Theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state. Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
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 a significant part of 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 the statehood of the Eastern Slavs is the merit of the Normans alone. 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, for various reasons and at different times, 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.
Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
Content:
Introduction
- Predecessors of the Kyiv state.
Ants-Slavs.
Settlement of Slavic tribes and their names.
“The Calling of the Varangians” – a legend or...?
Norman theory.
Normanists and anti-Normanists.
The current situation: overcoming extremes.
Bibliography
Introduction
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 fact, 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.
Norman theory- a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the first state of the Eastern Slavs - Kievan Rus. The Norman theory was put forward in the middle of the 18th century. under Anna Ioannovna by German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller and others.
Many works are devoted to research questions. Basically, the material presented in educational literature is of a general nature.
The object of this work is an analysis of the "Norman theory of origin. The Old Russian state, and subject of research– consideration of individual issues related to the origin of the Norman theory.
Goal of the work– study the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, and also consider it from the point of view of modernity.
The sources of information for writing the work were basic educational literature, works of domestic authors, articles and reviews in specialized and periodical publications devoted to the subject of this work, reference books, and other relevant sources of information.
Predecessors of the Kyiv state.
The vast territory of the future Kyiv state was never uninhabited. Already a thousand or more years BC, Greek historians mention numerous tribes and peoples who inhabited vast areas north of the Black Sea and northeast of the Danube. The Greeks, who had colonies on the shores of the Black Sea, maintained relations with these tribes and traded with them. We find the same data on the population of the great Russian Plain from Byzantine, Roman, Arab, and Gothic historians of the first millennium AD.
Being unanimous in affirming the presence and large population of the great Russian Plain (the territory of the Kievan state), all ancient historians in different eras call this population by different names: Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Acts, Slavs. This circumstance gave rise to the creation of a theory about the replacement of one people by another, with only the territory remaining unchanged.
The latest data from historical science provide an explanation for this incomprehensible disappearance of some peoples in the same territory and the appearance of others.
According to this explanation, numerous tribes in different eras made attempts to create state formations, and these state formations were named after the tribe that was currently in charge. No complete disappearances or destruction of individual tribes and peoples occurred, although the writings of Herodotus say that the entire Cimmerian people committed suicide out of fear of the Scythians. In fact, it must be assumed that he merged with them, giving them a leadership role. And then foreigners began to call the entire population, all tribes, Scythians instead of Cimmerians. A few centuries later, the same thing happened with the Sarmatians, and a few centuries later with the Antes-Slavs. The information we have about the Cimmerians is very scarce, but we know much more about their successors - the Scythians. In the 5th century BC. there was a Scythian state association in the Azov region and on the Taman Peninsula, and around the 3rd century we find a strong Scythian state in the Crimea. Excavations in the vicinity of Simferopol discovered the capital of this state - the city of Naples (Novgorod) with powerful stone walls, rich tombs and extensive granaries.
The alliances of the Scythian, and later Scythian-Sarmatian tribes, as allies or vanquished, also included tribes of the Slavs, who gradually moved from the north-west under the pressure of the Germanic tribes. In these unions, the Slavic-Russian element gained predominance, and the Slavic language emerged victorious in contact with the languages of the descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians.
Thus, gradually, by the first half of the first millennium after Christ, the population of the southern, middle and northwestern parts of the great Russian Plain acquired a Slavic, Russian character. Foreigners - ancient historians - call them Sklavins and Antes. The northwestern tribes are called Sklavins (Slavs), and the southeastern ones are Antes. The Byzantine historian Procopius reports that the Sklavins and Antes speak the same language. The 6th century Gothic historian Jordanes confirms this and says that they are a “great people” consisting of “countless tribes.”
About the Ants, Academician A. A. Shakhmatov writes: “The Slavs and the Ants are two branches of a once single tribe. The Antes are the eastern part of this disintegrated tribe. Everything we know about the Ants with perfect clarity leads us to recognize them as Eastern Slavs, therefore, the ancestors of the Russians” 1.
According to Academician Grekov, “from the history of the Antes to the history of the Kyiv state there is a continuous line of development. This is the same ethnic mass, who spoke the same language, believed in Perun, sailed on single-shafted poles, and burned slaves at the prince’s grave” 2 .
Academician Derzhavin writes: “the Antes are not only the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs, but also the creators of their entire culture. The predecessors of Oleg and Igor were the Anta princes: Mezhamir, Izdachich, Khvalibud and unknown owners of the Dnieper treasures” 3.
Archaeological excavations of recent decades have provided irrefutable evidence of the presence of Slavic settlements throughout the great Russian Plain already in the first centuries of our era. The outskirts of Kiev, the upper reaches of the Don, Volga and Western Dvina, Galicia, Transcarpathia, Pskov were places of settlement of the Slavs, of common origin, language and culture, which is irrefutably confirmed by a careful study of archaeological, historical and linguistic data.
These data give us the right to assert that many centuries before the “calling of the Varangians,” our ancestors had their own culture and organized their lives without outside leadership. And this statement is at the same time a refutation of the “Norman theory”.
In addition, it has now been established that long before Rurik’s “Rus” there were state formations, military-political alliances, and our Ant ancestors. For example, the unification of the Volynians with the princes Mezhamir and Izdar, who fought the Avars. Or the unification of tribes living on the Ros River (the right tributary of the Dnieper), under the leadership of Prince Bozh, who fought the Goths. There is an opinion that it was this association that served as the core of the Old Russian people.
The legendary Kiy, Shek and Khoriv - the founders of Kyiv, apparently were Anta-Slavic princes, and some historians date the very foundation of Kyiv to the year 430. All this data, the number of which is continuously growing as a result of scientific research, irrefutably testifies to the existence of an organized life of our ancestors long before the calling of the Varangians and to the existence of their own unique culture. The size of the intended work does not allow us to dwell on them in detail, and therefore all data on the prehistory of Rus' is given in the most condensed form.
Anty-Slavs
Moving on to the life of our immediate ancestors of the Slavs-Ants, who managed to assimilate the Scythian and Sarmatian ethnic groups back in the pre-Kievan period, first of all it must be said that from time immemorial they were inhabitants of Europe, as the latest historical research has now established, and from nowhere did they come from They didn’t come to Europe. The northwestern group of Slavic tribes was called Slovenians and their settlements spread far into central Europe, to the Elbe and even further west, as well as to the coast of the German Sea and on the island of Rügen.
The southeastern group of Slavic tribes was known under the general name Antes and spread to the Azov region and the shores of the Black Sea.
Both groups of Slavic tribes endured a difficult struggle for their national existence in the middle of the first millennium AD. Antes - with the Goths, Huns, Avars, and Byzantines, who sought to spread their influence over the lands of the Antes. Slovenes with Germanic tribes.
The Ants managed to emerge victorious from the struggle, defend their nationality and identity, and remain masters of their territory - the south and southeast of the Russian Plain.
Another group - the Slovenes - were partially driven out of their lands by aggressive Germanic tribes, partially destroyed or enslaved by them and nationally depersonalized. The surviving parts of these tribes moved east to the boundaries of the future Kyiv state, founding new cities and settlements here. So, for example, a Slovenian tribe that came from Polabia (the Elbe region) and founded the city of Lyubets there (Lübeck in Germany), settled at the mouth of the Desna River, at its confluence with the Dnieper, and founded the city of Lyubets (later Lyubech) here.
