direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Ancient Russia. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 16th century. G. Bayer, G. Miller and others.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NORMAN THEORY

direction in historiography, supporters of which consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Dr. Russia. N. t. was formulated by him. scientists working in St. Petersburg. AN in the 2nd quarter. 18th century, - G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller, and others. A. L. Shletser, who arrived in Russia, later became a supporter of N. t. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of Dr.-Rus. The story of the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling to Russia of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862 served as the state-va, which, as established by the researchers of the annals, is a later interpolation. This news was brought, apparently, in the 12th century. with the aim of countering the desire of Byzantium to impose political politics on Russia. dependence together with the dependence of the church on Byzantium. Already in the period of the formation of N. t., its politic was revealed. meaning, aimed at presenting dr. Russia is an extremely backward country, the Slavs and their descendants are a people incapable of self-sufficiency. ist. development, and the Germans and Normans - by force, edges from the very beginning of Rus. History is called upon to guide Russia, its economy and culture. All R. 18th century N. t. was criticized by M. V. Lomonosov, who in connection with this study of the history of the East. Slavs. He pointed to the the inconsistency of N. t. and its political hostile to Russia. meaning. In the nobility-monarchy. historiography 18-19 centuries. the views of the "Normanists" acquired the character of an official. versions of the origin of Rus. state-va. H. M. Karamzin even saw the special virtues of the East. with the Lavians in that they allegedly themselves voluntarily elected a monarch. form of government and called foreign sovereigns to themselves. To a greater or lesser extent, most of the bourgeois were "Normanists". historians. S. M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Russia, refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the East. Slavs and transfer to the 9th century. concept of national dignity of modern times. The struggle between the "Normanists" and the "anti-Normanists" became especially acute in the 1960s. in connection with the celebration in 1862 of the millennium of Russia. Opponents of N. t. were made by certain nobles and bourgeois. historians - D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, V. G. Vasilevsky and others. They criticized the department. specific provisions of N. t., but could not reveal its anti-science. In the owls the historiography of N. t. was overcome in the 1930s and 1940s. as a result of the work of a number of owls based on the Marxist-Leninist methodology. historians and archaeologists. B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. V. Yushkov, V. V. Mavrodin and others established that the East Slavs. society reached in the 9th century. the degree of decomposition of the communal system, when ripe ext. prerequisites for the emergence of state-va. The presence of some other Russian. princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and the Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Dr. Russia was formed on the inside. social-economic basis. They left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Dr. Russia. The Normans-Varangians, who were in Russia, quickly merged with the indigenous population, became glorified. Starting from the 20s. 20th century the provisions of N. t. became an integral part of the bourgeois. Russian concept. history, which is followed by historians Zap. Europe and USA. The most prominent representatives of N. t. in the west are G. Vernadsky in the USA; G. Pashkevich, A. A. Vasiliev, and N. Chadwick in England; the philologist A. Stender-Petersen in Denmark; Arne, X. Arbman, in Finland - prof. V. Kiparsky. Normanist views are set forth in the general works and school textbooks of the countries of the West. Europe and USA. N. t. acquired a particularly acute political. sounding in the atmosphere of the "cold war" against the USSR and other socialist. countries after the end of World War II. Version about ist. "non-independence" Rus. people served as an argument to justify aggressive plans against the USSR and the spread of hostile Rus. people's ideas about their past and present. There were many monographs and articles on the department. questions of N. t. For modern. Normanism is characteristic in general of defense. position in relation to the works of owls. scientists. Supporters of N. t. questions: on the composition of the ruling class in Dr. Russia, about the origin of large land ownership in Russia, about trade and bargaining. ways dr. Russia, about archeol. monuments of other Russian. culture, etc., in each of which the Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, defining. Modern "Normanists" also claim that there was a Norman colonization of Russia and that Scand. the colonies served as the basis for establishing the rule of the Normans. "Normanists" believe that Dr. Russia was politically dependent on Sweden. Regardless of subjective intentions scientists, supporters of N. t., and their relationship to the USSR and owls. people, N. t. is untenable in scientific. relation and used bourgeois. propaganda in politics. purposes hostile to the interests of the USSR. Lit .: Tikhomirov M. H., Rus. historiography of the 18th century, "VI", 1948, No 2; his own. Slavs in the "History of Russia" prof. G. Vernadsky, ibid., 1946, No 4; his, Chadwick's Revelations about the beginning of Rus. history, ibid., 1948, No 4; his own. The origin of the names "Rus" and "Russian Land", in Sat: SE, 1947, vol. 6-7; Grekov B. D., Kievan Rus, M., 1953; his own, On the role of the Varangians in the history of Russia, Izbr. works, vol. 2, M., 1959; his own, Antiscientific. fabrications of the Finnish "professor", ibid.; Rybakov B. A., Craft Dr. Rus, M., 1948; his own. Dr. Rus, M., 1963, p. 289-300; Yushkov S. V., Socio-political. system and law of the Kyiv state-va, M.-L., 1949; Mavrodin V. V., Education of Old Russian. state-va, L., 1945; his own. Essays on the history of the USSR. Old Russian. state-in, M., 1956; Shaskolsky IP, Norman theory in modern. bourgeois science, M.-L., 1965; Lowmlanski H., Zagadnienie roli norman?w w genezie panstw slowianskich, Warsz., 1957. Works of the Normanists: Thomsen V., Nachalo Rus. state-va, M., 1891; Vernadsky G., The origins of Russia, Oxf., 1959; Paszkiewicz H., The origin of Russia, L., 1954; his own. The making of the Russian nation, L., 1963; Stender-Petersen A., Varangica and Aarhus, 1953; his, Russian studies, Aarhus, 1956 ("Acta Jutlandica", t. 28, No 2); his own, Geschichte der russischen Literatur, Bd 1, M?nch., 1957; his own. Der ?lteste russische Staat, "HZ", M?nch., 1960, Bd 91, H. 1; Arne T. J., La Su?de et l'Orient, Uppsala. 1914; his, Die Varägerfrage und die sowjetrussische Forschung, "Acta archeologica", 1952, t. 23; Arbman H., Svear i?sterviking, Stockh., 1955. A. M. Sakharov. Moscow.

