgorod, in his article “Rurik, the Varangians and the Fate of Russian Statehood,” Sakharov writes: “Russian statehood has gone through a centuries-old path of development. Its origins arose with the evolution of East Slavic society, the transition of tribal relations to the beginnings of early feudal development, the formation of the institution of private property, the formation of inequality, the emergence military organization, the development of the power of tribal leaders into princely power." The calling of Rurik and his squad, in whom the historian sees immigrants of Slavic origin from the southern coast of the Baltic, according to Sakharov, is only a certain stage in the formation of ancient Russian statehood, and not its beginning. Sakharov considers the very fact of vocation as an indicator of the social maturity of East Slavic society, moving towards centralization. At the same time, the historian emphasizes that the power of Rurik and his brothers overlapped with the already existing state tradition.
Another outstanding representative of anti-Normanism of the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries was Apollo Grigorievich Kuzmin. He focused his attention on revising one of the most important postulates of the Norman theory about the German-speaking and Scandinavian origin of the Varangians. Based on Russian chronicles and evidence from Byzantine and Western European medieval authors, Kuzmin substantiated the position that the Varangians were not Scandinavians, but people from the southern coast of the Baltic Sea islands. According to the historian, the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians cannot be substantiated with the help of Russian chronicles and other written sources, which do not provide either direct or indirect data to identify them with the Scandinavians, and the chronicler understood the Varangians as the population of the Slavic seaside, as well as regions gravitating towards Novgorod .
One cannot ignore the article by M.Yu. Braichevsky “Russian names of the rapids of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus”, in which the author essentially completely refuted one of the most important arguments of the Normanists. Having carried out a linguistic analysis of all seven rapids, the author proved that the “Rus” of Constantine Porphyrogenitus is not Norman or Slavic, but Sarmatian, merging with the people of Ros, which ancient authors placed in the southeastern corner of the East European Plain. Braichevsky believes that it is a mistake to attribute the emergence of the nomenclature of the Dnieper rapids, given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, to the middle of the 10th century, since it is undoubtedly much older and was formed in the last centuries BC, when Sarmatian hordes dominated the southern Russian steppes. It was the Sarmatian nomenclature that was the first and acquired international significance, and the Slavic nomenclature was formed no earlier than the 3rd-4th centuries AD and represents translations of Sarmatian names.
Another staunch anti-Normanist was Valery Nikitich Demin. In his article “The Varangians are the last passionaries of the North,” Demin says that it does not follow from “The Tale of Bygone Years” that the Varangians were Scandinavians. The famous legend about the calling of Rurik and his brothers only says that the Varangians were called Rus, in the sense of linguistic and ethnicity, but nothing is said about their Scandinavian roots, and the fact that the Varangians came from overseas can be interpreted in different ways . Demin draws attention to the words of the chronicler: “You are the people of Nougorod, whose ancestry comes from the Varangian clan, before the Slavs.” The scientist concludes that the Varangian clan was Slavic and the Varangians, together with the Novgorodians, spoke the Slavic language. For otherwise, it will turn out that the population of Veliky Novgorod used one of the Scandinavian languages before being called. Demin considers it absolutely obvious that the Varangians were not Swedes or Norwegians, but the same Russian people as the Novgorodians. After all, the conscripted princes and the population that conscripted them did not even need translators to communicate.
Regarding the question of the origin of Rurik, Demin recognizes the Slavic origin of his name, but not West Slavic, but East Slavic. The historian substantiates his opinion by referring to a legend recorded in the late seventies of the 19th century by the famous collector of Russian folklore Elpidifor Vasilyevich Barsovich. According to this legend, Rurik’s real name was Yurik, he was invited to Novgorod from the Dnieper region. The Novgorodians fell in love with the new prince for his intelligence and agreed for him to become the master of Novgorod.
The Norman theory represents a whole direction in Russian historiography, which examines the problem of the formation of state power among the Eastern Slavs from the point of view that the newcomer Varangians play a decisive role in this process. This concept, which at one time occupied a dominant position, has been subjected to almost derogatory criticism in recent decades, but there are not many actual scientific arguments against it.
History of the appearance and authorship of the Norman theory
The Norman theory is usually associated with the names of fairly famous German scientists - Bayer, Schlozer and Miller, who in the middle of the 18th century accepted Russian citizenship and left a very noticeable mark on Russian historical science. Having collected and analyzed great amount Russian chronicles, these pundits came to the conclusion that the formation and development of statehood in Rus' was the merit primarily of the Normans who came from the north, who were called Varangians in the chronicles.
Main arguments in defense of the Norman theory
In defense of their position, German scientists cited purely historical arguments, based mainly on the text of The Tale of Bygone Years, and also tried to give an etymological explanation of a number of concepts. In particular, in their opinion, the terms “Varangians” and “Rus” come from the same language family, therefore, foreigners not only came to the East Slavic lands, but also left a deep mark both in the formation of the foundations of the state and in the formation of the Russian nation. Thus, the Norman theory is generally consonant with the view of the history of many European states that arose and were formed under the influence of external conquest.
Arguments of anti-Normanists
Almost immediately, this concept was subjected to very serious criticism by M. Lomonosov, who emphasized the Slavic origin of most of the words and concepts that have come down to us, and also pointed out that the beginnings of statehood among the Slavs arose long before the legendary Rurik. However, it should be recognized that the Norman theory occupied a dominant position until the second half of the 19th century, and a number of Soviet scientists also adhered to it (for example, M. Pokrovsky).
Neutral view on this issue
Many modern scientists and ordinary citizens have a very rough idea of what the Norman theory is. There are quite a lot of arguments for and against it, and this concept itself has long turned from a purely scientific one into a political one. This is mainly due to the fact that both supporters and opponents of this theory start from the same data, they simply interpret them differently. After all, even the fact of Rurik’s invitation can be interpreted in the sense that he was called to a ready-made throne, and the very name of this legendary prince is not necessarily of Scandinavian origin.
Normanists and anti-Normanists today: antagonism or tolerance?
The Norman and anti-Norman theories today agree that a certain external force played a very noticeable role in the process of creating the ancient Russian state. However, this itself cannot simply be taken and transferred to foreign soil; certain prerequisites must be formed for it. Almost everything suggests that our ancestors already had such prerequisites by the 9th century.