Interesting information about what the Slavs were like in the period preceding the creation of the Kyiv state is given by the famous German historian Herder. He writes: “The Slavs lovingly cultivated the land, practiced various household arts and crafts, and everywhere opened a useful trade in the products of their country, the fruits of their hard work. They built cities on the shores of the Baltic Sea, starting with Lübeck. Between them, Vineta was the Slavic Amsterdam. They built Kyiv on the Dnieper and Novgorod on the Volkhov, which soon became flourishing trading cities. They connected the Black Sea with the Baltic and supplied northern and western Europe with the works of the East. In what is now Germany, they developed mines, knew how to smelt and cast metals, prepared salt, wove linen, brewed honey, planted fruit trees and led a cheerful musical life according to their taste. They were generous, hospitable to the point of extravagance, loved rural freedom, but at the same time they were submissive and obedient - enemies of robbery and robbery. All this did not save them from oppression from their neighbors, on the contrary, it contributed to it. Since they did not strive for dominion over the world, did not have war-hungry hereditary sovereigns and willingly became tributaries, if only this could buy the peace of their country, the peoples, especially those belonging to the Germanic tribe, greatly sinned against them. Already under Charlemagne, brutal wars began, which, obviously, were aimed at acquiring trade benefits and were waged under the pretext of spreading Christianity. The brave Franks, of course, found it more convenient, having enslaved the diligent agricultural and trading people, to use their labors than to study agriculture, trade and work themselves. What the Franks started, the Saxons completed. In entire regions, the Slavs were exterminated or converted into serfs, and their lands were divided between Christian bishops and nobles. Their trade on the Baltic Sea was destroyed by the northern Germans, Vineta was destroyed by the Danes, and the remains of the Slavs in Germany resemble what the Spaniards made of the natural inhabitants of Peru" 4 ...
According to objective German historians, the Slavs were generously gifted with aesthetic taste, musical and artistic abilities; they were relatively highly cultured and deeply moral, although they did not profess the Christian religion. There were no lies among them. They treated their neighbors with true Christian love. Their prisoners were considered on an equal basis with members of the household and after some time they were necessarily released.
Now, based on the latest research, it can be argued that our ancestors also had their own writing, the so-called “Ruska writing”. St. got acquainted with them. Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) during his stay in Crimea, and it must be assumed that it was this “Russian writing” that Saints Cyril and Methodius subsequently used as the basis for their alphabets - “Glagolitic” and “Cyrillic”.
Settlement of Slavic tribes and their names
All Slavic tribes (Antes and Slovenes) had already settled firmly throughout the entire territory of the future Kievan State by the 8th century. Although they had not yet been formally united into one state and lived in separate tribes, however, the presence of one language and a common culture and religion created all the prerequisites for the state unification of these disparate tribes. And the fight against foreign neighbors or ethnic groups embedded in the lands occupied by the Slavs made this unification urgently necessary and logically inevitable. All Slavic tribes did not have any common name, but the words “Rus”, “Ros”, “Rus” are found among many foreign historians of the era preceding the creation of the Kievan State. Agatemer says that the Volga was then called “Ros”; Arab chroniclers, under the year 713, write about Volga “Rus”; the Gothic historian Jordan (5th century) writes about the “Wolverine Monks” tribe; Byzantine, Arab and Persian authors testify to the existence of a southern "Rus" around the city of "Russia", which was at the mouth of the Don and disappeared after its capture by the Goths, Huns and Khazars. At the end of the 8th century, "Rus" (tribe or people) attacked the city of Surozh, (Sudak in Crimea) as reported by Byzantine chroniclers.
In the north, in the Valdai Upland, long before the calling of the Varangians, Slavic tribes were known, called “Borus” (from the word “borus”), and they lived in forests. And also “Riskolan” or “Ruskolune” are those who lived in round settlements (kolo-krug). There is evidence that the tribes living in the foothills of the Carpathians called themselves “Rus”. The Anty-Slavs who lived on the banks of the Rosi River called themselves “Rus”.
We find the name “Rus” in different parts of the great Risky Plain, sometimes simultaneously, until it became the common name of all the tribes united in the Kyiv State. By the time of the creation of this state, the tribes that created it were located as follows: Polyane - along the middle reaches of the Dnieper; Drevlyans - to the north of the glades, in Polesie; Dregovichi - between the Pripet and Dvina rivers; Ulichi or Uglichi - part in the Carpathian region, the other separated part - in Forest Rus' (Great Russia); Tivertsy - along the Dniester, Duleby - along the southern Bug; White Croats - in the Carpathian Mountains; Northerners - along the Desna and Sula rivers, to the Dnieper; Radimichi - along the Sozh River; Vyatichi - along the Oka River; Krivichi with their branch - Polotsk - the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Dvina and Volga; Ilmen or Novgorod Slavs - around Lake Ilmen.
“The Calling of the Varangians” – a legend or...?
The Norman theory was based on a misinterpretation of Russian chronicles. The main drawback of almost all the works of both Normanists and anti-Normanists (more in relation to the 19th century) “was the naive idea of Nestor as the only chronicler who wrote at the beginning of the 12th century. “The Tale of Bygone Years” 5, which later chroniclers carefully rewrote. They did not pay attention to the fact that in the ancient chronicles there are three different (and different times) mentions of the Varangians, two different versions about the ethnic nature of Rus', several versions about the baptism of Vladimir, three versions of the origin and age of Yaroslav the Wise. Meanwhile, even in the preface to the publication of the Sofia Temporary, P. Stroev drew attention to the consolidated nature of Russian chronicles. In the 30s of the XIX century. Skeptics M. Kachenovsky and S. Skromnenko drew attention to this same circumstance. Both believed that the Varangian-Norman problem was introduced into the chronicle no earlier than the 13th century, and S. Skromnenko emphasized the idea of the consolidated nature of the chronicle 6.
The idea of Nestor as the only chronicler was characteristic of M.P. Pogodin, who defended the authorship of Nestor and his follower Sylvester and accepted the Norman interpretation of the chronicle. Anti-Normanists, who read the chronicle texts in much the same way as the skeptics, could not accept the fact that the skeptics rejuvenated the chronicle information by more than two centuries. As a result, the rational grain in understanding the chronicles was not assimilated by the disputing parties.