The essence of the Norman theory

According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of the Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Germanic Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the Rurik princes.

This theory was based on the ancient East Slavic chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years", the source, it should be noted, is rather doubtful in the right to recognize it as an accurate interpretation of the events of those distant centuries. Here is what the chronicle tells us:

In the summer of 6370. Exiled the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and began to volunteer in themselves, and there was no truth in them, and the tribes of the peoples rose up, were in strife in them and often fought on themselves. And deciding in themselves: "Let's look for a prince, who would rule over us and judge by right." And went across the sea to the Varangians to Russia; Boss, they call themselves Varyazi Rus, as if all friends are called Svie, friends are Urman, Anglian, friends Gote, so and so. Yes, go and rule over us.” And they chose 3 brothers from their generations, and girded all of Russia in their own way, and having come to Slovenia first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and gray-haired old Rurik in Ladoza, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bela, and the third Izbrsta, Truvor. And from those Varangians, nicknamed the Russian land ... "This excerpt from an article in the PVL, taken for granted by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The question of Rurik's nationality is a question of national self-consciousness. The Baltic Sea, inheriting the land by right, or was it the calling of a foreigner from the people who often attacked and plundered the Slavic lands, associated with the inability to arrange their political system without outside help.

The emergence and formation of the Norman theory

Historical science does not know when the Norman theory originated. We only know that by the 1st half of the 16th century. she existed.

Herberstein, having familiarized himself with the content of the Norman theory, expressed (1549) the idea that it was not so, that the Russians invited not the Germans, but the Western Slavs. His common sense could not reconcile with the arguments of the supporters of Normanism. There were other foreigners who spoke out against the Normanists. But there were no Russian anti-Normanists, because Russian science did not exist before Peter I.

The founder of the scientific theory of Normanism should be considered academician G.S. Bayer (d. 839; pointed out the Scandinavian character of the "Russian" names of the Dnieper rapids; connected the Scandinavian "warings" with the "Varangians" of the Russian chronicles and the "barangs" of the Byzantine chronicles, etc.

