In connection with this circumstance, a completely legitimate question arises about the ways of the emergence of the Old Russian state. The traditional point of view on this problem is that the beginning of this long-standing discussion, which has been going on for almost three hundred years, was laid by the famous German scientists Z. Bayer and F. Miller, who in the middle of the 18th century. published a number of their scientific works: “On the Varangians” (1737), “On the Origin of Rus'” (1737) and “The Origin of the Name and People of Russia” (1749), which laid the foundation for the notorious “Norman theory” of the origin of the Old Russian state. Although, according to the fair opinion of a number of modern authors, in particular, Professor A.G. Kuzmin and his students V.V. Fomina, V.I. Merkulova and L.P. Grotto, the real founders of Normanism were the Swedes themselves, in particular Swedish historians and diplomats P. Petrey, J. Widekind and O. Dalin, who created back in the 17th-18th centuries. a number of clearly tendentious historical treatises (“Moscow Chronicles”, “History of the Swedish State”) with a purely political context, in which they put forward the thesis about the Scandinavian origin of the chronicled Varangians. And only then, during the period of the famous “Bironovism,” this old concept was taken out of the chest that smelled of mothballs and put into use again.
The essence of the “Norman theory” itself, as they presented it, was that statehood in the lands of the Eastern Slavs was brought from outside by the Viking Normans, who in Russia were called Varangians, since the Slavs themselves, due to their natural qualities, including low intelligence (“barbarism” ), were simply unable to create and govern their own state without outside help.
The basis for the emergence of this theory was the chronicle story of the famous “Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling in 862 of three Varangian kings - the brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor - to reign in the lands of Chud, Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes. As is clear from the chronicle narrative, exhausted by mutual enmity, these tribes came to a council and decided to look for a prince on the side. Having sent an embassy “across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'”, Slavic ambassadors told the local rulers: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no outfit in it, so you will come to reign and rule over us.” At the same time, the Laurentian Chronicle stated that the newcomer princes sat down to rule in Novgorod, Beloozero and Izborsk, and the Ipatiev Chronicle named Ladoga, Beloozero and Izborsk as such princely residences.
Until the middle of the 19th century. all historians treated this legend with complete confidence and argued only about the ethnic nature of the Varangians. All Normanists (N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, A. Shletser, A. Kunik) considered them Viking Normans, that is, ancient Scandinavians, and anti-Normanists (M. Lomonosov, N. Venelin, S. Gedeonov) - one of the Slavic or Baltic tribes close to them, living on the southern shore of the Baltic (Varangian) Sea. In the second half of the 19th century. famous Russian historian Professor N.M. Kostomarov during the famous debate with academician M.P. Pogodin, in a number of his articles, for the first time questioned the authenticity of the Varangian legend, saying that it was pure fiction, since it reflected some events not of the 9th century, but of the beginning of the 12th century, when the PVL was actually created. Later, this point of view was substantiated by Professor D.I. in his treatise “Research on the Beginning of Rus'” (1876). Ilovaisky.
A new stage in the study of this problem began at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, when several landmark works by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov, in particular, his famous work “Research on the most ancient chronicles” (1908). Having created an original scheme for the ancient Russian chronicle, he convincingly proved that the legend about the calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the PVL, and its inclusion in the all-Russian chronicle corpus pursued certain political goals.
Later, already in Soviet historiography, they tried in every possible way to substantiate this conclusion of the outstanding Russian scientist.
Some authors (B. Grekov, V. Mavrodin) believed that the appearance of the “Varangian legend” was associated with the need to justify the illegal (despite seniority) calling of Vladimir Monomakh to the grand princely throne of Kiev in 1113.
Others (D. Likhachev) believed that the inclusion of this legend in the PVL pursued two main goals: 1) to approve public consciousness the tribal unity of all the princes of the “Rurik House” and put an end to the bloody civil strife and enmity, and 2) cool the unfounded claims of Byzantium to the role of patron of the Kiev state, since the legend convincingly proved the northern, not the southern origin of the grand-ducal dynasty.
Still others (B. Rybakov) argued that the appearance of this legend in the PVL was associated with the aggravation of the political struggle between Kiev and Novgorod for hegemony in Rus', and named the authors of this legend as Novgorod chroniclers who wanted to emphasize the northern rather than the southern origin of the Russian grand ducal dynasty.
The fourth (V. Pashuto) associated the appearance of the “Varangian legend” in the PVL with the marriage of Vladimir Monomakh to the English princess Gita.
Finally, the fifth group of authors (A. Kuzmin, I. Froyanov) suspected that the very appearance of this legend in the PVL was associated with the regional confrontation between the two largest urban centers of northern Rus' - Ladoga and Novgorod. Professor I.Ya. Froyanov believed that this was due to changes in the nature of the princely power itself and the strengthening of the veche system in all Russian lands, including Kiev itself.
At the moment, three main approaches can be distinguished in assessing the “Varangian legend”:
1) complete trust in this legend, which is demonstrated by all Normanists, both past (F. Miller, N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, A. Kunik, V. Thomsen) and present (L. Klein, R. Skrynnikov, V. Petrukhin, E. Melnikova, T. Jackson, E. Pchelov);
2) complete denial of the authenticity of the legend, which was characteristic mainly of Soviet historians (V. Parkhomenko, B. Grekov, S. Yushkov, B. Romanov, D. Likhachev);
3) partial trust in the legend, since it reflected some real events of that time, and this legend itself is a complex and multi-layered work, created over a long time, and containing echoes of various eras of the East Slavic and ancient Russian history(A. Kuzmin, I. Froyanov, V. Fomin).
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. The opposite historical direction is represented 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 tactical method, 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 public administration, 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 reign 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 of a military organization, and 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 South Coast islands of the Baltic Sea. 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 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 attributed 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 established in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory. Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the 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 not on the incorrect interpretation of Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and constituting 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: “In the summer of 6370. The Varangians were driven overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to drink in themselves Volodya, and there was no truth in them, and generation after generation rose up, and began to fight against each other. 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 Russia 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 Russia around them, and came to Sloven the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik grew up 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 impact cultural influence to the 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 distribution 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 in Russia in 1891. His work “The Beginning of the Russian State” was published, 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, the idea was established that the victory of the Normanist concept of history occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work. Ancient Rus'. Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. Thus, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanistic 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. Shakhmatov, dedicated to the problems of the origin of the Slavs, the Russian people and the Russian state, should be named. Shakhmatov's attitude to the Norman problem has always been complex. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicling played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on a textual 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 to be the successive appearance of three Scandinavian states in Eastern Europe 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 aliens, began to fight against the previously arrived Eastern Europe Norman Russia; 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 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 P.P. Smirnov’s book “The Volga Road and the Ancient Russes.” 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, in the Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. The first state created by Russia took shape - the “Russian Kaganate”. 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 of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed an opinion on 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.
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 by the Slavs to Rus' of the Varangian king Rurik, 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 hostile to Russia political meaning 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'. Even the name itself ancient Russian state he derived it from the Finnish lexeme “ruotsi” - a designation for 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 became 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 for the high degree of 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.
Nevertheless, 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. The Tale of Bygone Years also says that Slavic language and the Varangian-Russian language “the essence is one.” 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 Old Russian princes of 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
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 in 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 Russia , about the origin of large land ownership in Russia, about trade and trade routes of Old Russia, 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 Russia took place and that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for establishing the rule of the Normans. "Normanists" believe that Ancient Russia 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., Education of ancient Russian. 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.