In the 30-40s. XIX century the dispute about Nestor took a different direction. A. Kubarev, in a number of articles, compared the chronicle with the Life of Boris and Gleb, as well as the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, which reliably belonged to Nestor. In the chronicles, these stories were recounted by the “disciple of Theodosius,” and in the lives by the student of Theodosius’ successor, Stefan, who did not know Theodosius personally and wrote from the recollections of the few elders who knew him. A. Kubarev’s argument was supported by P.S. Kazansky, polemicizing, in particular, with P. Burkov, who tried to recognize heterogeneous monuments as belonging to the same author - Nestor. It was P. Butkov who tried to reconcile Nestor’s writings with the texts of the chronicle, believing that Nester’s Lives were written much earlier than the compilation of the chronicle. He did not deny Nestor’s participation in the chronicle writing, but for the first time raised the question of the chronicle texts of the 10th century, which are codes based on various written and oral sources. In the subsequent controversy, which continues to this day, different views emerged on the very concept of “chronicle corpus”, and most importantly on ways to identify sources and the reasons for certain insertions or deletions of texts from chronicles. In the 20th century two main approaches have been identified: A.A. Shakhmatov and N.K. Nikolsky. Shakhmatov believed that one must first reconstruct the text of a particular code and only then evaluate its content. As a result, he tried for many years to restore the editions of The Tale of Bygone Years, but in the end he came to the conclusion that this was impossible. He repeatedly changed his view on the authorship of the main edition, either attributing it to Nestor, the author of the lives, or to Sylvester. The oldest code, according to Shakhmatov, was compiled in the late 30s. XI century as a kind of explanatory note in connection with the establishment in Kyiv of the metropolis of Constantinople. He recognized numerous legends, which were, as it were, parallel texts to the messages in the chronicles, as extracts from the chronicles. N.K. Nikolsky paid much more attention to the content, ideological side of the chronicle texts, seeing in the discrepancies, first of all, one or another interest of the chroniclers and the ideological and political forces behind them. Accordingly, he considered all extra-chronicle stories and legends not as extracts from the chronicles, but as their sources. Literature in general in the Kiev era seemed to him richer than was previously thought, and he was ready to look for the beginning of chronicle writing at the end of the 10th century. These two approaches continue to this day in works on the history of chronicle writing.
Almost throughout the entire 19th century. the study of chronicles and sources of chronicles had almost no contact with disputes about the Varangians and Rus. And this despite the fact that it was from the chronicles that the source material was drawn. Only in the publications of D.I. Ilovaisky, published in the 70s. XIX century and collected in the collection “Research on the Beginning of Rus',” a certain connection was established between the chronicles and the problem of the beginning of Rus'. Ilovaisky was absolutely right in establishing that “The Tale of the Calling of the Varangians” is a later insertion into the “Tale of Bygone Years.” He also pointed out that Igor could not possibly be the son of Rurik: according to the chronicle chronology, they were separated by two generations. But on this basis he made a hasty conclusion that if this is an insertion, then, therefore, it is not worth taking into account. As a result, not only the concept of Normanism, but also the main direction of anti-Normanism - Venelin - Gedeonov - about the southern, Slavic coast of the Baltic as the source region of the Varangians, seemed to be crossed out. Ilovaisky searched for the history of Rus' only in the south, and “Slavicized” various clearly non-Slavic tribes, in particular the Roksolans, in whose name many saw the original Russians.
Norman theory
The first attempt to systematically present Russian history dates back to the 18th century. German historian professors invited from abroad, led by Schlozer, wrote Russian history on the basis of the few chronicles and historical documents known at that time and created the so-called “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state.
The theory is very simple and boils down to the fact that Norman foreigners, immigrants from Scandinavia, came and organized a huge state of the Slavs, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the Carpathians to the Volga. They came, according to this theory, at the request of the Slavs themselves, who were convinced of their inability to organize a state and “called” for this the Varangians, who came and distributed the northern regions among themselves: Rurik began to reign in Novgorod; Sineus, his brother, is in Belozersk; Truvor, the third brother, is in Izborsk. Subsequently, Rurik's son Igor, together with his guardian Oleg, extended his power to the south and began the unification under his rule of all Slavic tribes into one Kiev state (at the beginning of the 10th century). Under his son Svyatoslav, for whom his mother Olga ruled during his childhood and campaigns, and his grandson, Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, who baptized Rus' in 988, the Kiev state achieved enormous power and was not only the strongest, but also the most cultural state of the then Europe.
The scheme is very simple and the story is not complicated: due to the inability of our ancestors to create their own state, the “Varangians” did it. About the same thing that our ancestors imagined before the arrival of the Varangians, Schletser writes: “Of course, people were here, God knows since when and from where. But people without government (organization) are like animals and birds that fill the forests” 7.
And the famous poet A.K. Tolstoy in his humorous “History” says: “This self-humiliation, the recognition of one’s inferiority, is not known in the history of any people.”
Only foreigners who wrote our history could create such a theory, degrading national dignity, which became dominant in Russian historiography for a century and a half. We must remember that this theory was created in an era when all of Russia, after the revolutionary changes of Peter the Great, was rebuilt according to German models and when the Germans were the unquestioned authority in science and occupied key positions everywhere, and the German Holstein-Gottorp dynasty had just reigned in Russia. (Karl Peter-Ulrich, Duke of Holstein, married to Princess Anhalt of Zerbst - Peter III).
Europe's view of Russia at that time was as a land of, if not completely savage, then as a land of semi-savages, uncultured Asians - “Muscovites”. The newcomers from the West brought this view with them, and when they, as Russian academicians and professors, began to write Russian history, they portrayed it as the history of savages who were organized into a state by the “Varangians” who came from the West.
The primary sources that the creators of the “Norman theory” had at their disposal, as already mentioned, were very modest and incomplete. Linguistics did not begin then; scientific archeology and other auxiliary branches of historical science were absent then. There were no educated historians of Russian origin. There was no one to refute this theory, degrading national dignity.
It was not easy to challenge this general line, because any doubt about its correctness was seen as a denial of the authority of the Russian German academicians who created the “Norman theory,” which was adhered to by both the Imperial Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Public Education until the revolution.
However, despite all the above circumstances, immediately after its appearance the “Norman theory” met with a negative and critical attitude. The Russian people could not tolerate this self-deprecating theory. Lomonosov had already rebelled against her, but could not do anything against the then all-powerful Germans.
In the 19th century, especially at the end of the century, the voices of opponents of the Norman theory began to sound louder, more convincing and more convincing. The rapid development of auxiliary historical sciences, the discovery of new historical monuments, the systematic study of primary sources and foreign archives - provided a wealth of material for opponents of the Norman theory to completely refute it. All Russian historians of the 19th century (except for the “Norman” Pogodin) to one degree or another contributed to refuting the theory of the “calling of the Varangians.” About this “calling” Klyuchevsky says: “they were called to call, but in what capacity?” 8 And he explains that the Slavs, whose culture in the 9th century was immeasurably higher than that of the Scandinavian “Varangians,” sometimes actually called upon detachments of Varangians to maintain order and increase their forces in the fight against their neighbors. It happened, says Klyuchevsky, that bands of Varangians appeared without any call for the purpose of robbery and profit and stayed for a long time. It happened that the Varangians, called up for service, seized power. But all this has nothing to do with the explanation of the appearance of small detachments of the Varangians (which no one disputes) that the Norman theory gives.
During the last decades of the current century, almost all outstanding historians in Russia and numerous authoritative Russian historians in exile are unanimous in their denial of the Norman theory and, in the light of new facts and discoveries of historical and auxiliary sciences, provide documented data about the period of life of our ancestors in which , according to Schletser, they lived “like animals and birds that fill the forests” - about the period preceding the creation of the Kiev state
Normanists and anti-Normanists
So, in 862, the Novgorodians turned to the Varangians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no outfit in it. Come reign and rule over us” 9. And the Varangian princes came - “the oldest Rurik, sitting on Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beleozero, and the third Izborst, Truvor. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed” 10. From Klyuchevsky’s point of view, “if we remove the somewhat idyllic cover, a very simple, even crude phenomenon will be revealed to us.” Which one? A gracious invitation to strangers? - come and rule? No, this is “military hiring”, and “military guards received a certain amount of food for their services.” And then? Feeling their strength, the mercenaries turned into rulers. In 882, 20 years later, a certain Oleg, a warrior of Rurik, appears in Kyiv; he destroyed his fellow countrymen Askold and Dir, and then ruled under Rurik’s young son, Igor (882 - 912). Klyuchevsky’s position seems to us to be quite balanced - a calm recognition of the role of the “Varangian element”, without heightened emotions and passions.