Actually, the beginning of the dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists should be considered the speech of Ak. G. F. Miller in 1749 “On the origin and name of the Russian people”, which provoked a sharp rebuff from Lomonosov. Summarizing Miller's thoughts, he wrote: "This is so wonderful that if Mr. Miller knew how to portray it in a lively style, he would have made the Russians such a poor people, which no one and the meanest people has ever been represented by any writer." Lomonosov argued that there was no "great darkness of ignorance" in Russia, that Russia had its own history even before it began to have "common sovereigns", and took its beginning to the ancestors of the Rus - to the Ants. He argued that Russia as a state and Russian culture were created not by foreigners, the Varangians, but by the Slavs themselves. These Slavs were the indigenous population of the interfluve of the Danube and the Dniester up to the spurs of the Carpathians. Lomonosov's voice, however, was not heard, he found himself in a decisive minority, and the first battle was decided in favor of Normanism, for Lomonosov's arguments, although worthy of attention, had not yet been sufficiently developed.

All further works - Fren, Strube de Pirmont, Stritter, Thuyman, Krug, etc. - were aimed at substantiating the Norman theory. Schlözer, with his classic Nestor, further established the authority of this theory. But (gradually) there were also foreigners - Storch (1800), Evers (1814) and others who objected to the Norman theory and collected solid material against it. In particular, the work of Evers gave a lot. He opposed the absurd assumption that the northern Slavs, having driven out the Varangians, again invited them. He refuted the arguments regarding the understanding of the name of Rus from roots like “ruotsi”, “Roslagen”, etc. He objected to the derivation of ancient Russian names only from Scandinavian roots. He insisted on the existence of the name Rus in the Black Sea region. And so on. Unfortunately, his positive data in favor of the Slavic theory were destroyed by the false assumptions of his own conception that the Kievan princes were from the Khazars, that Askold and Dir were Hungarians, that the “Volokhs” of the chronicle were Bulgarians, etc.

It should be noted that, rejecting the Norman theory, the anti-Normanists could not offer anything in return, and only by the middle of the 20th century was a serious and complete theory based on the latest archaeological and linguistic data developed.

Partly for this, the Norman school grew and flourished not only among German scientists, whom it greatly flattered, but also among Russian scientists. Even Klyuchevsky, stating that he is not a supporter of either side, citing facts, is not puzzled by the question of why the new Normans (as he claims, citing the names of ambassadors to the Byzantine king as an example) swear by Slavic gods, and not by Scandinavian ones. And he interprets this obvious question as it suits him.

Why the works of such prominent historians as Gideonov and Pogodin, and many others, could not overcome the wall of Normanism with their iron arguments, we will discuss in the fourth part of this work, but for now let's move on to the very proofs of the Norman theory.

The main arguments of the Norman theory

chronicle mention.

The first and fundamental argument of the Norman theory is a passage from the Tale of Bygone Years. But not only is the chronicle written by an alien Christian monk about pagan times, that is, subject to any humiliation, taken as a basis, it is also interpreted very freely.

In the annals there is not a word about the belonging of Prince Rurik and Russia with which he came to reign from the Baltic Sea. Moreover, the chronicle clearly separates Russia, the Swedes, Norwegians, Englishmen and Danes.

It is excusable for the German Schlozer to pull the “ass by the ears”, but Pogodin, already a natural Russian historian, continues his work, attributing to the chronicler a hidden idea about the Normanism of all the Varangians, although he has no sufficient grounds for understanding the chronicle story.

These constructions were broken down in detail and thoroughly by Zabelin. Natalya Ilyina in her work "The Expulsion of the Normans" says:

That all the Varangians were Germans, namely, Normans, is a conviction quite independent of the Russian chronicles. The alienness of this judgment to the chronicle story is finally revealed with complete obviousness in the very founder of the Norman system. The German scientist Bayer, who endowed Russian science with the Norman theory and the main evidence of its fidelity, did not study the Russian chronicles at all.

Zabelin says in relation to Bayer: “The great connoisseur of languages ​​(not excluding Chinese), the great Latinist and Hellenist, did not learn during his 12 years in Russia, however, and never wanted to learn the Russian language”

Koyalovich in his "History of Russian Self-Consciousness" claims that Bayer read only excerpts from the chronicles in a bad translation.