If Klyuchevsky is a Normanist, then he is the most sensible one. The Principality of Kiev “was first one of the local Varangian principalities.” However, Klyuchevsky did not consider Novgorod to be the beginning of the Russian state: the political unification of the Russian Slavs came from Kyiv, and not from Novgorod. Klyuchevsky associates the name Rus' with the Varangians - Russia was called “that Varangian tribe from which our first princes came.” And later, in the 11th-12th centuries, the entire territory subject to the Russian princes, with the entire Slavic-Russian population, began to be called Russia.
So, if Klyuchevsky is a Normanist, then close to him is our contemporary Gumilyov Lev Nikolaevich - geographer, historian, ethnographer - known for his theory of ethnogenesis and “passionarity”.
Gumilyov's position is more rigid. So, we read: “There are various hypotheses about the origin of the Rus, which are called differently in different languages: Ruzheny, Rosy, Rugi” 11
etc.................
"Norman theory" and the emergence of the Old Russian state
Introduction
1. Origin and meaning of the onym "Rus"
2. Ethnicity of the first Russians
3. The role of the “Varangian element” in the early state structures of Ancient Rus'
4. Origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs
Conclusion
These events are legendary. Moreover, many other peoples of the world have similar legends associated with the emergence of state institutions. And yet, some scientists took the news of the calling of the Varangians literally and came to rather peculiar conclusions.
Thus, the creators of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state, Johann Gottfried Bayer and Gerard Friedrich Miller, two German historians invited by Peter I to work in St. Petersburg in 1724, argued, relying on the PVL, that Russia - along with statehood - received its name from Scandinavians.
Bayer's works were highly valued by Russian historians of the 18th century. Tatishchev borrowed from him the Norman theory of the origin of the Varangians-Rus, which he expounds in his history according to Bayer. The German scientist was an expert in Scandinavian languages, but did not consider it necessary to become at least somewhat familiar with the language of the country whose history he took up. Very accurately, it seems to me, N. Nadezhdin said about Bayer: “Only due to an inexplicable strangeness, living in Russia, being a Russian professor, studying Russian history, he not only did not know a word, but did not even want to study in Russian” ( quote from Mavrodin).
All followers of Bayer and Miller began to be called Normanists. There is hardly any need to talk about all the Normanists, there were many of them, and the views of each of them had their own shades, from those who argued for the “extreme savagery” of the Slavs before Rurik, and to researchers who recognized only the Scandinavian origin of the ruling dynasty in Rus'.
The founder of the “anti-Norman theory” was Mikhail Lomonosov. His “Ancient Russian History” was the first work of an anti-Normanist, the work of a fighter for the honor of the Russian people, for the honor of their culture, language, history, a work directed against the theory of the Germans. He knew the past of Rus', believed in the strength of the Russian people, in their bright future.
The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists, either calming down or intensifying again, has been going on for over two centuries.
Among the works of the Normanists with a certain degree of convention, of course, can be attributed “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin. He cannot be blamed for a lack of patriotism, just like Solovyov (“History of Russia since Ancient Times”) and Polevoy, who hold similar views. But everyone expresses their love for the Motherland in their own way.
By the end of the 19th century, the number of supporters of the “Norman theory” significantly exceeded those of the “anti-Norman” one.
After the work “The Beginning of the Russian State” by Wilhelm Thomsen was published in Russia in 1891, many Russian historians agreed that the Norman origin of Rus' had already been proven. And although the anti-Normanists of that time, Gedeonov and Ilovaisky, continued their speeches, the majority of scientists accepted the Norman position.
This theory was also recognized by the majority of Soviet scientists, in particular I.A. Rozhkov, M.N. Pokrovsky.
Since the 20s of the 20th century, many works on the history of Russia began to be published. It is worth noting the work of A. Shakhmatov, devoted to the problem of the origin of the Russian state. Shakhmatov’s attitude to the “Norman problem” is very complex; his works played an important role in the criticism of Normanism, but, on the other hand, the scientist himself took a Normanist position.
Since the 30s of the 20th century there has been a surge in the activity of anti-Normanists. B.D. Grekov in his works (“On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'”, “The struggle of Rus' for the creation of its own state”, “Kievan Rus”) argues that a state cannot be created by individual people even in one year.
Fundamental changes took place in Russian historiography, and V.A. was the first to directly criticize the “Norman theory”. Parkhomenko (“On the question of the “Norman conquest” and the origin of Rus'.” //IM, 1938, #4)
In the 40s V.V. Mavrodin (“Ancient Rus'”, “Formation of Russian statehood”, “The fight against Normanism in Russian historical science”) considered the issue of the participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus'. He showed the limited nature of this participation, although there are moments in his works where the role of the Normans is exaggerated.
In the post-war years, an anti-Normanist movement developed. These are articles by B.D. Grekov and works by S.V. Yushkova (“Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state.” M., 1949)
I will use these and other works of remarkable Russian historians in the main part of my work.
And in order to achieve the goal of my essay, namely, to characterize the “Norman theory” as a version of the origin of the Old Russian state, it seems to me that I need to agree with V.O. Klyuchevsky and divide the “Norman problem” into a number of “smaller”, but much more real and significant issues for understanding the early history of Rus':
The origin and meaning of the onym “Rus” itself;
Ethnicity of the first Russian princes;
The role of the “Varangian element” in the early state structures of Ancient Rus';
The origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs.
1. Origin and meaning of the onym “Rus”
The endless debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists about whether the Varangians should be identified with Russia, and, therefore, the term “Rus” should be considered a word of Scandinavian origin, came from several places in the PVL and, in particular, from the following two: geographical introduction, where “Rus” is one from the North Germanic peoples, along with the Swedes and Norwegians; and legends about the calling of the Varangians, where we find the same statement, and where it is indicated that the name “Russian Land” came from the summoned Varangian princes, who brought with them “all Rus'”. This also includes a remark of the same content, but only on a different occasion, placed in the PVL under 898.
Studies of chronicles have shown that the identification of the Varangians with Russia is not initial; it was introduced by the compiler of the “Tale of Bygone Years” of the first edition in 1111, and according to the preceding “Initial Code” of 1093, restored by Shakhmatov, the Varangian squads began to be called Rus only after they moved south, to Kiev.
Now it’s worth moving on to the opinions of various Russian historians on this matter.
One of the first Russian historians to speak out on this topic was Karamzin. In his “History of the Russian State” he writes: “... the Slavs, tired of internal strife, in 862 again called to themselves the three Varangian brothers, from Russian tribe, who became the first rulers in our ancient fatherland and after whom it began to be called Russia. “This important incident, which serves as the basis for the history and greatness of Russia, requires special attention from us and consideration of all circumstances.” What circumstances does Karamzin consider in his work?