Linguistic analysis of words

When the Normanists faced criticism and began to carefully study the chronicles, it turned out that the oldest chronology of the Tale was not accurate and the story about the beginning of Russia was only the fruit of its author's considerations. In this regard, the first Normanists began to look for other evidence of their theory. After critics of the story discovered the arbitrariness of some of its provisions, almost the entire burden of the "Norman system" fell on extra-chronic arguments.

The word "Varangian" began to be attributed to Norman roots, supposedly it comes from the Swedish word "wara" - a vow, an oath through the supposed form of waring - a warrior who has taken a vow. For some reason, this linguistic conjecture often takes the form of proven truth. It should be noted that in the Scandinavian writing the word vaeringjar appears for the first time in connection with the year 1020 (the saga of Bol Bolenson) and is applied only to the Normans who entered the Varangian corps of Byzantium, and in our chronicles we find mention of the Varangians in the records associated with the 9th century.

Gideonov, on the other hand, finds among the Slavs of the Varangian Sea a living word of the Germanic root varag, warang - a swordsman from which the Russian word "Varangian" can be derived, grammatically correct. The word "Varangian" in its meaning means a warrior or merchant-pirate, usually coming from overseas, and in itself does not indicate any particular tribe. The Eastern Slavs called all the Baltic pirates - Swedes, Norwegians, Obotrites, Markomans - Varigs.

“He argues unjustly, he ascribes a hundred Varangian names to one people,” says Lomonosov - “Many strong evidences assure that they consisted of various tribes and languages ​​and were united by only one thing - then ordinary robbery across the seas.”

Linguistic considerations about the word "Varangian" are not sufficient to clarify the obscure sayings of the chronicle.

This ambiguity is not eliminated by the attempt of historians to determine the nationality of the Varangians by the names of the first princes, their boyars and ambassadors.

Following Bayer and Schlözer, Russian Norman historians recognize these names as Scandinavian, and find them in the Icelandic sagas and in the historical writings of the German north. Rurik, in their opinion, is not a Slavic name, but a Danish or Norwegian Hrorecur, Hraerek. Sineus comes from Snio or Sninnuitz etc. Which of the many Scandinavian names turned into one or another Slavic name, Normanists decide differently. For example, Bayer proposed for Rogvold - Roghwaltr, although the root "volod" (to own) is a frequent component of princely Russian names. Other scholars consider the names of both the governor and the servants of the prince (Pogodin) to be Norman, others recognize the names of Malusha, Malka, Dobrynia as Slavic (Kunik).

“The names of the first Russian princes - the Varangians and their combatants are almost all of Scandinavian origin,” writes Klyuchevsky and adds to this in another place: “The list of 25 ambassadors” - we are talking about Igor’s agreement with the Greeks - “there is not one Slavic name; out of 25 or 26 merchants, only one or two can be recognized as Slavs.

Gedeonov, on the other hand, establishes that the name Rurik is found among the Slavs: among the Poles - the governor Ririk (Pskov Chronicle, 1536); among the Czechs - Rerich, as the name of the genus; in Luzatsia - Peter Rerik. Among the Wends, the name Reriks - Reregi was the nickname of the Obotrite princes and can be compared with the Czech word Raroh or the Polish Rarag (meaning falcon). Since the transition "a" to "e", "o" to "and" is characteristic of the Slavic language.

The same careful study of the names of other princes, their governors, as well as the names of ambassadors, partly distorted by the Greeks who wrote the treaties, and by Bulgarian translators, makes the following conclusion possible: in all treaties with the Greeks, the names of princes and boyars are Slavic; Norman names are found only among ambassadors and guests, however, there are no more than 12-15 of them.

Gedeonov notes that “a linguistic question cannot be separated from a historical one, a philologist from a historian. In the absence of other positive traces of the Norman influence on the internal life of Russia, Normanism until the 11th century of all historical Russian names is in itself not a feasible business. Zabelin also supports a similar point of view. In his book The History of Russian Life, he warns against being carried away by philology as a method of historical research. “Linguistics in other cases greatly contributes to the emergence and wide development of various phantosmogorias. This danger is especially great when the subject of study is only proper names,” writes Zabelin.

Rus is a Norwegian tribe

The Scandinavianism of the Rus, which explains the Scandinavianism of the recognized Varangians, is the stone on which the Norman theory is based. The judgment that the Normans created the Russian state presupposes at its core the judgment that Rus is a Scandinavian people.