First of all, he is interested in who Nestor calls the Varangians. For Karamzin, the chronicler’s opinion is the law; he does not even try to doubt the authenticity of the information from the PVL. Therefore, it is natural that, following the chronicler, he considers the Varangians to be Scandinavians, or “inhabitants of the three kingdoms”: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In addition, he clarifies: “... there was no other people in the North, except the Scandinavians, so brave and strong as to conquer the entire vast land from the Baltic Sea to Rostov (Mary’s home).” This is the opinion of a true Normanist.
There is one more circumstance that concerns Karamzin no less, this is how the historian himself speaks about it: “... we want to know what kind of people, especially those called Russia, gave our fatherland the first sovereigns and the name itself, already at the end of the ninth century terrible for the Greek empire? To be fair, it should be said that Karamzin is looking for an answer to this question from other historians: “...however, historians find good reasons to think that Nestor’s Varangians-Rus lived in the Kingdom of Sweden, where one coastal region has long been called Rosskaya, Ros-lagen. Its inhabitants could in the 7th, 8th or 9th centuries be known in neighboring lands under a special name, just like the Gotlanders, whom Nestor always distinguishes from the Swedes. Finns, having no time with Ros- lagen more intercourse than with other countries of Sweden is still called everyone its inhabitants Rossami, Rotsami, Rootsami". Karamzin does not pay much attention to other opinions, obviously completely agreeing with this.
Each exam question may have multiple answers from different authors. The answer may contain text, formulas, pictures. The author of the exam or the author of the answer to the exam can delete or edit a question.
Normantheory- a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.
The term “Varyags” itself arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the line of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers who analyzed Nestor’s narrative about the calling of the Varangians almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing the Varangian-Russians as immigrants from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G.F. Muller, Thunman, Schletser, etc. ). But back in the 18th century, active opponents of this “Norman theory” began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).
However, until the sixties of the 19th century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Safarik and Miklosic. However, since 1859, opposition to Normanism arose with new, unprecedented force.
Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, it was really founded by the Scandinavians, that is, the Swedes.
The Norman theory denies the origin of the Old Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment the Varangians were called to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, “of whom Rurik and his brothers were, were not of Slavic tribe and language... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.”
Within the framework of the chosen topic, I will consider the Norman theory, the opinions of its supporters and opponents. In conclusion, I will try to express my point of view about the Norman theory - whether it is true or not.
2Norman theory and anti-Normanism
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. At this 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.
Already knowing the correct resolution of the dispute, it is still not without interest to weigh the pros and cons and come to your own opinion on this issue.
According to the Norman theory, based on a misinterpretation 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. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the 9th-11th centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists.
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 expelled overseas, and did not give them tribute, and they themselves became increasingly ill, and did not 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 place is called Varyazi Rui, as all the druzii are called Svie, but the druzii are Urmane, Anglyane, 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 go 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 arriving Varangians practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural influence on 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 staff 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.
M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of the “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.
Noting the role of the Slavs in the development of world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus, Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially clearly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where “the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves.”
However, during that period, the class contradictions that tore apart ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of popular rule: the Novgorodians “fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to gain a majority.”
And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “Our land is great and abundant, but we have no outfit; let you come to us to reign and own us."
Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.
In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refuted the Norman theory: “The Normans were not the dominant tribe, they only served the princes of the native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find any obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society there can be no talk of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period."
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 result, by the end of the 19th century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the polemics on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the leading role in considering this issue. After his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists (Ilovaisky, Gedeonov) continued their polemics, the majority of representatives of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea was established about the victory of the Normanistic concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work. Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history.” Presnyakov A.E. Wilhelm Thomsen about the most ancient period of Russian history. Also the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the overwhelming majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter, in Rus' “the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg.” This statement perfectly illustrates the situation that developed in Russian science at that time - in fact, you couldn’t imagine a worse situation.
It should be noted that in the 18th - early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but did not specifically deal with 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 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 precisely this that was the “Russian Khaganate”, known from the entry of 839 in the Vertinsky annals. From here, in the 840s, Norman Russia 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 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. An important role in this was played by the criterion developed by Soviet archaeologists for resolving the issue of the ethnicity of funerary monuments. It was found that the decisive point is not the presence of certain things in the burial, but the entire burial complex as a whole. This approach allowed V.I. Ravdonikas, on the basis of excavations of burial mounds in the South-Eastern Ladoga region carried out in the late 20s, criticized Arne’s statements about the existence of Noman colonies in this area and established that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe. A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the Normanists' claim about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensk lands, showing that here, too, most Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which the burial was carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local custom.
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 E.A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion that when studying this problem it is important 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.
In the mid-30s, scientists first developed the “Marxist concept” of the emergence of class society and the state in the East Slavic lands. It was established that the emergence of the Old Russian state was the result of a centuries-long process of socio-economic development of the Eastern Slavs and a consequence of deep internal changes that took place in East Slavic society in the 9th-10th centuries. Within the framework of this concept, there was no place for the Varangians, the creators of Russian statehood. As B.D. Grekov pointed out: “at the modern level of science it is no longer possible to say with old naive views that the state can be created by individual people in a certain year,” “... the state in no way represents a force from the outside imposed on society, but is only a product of a long internal process of development of society." - this quote from the classic of Marxism F. Engels absolutely accurately reflects the point of view of Marxist teaching.
The classics of Marxism established that the state “... is a machine for maintaining the dominance of one class over another,” is created only when within a given country, as a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, society disintegrates into classes and an economically strong class is formed, striving to subordinate the main one. masses of the population to establish their class rule. Therefore, we could only talk about some degree of participation of the Normans in the grandiose shifts that took place in Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries.
The provisions of the classics of Marxism were the necessary basis for the development of the Soviet concept of the origin of the Old Russian state, which dealt a decisive blow to the Norman theory. It is noteworthy that even the scientists themselves who developed it did not immediately realize that this concept undermines the foundations on which the teachings of the Normanists are based.
After the completion of fundamental shifts in Russian historiography, V.A. was the first to directly criticize the main provisions of the Norman theory. Parkhomenko. He analyzed the main arguments of the Norman school and showed that these arguments are not based on a serious analysis of the entire set of sources, and therefore are completely unconvincing.
Already by the forties, the positions of Russian scientists on the Norman survey were formulated by M.I. Artamonov: the Varangians penetrated Rus' early, but they stood at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, and therefore could not bring either a higher culture or statehood to Rus'; they only joined the local process of state formation. Yes, Marxist science recognizes that in the 9th-10th centuries, as evidenced by reliable sources, mercenary detachments of Norman warriors who served the Russian princes, as well as Norman merchants who traveled for trading purposes along the waterways of Eastern Europe, repeatedly appeared in Russian lands. However, based on the entire set of written, archaeological and folklore and some other sources, Marxist science argues that the formation of class society, the formation of the ancient Russian state, the beginning of the development of feudal relations, the formation of the Russian people and its material and spiritual culture are the result of deep and long-term processes of internal development East Slavic society, without significant influence from the Normans. The process of the emergence of statehood in Rus' was also studied in the forties by V.V. Mavrodin, in particular, considered the issue of the participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus'. Although the author acknowledged the participation of the Normans in this process, recorded by many sources, he at the same time showed the rather limited nature of this participation. The book recognized the Norman origin of the princely dynasty, but at the same time indicated that the dynasty “therefore stayed in Rus'... quickly merged with the Russian, Slavic ruling elite” and began to fight for its interests. At the same time, it should be noted that the text of the monograph contained several formulations that exaggerated the role of the Normans in the process of formation of the Old Russian state.