Known in the history of the Norman doctrine, the Ruotsi argument is based on consonance or, more precisely, on sound similarity in the owls Ruotsi and Rus. The Finns call the Swedes ruotsi and this name, as the Normanists say, is in the form of Rus, just as the Finnish "Suomi" turned into the Russian "Sumi". Ruotsi itself arose from the name of the Upland coast of Sweden Roslagen, or from the Ross tribe in Roslagen (Schlözer). To this, Academician Lamansky replies that “there is no reason to consider the form Rus as alien to our and the Slavic language in general, the forms “silver”, “Volyn” and many others are similar to it.

Gedeonov in the book "Varangians and Rus" also breaks this construction, moreover, he notes that the considerations about Roslagen turned out to be little convincing even for the Normanists. This name began to be called only in the 13th century, the coastal region of southern Sweden, inhabited by communities of Rhodes, that is, rowers who had nothing to do with either the name or the Rus tribe.

Little convincing proof, denoted by the word "Ruotsi", however, continues to live in historical science. According to Shakhmatov, the main and decisive argument (in favor of the Norman theory) is that Western Finns still call Scandinavia "Rus".

Lomonosov dismisses "Ruotsey's" proof in his critique of Miller's dissertation. He argues as follows: “Didn’t he clearly show here a predilection for his unfounded conjectures, assuming such fictions as the basis for them, which can hardly dream of someone in a dream? An example from the English and Franks, added here from him, does not serve to confirm his fiction, but serves to refute it, for there the vanquished from the victors received a name for themselves, but here not the victors from the vanquished, nor the vanquished from the victors, but all from the Chukhons.

Rapids of the Dnieper

The second of the three main pieces of evidence for the Norman theory is based on a Greek source. In the "Book of State Administration", written in the middle of the 10th century (948 - 952), the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Porphyrogenitus tells about the trade campaign of Russian merchants from Novgorod to Tsargrad. Having reached the description of the crossing through the Dnieper rapids, the author of the book gives their name, and it turns out that all the rapids, except for two, have two names; one of them is always Slavic, and the other seems to refer to another language, foreign; but it is difficult to decide to which name, since the name is written in a distorted form. Naming the rapids, the emperor adds: “in Slavic” before the Slavic name, “in Russian” before the foreign one.

rapids	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
in Russian	Nesupi	Ulvorsi		Ayfar	Varouforos	Leanti	Strukun
in Slavonic	Nesupi	Islanduniprah	Gelandri	Neasit	Vulniprah	Verutzi	Directly

The distortion of the "Russian" names of the thresholds in the Greek transmission does not make it possible to reliably determine from which dictionary they are taken and vice versa, makes the most contradictory opinions possible. From a historical point of view, it doesn’t matter if all or not all of the thresholds have Scandinavian names, the assimilation of foreign geographical names is a common thing, and now the first threshold has a Tatar name - Kaydaksin (Gedeonov “Varangians and Rus”).

However, one should not forget that in the book of the Greek emperor the words "in Russian" are not always associated with the "Norman" name; after all, the first threshold, both in Russian and in Slavonic, is called “Nesupi” - do not sleep, which, of course, contradicts the guess about the Normanism of the Russian language. The same Constantine Porphyrogenitus once calls the Kievan Slavs Russians. The Russian chronicle identifies the Russian and Slavic languages: “The teacher of the same Slovene language is Paul, from his language we are Russia: the same teacher of Russia is Paul the Apostle, according to him he taught the Slovene language and appointed a bishop and viceroy in his own right Andronnik Slavenescu language. And the Slovene language and Russian are one, from the Varangians, more nicknamed Rus, and the first was Slovene; more and Glade matchmaker, on Slavensky speech be. The glade is nicknamed for the softer sitting in the field, the language of Slovenska is the same for them ”(Rodzilovskaya chronicle).

Contrasting the Russian language as a foreign language with the local Slavic already in view of these evidence becomes impossible, and the difference that the Byzantine emperor makes much easier is explained by everyday differences between the Russ of the Kyiv region and the Slovenes of the Novgorod region. The difference between the Russian and Slavic languages ​​is thus a difference between two dialects, a tribal difference, not a folk one. In addition, it is strange to look for the Swedish language in Russia in the middle of the 10th century, if the Normans were already “glorified” under Oleg and worshiped the Slavic gods.

But the main flaw of the Dnieper Proof is rooted in the uniqueness of the fact to which it refers: double names occur only in this case, this duality, according to Gedeonov, is only a linguistic oddity. It is unacceptable to draw a general historical conclusion from this phenomenon.

Bertin Chronicle

In one of the monasteries of Western Europe, in Bertinsky, ancient chronicles have been preserved - a source of information that, according to historians, deserves complete trust. Under the year 839, the Bertin Chronicle tells of one mysterious incident, which, due to the low persuasiveness of the linguistic evidence of the Norman theory, received great importance in it.

In the city of Ingelheim on the Rhine, where the emperor of the Franks, Louis the Pious, was then, an embassy arrived from the Byzantine emperor Theophilus. With this embassy, ​​Theophilus sent some people and a letter explaining that these people “called themselves Rus (Rhos)”, and that “their king sent them to him (Theophilus), with the name “Khakan” for the sake of friendship, as they claimed ". In the letter mentioned, Theophilus asked Louis to give these people the opportunity to safely return to themselves through his state and to help them, since the path by which they came to Constantinople passes through barbarian tribes, wild and therefore fierce, and he does not want to send those people away down this dangerous path. Louis, diligently examining the "reason" for their arrival, found out that they belonged to the tribe of the Swedes, established that they were rather scouts sent to the Frankish and Greek powers than petitioners for friendship, and ordered to detain them until it was possible to find out for sure, they came to him with honest or dishonest intentions. Louis explained to Theophilus through his legates, and also in a letter, that out of love for him, he would willingly agree to send those people and give them benefits and protection, unless they turned out to be deceivers, otherwise they should be sent with ambassadors to him, Theophilus for for him to decide what to do with them.

The chronicle does not tell how the inquiry ended and what is the fate of unknown people.

In the story of the Bertinskaya Chronicle, the Normanists consider the following news to be the most significant: the people who came to Constantinople and declared that they were from the Rus tribe turned out to be Swedes, according to the Franks. If the ambassadors of Russia are Swedes, then Russia is a Swedish tribe.

The Bertin Chronicles do not rank Russia among the Scandinavians, historians do this on the basis of the Scandinavian origin of the ambassadors, but if the Franks, who are little acquainted with the Swedes and do not know Russia at all, decide that the ambassadors of Russia are Swedes, does this mean that they were actually Swedes ? If, in fact, these ambassadors are Swedes, does this mean that Russia is a Swedish people?

A number of historians believe that the ambassadors of Russia might not have been Swedes, and that there was a mistake on the part of the Franks who investigated this case. “The representatives of Russia were recognized by the Swedes,” writes Academician Vasilevsky, “neither the procedure of inquiry, nor the grounds for such a conclusion are indicated to us.” Zabelin considers it possible that the ambassadors were not the Swedes, but the Kyiv Ross or the Baltic Vikings-Slavs who served in the squad of the Kyiv prince; the chronicle does not indicate on what basis they were recognized as Swedes. “It could happen that they are Slavs and live next door to the Sveons, that one of these two names seemed more suitable and more familiar to the officials of Louis - Sveons. Such a mixture of names is allowed by Ilovaisky, who indicates that there was a Slavic tribe Svenyane on the Baltic Sea.

The first Normanists were aware, of course, that the Swedish nationality of the ambassadors did not yet provide sufficient grounds for Norman Russia and made up for this lack by the conjecture that the “Hakan” of the Bertin Chronicles is none other than Gakon, a certain Swedish Konung unknown to anyone, who conceived, be it to establish diplomatic relations with Byzantium (Schlözer). But Gideonov completely smashed and refuted these assertions, showing that "Khakan" is not a name, but a royal (princely) title, which existed at that time in Russia. The Slavism of Russia, from which the ambassadors, according to them, came to Greece, is indicated, among other things, by the following detail of the text of the chronicle of 839: it gives a Latin translation of the letter of Emperor Theophilus and the name Rus retains in this translation the Greek indeclinable form (Rhos), which can only correspond to the Slavic form Rus; in the Scandinavian languages, a vernacular name cannot take the same form for singular and plural.