In the post-war years, the anti-Normanist movement developed. First of all, these are articles by B.D. Grekov with criticism of the Normanist works of T. Arne and the Finnish philologist V. Kiparsky: “On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'” and “Anti-scientific fabrications of the Finnish “professor”, the latter of which was published in 1950.
Even more detailed criticism of the Norman theory was contained in the works of S.V. Yushkov.
At the same time, there were some shortcomings in our historiography in the first post-war decade. Some scientists, polemicizing with the Normanists, generally denied everything connected with the activities of the Normans in Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. Things went to the other extreme: some historians generally denied the scientific nature of the Norman theory. For example, according to V.P. Shusharina, at present the Norman theory “...has become a means of falsifying history, that is, it has become a concept lying outside science.” Fortunately, there was another point of view, presented, in particular, by Shaskolsky: the Norman theory is “... a scientific theory based on a long scientific tradition, and criticism of this theory should have the character of a serious, deeply substantiated scientific polemic.” Accept the Norman theory only as someone’s malicious intent and a phenomenon without any basis, then, when science has already begun the inevitable process of exposing it, it would be at least stupid - after all, there were real written sources on which supporters of Normanism relied.
A general presentation of the Norman problem from the standpoint of Soviet science is given in the book by V.V. Mavrodina. The author re-critically analyzed the argumentation of the Normanists, noted all the basic information from sources testifying to various forms of participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus', but at the same time showed the limited nature of this participation in the grandiose process of the emergence of the state in Eastern Europe, which was the result of centuries-old social development Eastern Slavs.
In general, in science, what happened was what should have happened: the polemics of Soviet science with Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle with the scientific constructions of the last century they began to move on to specific criticism of currently existing and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main trends of foreign Sciences.
By that time, there were four main theories in Norman historiography:
1). Conquest theory: 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 argue that the Varangian colonies were the real basis for establishing Norman dominance 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 as 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.
To prove or, conversely, disprove one or another theory presented, evidence is undoubtedly needed. Let's try to look at some aspects of the problem in more detail. Any of the facts given below, one way or another connected with the topic of the Varangians in Rus', plays into the hands of anti-Normanists and each of them proves the inconsistency of the Norman theory.
For example, the origin and meaning of the term "Rus". Philologists from Europe - Ekblom, Stender-Petersen, Falk, Ekbu, Mägiste, as well as historians Pashkevich and Dreyer tried to establish and strengthen the construction according to which “Rus” comes from “ruotsi” - the word with which the Finns call the Swedes and Sweden. “Rus” in the sense of “Russian state” meant the state of the Swedes-Rus. Pashkevich said that “Rus” are Normans from Eastern Europe. G. Vernadsky opposed these constructions, saying that the term “Rus” is of southern Russian origin, and that “rukhs” are Alan tribes of the southern steppes of the mid-1st millennium AD. The word “Rus” denoted the strong political association Rus that existed long before the appearance of the Varangians, which carried out military campaigns on the Black Sea coast. If we turn to the written sources of that time - Byzantine, Arabic, we can see that they consider Rus' one of the local peoples of southeastern Europe. Also, some sources call it, and this is especially important, Slavs. The identification of the concepts of “Rus” and “Normans” in the chronicle, which the Normanists emphasized, turned out to be a later insertion.
The situation is similar for another main point of the Norman theory—the origin of the word “Varangians.” Among the various hypotheses, there is one that assumes not the Scandinavian origin of this term, but Russian. Back in the 17th century. S. Herberstein drew parallels between the name “Varangians” and the name of one of the Baltic Slavic tribes, the Vargs. This idea was developed by Lomonosov, and later by Svistun. The general meaning of their hypotheses boils down to the fact that the “Varangians” are aliens from the Baltic lands who were hired to serve the East Slavic princes. If we proceed from the correctness of these hypotheses, it becomes unclear where the word “Varangians” came from in the chronicles. It is clear that looking for it in the Scandinavian sagas is completely pointless.
More than fifty scientists have been studying the problem of Scandinavian borrowings in the Russian language for two centuries. The Normanists wanted to show that many objects and concepts in the Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. Especially for this, the Swedish philologist K. Törnqvist did a huge job of searching for and sifting out Scandinavian borrowings from the Russian language. The result was completely disappointing. A total of 115 words were found, the vast majority of which are dialects of the 19th century, not used in our time. Only thirty are obvious borrowings, of which only ten can be cited as proof of the Norman theory. These are words such as “gridin”, “tiun”, “yabetnik”, “Brkovsk”, “pud”. Words such as “narov”, “syaga”, “shgla” are used once in the sources. The conclusion is obvious. With exactly the same success, researcher A. Backlund tried to prove the presence of Scandinavian names on the territory of the Russian state. Another basis of Norman teaching is Scandinavian toponymy on the territory of Rus'. Such toponyms were studied in the works of M. Farsmer and E. Rydzevskaya. Between them they identified 370 toponyms and hydronyms. A lot of? But at that time there were 60,000 settlements in the explored territory. Simple calculations show that for every 1000 names of settlements there are 7 Scandinavian ones. This is too funny a figure to talk about Varangian expansion. Scandinavian names of settlements and rivers rather speak of trade relations.
Supporters of the Norman theory also focused on the abundance of Scandinavian words in the Russian language. This concerned the field of hydronymy: the concepts of “lahta” (bay), “motka” (path), “voloknema” (cape), “sora” (branching) and some others seemed Varangian. However, it has been proven that these words are of local, Finnish origin.
In general, if you carefully analyze all the data that seems to support the Norman theory, they will certainly turn against it. In addition, the Normanists use different sources than the anti-Normanists, and most of these sources are Western, for example, the three lives of Otgon of Bamberg. Such sources are often falsified and biased. Sources that can be taken on faith - Byzantine, for example, clearly indicate that Rus' should not be confused with the Varangians; Rus' is mentioned earlier than the Varangians; Russian princes and squads prayed either to Perun or to Christ, but not to the Scandinavian gods. Also trustworthy are the works of Photius and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which say nothing about the calling of the Varangians to Rus'.
The same can be said about Arab sources, although at first the Normanists managed to turn them in their favor. These sources speak of the Russians as a tall, fair-haired people. Indeed, one might think of the Russians as Scandinavians, but these ethnographic conclusions are very shaky. Some features in customs point to the Slavs.
The totality of all sources boldly suggests the inconsistency of the Norman theory. In addition to this irrefutable evidence, there are many others, such as evidence of the Slavic origin of the names of the Dnieper rapids, and some archaeological data. All these facts debunk the Norman theory.
Conclusion
So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).
However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could have occurred not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate government, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.
In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and most likely these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also those cut down here in Rus'. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.
Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some settle here - some become princes, some warriors, some remain traders. Subsequently, the Slavs and Varangians together continue their journey “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.
Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states had long since emerged, into the Middle Ages.
And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared: shipbuilding, sailing, navigation, navigation by the stars, expansion of trade relations, military affairs, jurisprudence, laws.
The conclusion from all of the above is the following: it can be assumed that the role of the Normans in Rus' in the first period of their appearance on the territory of the Eastern Slavs (until the third quarter of the 10th century) was different than in the subsequent period. At first, this is the role of merchants who know foreign countries well, then warriors, navigators, and sailors.
A glorified Scandinavian dynasty was called to the throne, apparently glorified in the second half of the 9th century or at the time of Oleg’s arrival in Kyiv. The opinion that the Normans played the same role in Rus' as the conquistadors in America is fundamentally erroneous. The Normans gave impetus to economic and social transformations in Ancient Rus' - this statement also has no basis.
Thus, the role of the Varangians in the development of the state is minimal, and the Norman theory is fundamentally incorrect.
Formation of the Old Russian state (briefly)
The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were the collapse of tribal ties and the development of a new method of production. The Old Russian state took shape in the process of the development of feudal relations, the emergence of class contradictions and coercion.
Among the Slavs, a dominant layer gradually formed, the basis of which was the military Nobility of the Kyiv princes - the squad. Already in the 9th century, strengthening the position of their princes, the warriors firmly occupied leading positions in society.
It was in the 9th century. In Eastern Europe, two ethnopolitical associations were formed, which ultimately became the basis of the state. It was formed as a result of the unification of the glades with the center in Kyiv.
Slavs, Krivichi and Finnish-speaking tribes united in the area of Lake Ilmen (center in Novgorod). In the middle of the 9th century. this association began to be ruled by a native of Scandinavia, Rurik (862-879). Therefore, the year 862 is considered the year of formation of the ancient Russian state.
The presence of Scandinavians (Varangians) on the territory of Rus' is confirmed by archaeological excavations and records in chronicles. In the 18th century German scientists G.F. Miller and G.Z. Bayer proved the Scandinavian theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state (Rus).
M.V. Lomonosov, denying the Norman (Varangian) origin of statehood, associated the word “Rus” with the Sarmatians-Roxolans, the Ros River, flowing in the south.
Lomonosov, relying on “The Legend of the Princes of Vladimir,” argued that Rurik, being a native of Prussia, belonged to the Slavs, which were the Prussians. It was this “southern” anti-Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state that was supported and developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. historians.
The first mentions of Rus' are attested in the “Bavarian Chronograph” and date back to the period 811-821. In it, the Russians are mentioned as a people within the Khazars inhabiting Eastern Europe. In the 9th century Rus' was perceived as an ethnopolitical entity on the territory of the glades and northerners.
Rurik, who took control of Novgorod, sent his squad led by Askold and Dir to rule Kiev. Rurik's successor, Varangian Prince Oleg(879-912), who took possession of Smolensk and Lyubech, subjugated all the Krivichi to his power, and in 882 he fraudulently lured Askold and Dir out of Kyiv and killed them. Having captured Kyiv, he managed to unite by force of his power the two most important centers of the Eastern Slavs - Kyiv and Novgorod. Oleg subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners and Radimichi.
In 907, Oleg, having gathered a huge army of Slavs and Finns, launched a campaign against Constantinople (Constantinople), the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Russian squad devastated the surrounding area and forced the Greeks to ask Oleg for peace and pay a huge tribute. The result of this campaign was peace treaties with Byzantium that were very beneficial for Rus', concluded in 907 and 911.
Oleg died in 912, and his successor was Igor(912-945), son of Rurik. In 941 he attacked Byzantium, which violated the previous treaty. Igor's army plundered the shores of Asia Minor, but was defeated in a naval battle. Then in 945, in alliance with the Pechenegs, he launched a new campaign against Constantinople and forced the Greeks to once again conclude a peace treaty. In 945, while trying to collect a second tribute from the Drevlyans, Igor was killed.
Igor's widow Duchess Olga(945-957) ruled due to the childhood of his son Svyatoslav. She brutally took revenge for the murder of her husband by ravaging the lands of the Drevlyans. Olga organized the sizes and places of collecting tribute. In 955 she visited Constantinople and was baptized into Orthodoxy.
Svyatoslav(957-972) - the bravest and most influential of the princes, who subjugated the Vyatichi to his power. In 965 he inflicted a number of heavy defeats on the Khazars. Svyatoslav defeated the North Caucasian tribes, as well as the Volga Bulgarians, and plundered their capital, the Bulgars. The Byzantine government sought an alliance with him to fight external enemies.
Kyiv and Novgorod became the center of formation of the ancient Russian state, and the East Slavic tribes, northern and southern, united around them. In the 9th century both of these groups united into a single ancient Russian state, which went down in history as Rus'.
The emergence of the Old Russian state is traditionally associated with the unification of the Ilmen region and the Dnieper region as a result of the campaign against Kiev by the Novgorod prince Oleg in 882. Having killed Askold and Dir, who reigned in Kiev, Oleg began to rule on behalf of the young son of Prince Rurik - Igor.
The formation of the state was the result of long and complex processes that took place over vast areas of the East European Plain in the second half of the 1st millennium AD.
By the 7th century East Slavic tribal unions settled in its vastness, the names and location of which are known to historians from the ancient Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” by the Monk Nestor (11th century). These are the glades (along the western bank of the Dnieper), the Drevlyans (to the northwest of them), the Ilmen Slovenes (along the banks of Lake Ilmen and the Volkhov River), the Krivichi (in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Volga and Western Dvina), the Vyatichi (along the banks of the Oka), northerners (along the Desna), etc. The northern neighbors of the eastern Slavs were the Finns, the western - the Balts, the southeastern - the Khazars. Trade routes were of great importance in their early history, one of which connected Scandinavia and Byzantium (the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” from the Gulf of Finland along the Neva, Lake Ladoga, Volkhov, Lake Ilmen to the Dnieper and the Black Sea), and the other connected the Volga regions with the Caspian Sea and Persia.
Nestor cites the famous story about the calling of the Varangian (Scandinavian) princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor by the Ilmen Slovenes: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: come reign and rule over us.” Rurik accepted the offer and in 862 he reigned in Novgorod (that is why the monument “Millennium of Russia” was erected in Novgorod in 1862). Many historians of the 18th-19th centuries. were inclined to understand these events as evidence that statehood was brought to Rus' from the outside and the Eastern Slavs were unable to create their own state on their own (Norman theory). Modern researchers recognize this theory as untenable. They pay attention to the following:
- Nestor’s story proves that the Eastern Slavs by the middle of the 9th century. there were bodies that were the prototype of state institutions (prince, squad, meeting of tribal representatives - the future veche);
— the Varangian origin of Rurik, as well as Oleg, Igor, Olga, Askold, Dir is indisputable, but the invitation of a foreigner as a ruler is an important indicator of the maturity of the prerequisites for the formation of a state. The tribal union is aware of its common interests and tries to resolve contradictions between individual tribes with the calling of a prince standing above local differences. The Varangian princes, surrounded by a strong and combat-ready squad, led and completed the processes leading to the formation of the state;
- large tribal super-unions, which included several tribal unions, developed among the Eastern Slavs already in the 8th-9th centuries. — around Novgorod and around Kyiv; — external factors played an important role in the formation of the Ancient Tehran state: threats coming from outside (Scandinavia, Khazar Khaganate) pushed for unity;
— the Varangians, having given Rus' a ruling dynasty, quickly assimilated and merged with the local Slavic population;
— as for the name “Rus”, its origin continues to cause controversy. Some historians associate it with Scandinavia, others find its roots in the East Slavic environment (from the Ros tribe, who lived along the Dnieper). Other opinions are also expressed on this matter.
At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 11th century. The Old Russian state was going through a period of formation. The formation of its territory and composition was actively underway. Oleg (882-912) subjugated the tribes of the Drevlyans, Northerners and Radimichi to Kyiv, Igor (912-945) successfully fought with the Streets, Svyatoslav (964-972) with the Vyatichi. During the reign of Prince Vladimir (980-1015), the Volynians and Croats were subjugated, and power over the Radimichi and Vyatichi was confirmed. In addition to the East Slavic tribes, the Old Russian state included Finno-Ugric peoples (Chud, Merya, Muroma, etc.). The degree of independence of the tribes from the Kyiv princes was quite high.
For a long time, the only indicator of submission to the authorities of Kyiv was the payment of tribute. Until 945, it was carried out in the form of polyudya: the prince and his squad from November to April traveled around the territories under their control and collected tribute. The murder of Prince Igor in 945 by the Drevlyans, who tried for the second time to collect tribute that exceeded the traditional level, forced his wife Princess Olga to introduce lessons (the amount of tribute) and establish graveyards (places where tribute was to be taken). This was the first example known to historians of how the princely government approved new norms that were mandatory for ancient Russian society.
Important functions of the Old Russian state, which it began to perform from the moment of its inception, were also protecting the territory from military raids (in the 9th - early 11th centuries these were mainly raids by the Khazars and Pechenegs) and pursuing an active foreign policy (campaigns against Byzantium in 907, 911, 944, 970, Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911 and 944, the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate in 964-965, etc.).
The period of formation of the Old Russian state ended with the reign of Prince Vladimir I the Holy, or Vladimir the Red Sun. Under him, Christianity was adopted from Byzantium (see ticket No. 3), a system of defensive fortresses was created on the southern borders of Rus', and the so-called ladder system of transfer of power was finally formed. The order of succession was determined by the principle of seniority in the princely family. Vladimir, having taken the throne of Kiev, placed his eldest sons in the largest Russian cities. The most important reign after Kyiv - Novgorod - was transferred to his eldest son. In the event of the death of the eldest son, his place was to be taken by the next in seniority, all other princes were moved to more important thrones. During the life of the Kyiv prince, this system worked flawlessly. After his death, as a rule, there followed a more or less long period of struggle by his sons for the reign of Kiev.
The heyday of the Old Russian state occurred during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and his sons. It includes the oldest part of the Russian Pravda - the first monument of written law that has come down to us (“Russian Law,” information about which dates back to Oleg’s reign, has not been preserved either in the original or in copies). Russian Truth regulated relations in the princely economy - the patrimony. Its analysis allows historians to talk about the existing system of government: the Kiev prince, like the local princes, is surrounded by a squad, the top of which are called boyars and with whom he consults on the most important issues (the Duma, the permanent council under the prince). From among the warriors, mayors are appointed to manage cities, governors, tributaries (collectors of land taxes), mytniki (collectors of trade duties), tiuns (administrators of princely estates), etc. Russian Pravda contains valuable information about ancient Russian society. It was based on the free rural and urban population (people). There were slaves (servants, serfs), farmers dependent on the prince (zakup, ryadovichi, smerds - historians do not have a common opinion about the position of the latter).
Yaroslav the Wise pursued an energetic dynastic policy, tying his sons and daughters by marriage with the ruling families of Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, etc.
Yaroslav died in 1054, before 1074. his sons managed to coordinate their actions. At the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. the power of the Kyiv princes weakened, individual principalities acquired increasing independence, the rulers of which tried to agree with each other on cooperation in the fight against the new - Polovtsian - threat. Tendencies towards the fragmentation of a single state intensified as its individual regions grew richer and stronger (for more details, see ticket No. 2). The last Kyiv prince who managed to stop the collapse of the Old Russian state was Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125). After the death of the prince and the death of his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), the fragmentation of Rus' became a fait accompli.
According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Rus' were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.
Background
It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. Subsequently, many major Russian historians adhered to this theory, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.
The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully outlined by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered virtually proven.
In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory took hold in the wake of the growth of ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.
Today, the moderate Norman theory prevails, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.
Two ethnonyms
The key terms used by the “Normanists” are “Varangians” and “Rus”. They are found in many chronicle sources, including in the Tale of Bygone Years:
“And they said to themselves [the Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi]: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.”
The word “Rus” for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically related to the Finnish term “ruotsi”, which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. Thus, linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that from “Ruotsi” the name “Rus” can be formed purely philologically.
Norman philologists do not ignore other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - “Rhodes” (Swedish “rowers”) and “Roslagen” (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, “Rhodes” could well turn into “Russians”.
However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alan tribes, which is known as "Roksolans".
“Varyags” (other scan. “Væringjar”) “Normanists” also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, focusing either on the social or on the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, mercenary warriors without an exact localization of place of residence and specific ethnicity.
Sigismund Herberstein in “Notes on Muscovy” (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word “Varangian” and the name of the tribe of Baltic Slavs - “Vargs”, which, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians “were from different tribes and languages.”
Chronicle evidence
One of the main sources that brought to us the idea of “calling the Varangians to reign” is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.
Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.
Moreover, being a collection of different chronicles, “The Tale of Bygone Years” offers us three different references to the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Rus'.
In the “Novgorod Chronicle,” which absorbed the “Initial Code” that preceded the Tale from the end of the 11th century, there is no longer a comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to Rurik’s participation in the founding of Novgorod, and then explains that “the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian family.”
In the “Joachim Chronicle” compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.
Linguistic evidence
It has now been precisely established that a number of words in the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, and words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely steward). A number of names also passed from Old Scandinavian to Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor.
An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and “Russian” languages.
Each “Russian” name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, “Varuforos” (“Big Pool”) clearly echoes the Old Icelandic “Barufors”.
Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their insignificant number.
Archaeological evidence
Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, at the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.
In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects with the image of a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs.
Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson, dating back to the middle of the 10th century.
It is known that in 992, the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the burial ceremony of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the construction of a mound. Russian archaeologists discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread all the way to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.
However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian objects in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Rus', the burials were carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local rites.
Alternative view
Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Rus' existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of the northern and southern Slavs.
Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: “after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called polyans, the speech was Slavic.” The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people.
The Slavic theory was developed by 19th century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.
The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - the Obodrites, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym “Russian”.
The Rus and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper region.
A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the “Russian Kaganate”, put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the Russian state was located between the Dnieper and Don. The ethnonym “Rus”, according to this hypothesis, appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.
What does genetics say?
Genetics could answer the question about the ethnicity of the founders of the Old Russian state. Such studies were carried out, but they gave rise to many contradictions.
In 2007, Newsweek published the results of studies of the genome of living representatives of the Rurikovich house. It was noted that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich family) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard universities, disagrees with such conclusions, noting that “there are no Swedish haplotypes.” He defines his belonging to the Rurikovichs by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov’s research, could indeed have lived in the 9th century, but its Scandinavian origin is questioned.
“The Rurikovichs are either carriers of haplogroup R1a, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of haplogroup N1c1,” the scientist concludes.
Elena Melnikova, a professor at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the situation can be clarified by analyzing DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in northern Russia.