The randomness of facts is inherent in all the main arguments of the Norman theory and shows the arbitrariness of its judgments. Its judgments do not follow naturally and logically, from actual events, from their organic development, but are imposed on the past by groundless assumptions, therefore they can be confirmed only by the vagaries of historical life: an accidental consonance in the words "Urotsi" and "Rus", the double names of several thresholds, dark episode in the stories of the Bertin Chronicles. The Norman theory, as a result of studying its main provisions, turns out to be an artificial superstructure on real life.

The most interesting thing is that the same Bertinskaya Chronicle completely refutes the Norman theory. The chronicle gives a brief information about the people "Rus", who, under the control of the khakan, live somewhere in the south of our country. The anti-Normanists took advantage of this news to very clearly pose the Norman problem. If "Rus" was already known on our plains in 839, that is, before the calling of the Varangians in 862, then it could not be called into being by these "Varangians-Rus", and the question of its Normanism disappears by itself, regardless of the nationality of those called princes and squads.

One could go on citing innumerable examples that refute the Norman theory, but I think the above is quite enough. Let's move on to a more interesting question for research. How can such a theory, fabricated by visiting foreigners, not only take place, but, despite its non-scientific character, continues to hold the place of the main theory of the origin of Russian statehood in historical science.

The phenomenon of vitality of the Norman theory

From childhood, we learn in history lessons that our ancestors, not having their own thoughts, invited strangers to reign from overseas, and the family of Russian princes went from these strangers. Yes, and literacy was brought to us by the Greeks, and before that we were like wild animals. I, unlike Academician Klyuchevsky, do not divide the Russian people into people living now and natives who lived in the 9th century. In one of the historical encyclopedias, I read that - "The Slavs lived in the forests, when the enemy approached, they buried all things in the ground and ran into the forests", then in the same encyclopedia it is written: "Since the Slavs often had to fight, it was a strong and a mighty people”, in my opinion, these two statements contradict each other. Here is an example, one of the many chimeras generated by the Norman theory. It should be noted. that the majority of "Russians" are satisfied with this state of affairs, we are used to living without a past.

By the arrival of German scientists who scientifically substantiated the Norman theory, some of its rudiments had already taken place, because. Herberstein already in 1549. refuted it. Where did she come from?

With the advent of a new religion in Russia, the struggle of the new system with the old beliefs began, the priests were destroyed, the old customs were destroyed, and in place with them the memory of the people.

- “Not everyone who then accepted the holy faith with us accepted it out of love, some only out of fear of the one who commanded” (Archbishop Macarius, History of the Russian Church, St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 27).

- “Paganism was still strong, it had not yet outlived its time in Russia, it resisted the introduction of Christianity; therefore, the government takes violent measures in the spread of Christianity, resorting to fire and sword in order to introduce the gospel teaching into the hearts of the pagans. And the servants of Christ do not arm themselves against such means, on the contrary, they justify them and erect the cross of Christ on the corpses. (church magazine "Ringer", No. 8, 1907)

The Iakimov chronicle testifies to the burning of rebellious Novgorod by Dobrynya, which refused to accept the new faith, this information is confirmed by archaeological excavations by the Soviet archaeologist V. L. Yanin.

Also, archaeological excavations in Novgorod show universal literacy in the 9th-10th centuries. A large number of birch bark letters containing notes of everyday life were found.

Under the influence of the struggle of Christianity against paganism, and the subsequent Mongol-Tatar yoke, literacy and historical annals became the prerogative of the church, which interpreted history as it was beneficial to it. The strong and enlightened state of pagan Russia did not fit into the ideological theory of Christianity in any way. This is where the Norman theory comes from.

With the advent of the first university in Russia, Norman theory was rapidly developed with the help of German professors, who were very flattered by this state of affairs. Important for the Norman theory is its convenience for the power-holding circles, both for the clergy and for the royal dynasty. Firstly, this theory justifies constant marriages with foreign women, and secondly, it reports that the ancestors called for the rule of princes from abroad, confirms the cultural and other reforms of Peter I. Thus, in Tsarist Russia, the Norman theory remained a political necessity.

With the advent of Soviet power, the situation did not change much. Many historians who fled abroad and smashed the Norman theory to smithereens in their homeland still remain little known (Natalya Ilyina, Sergey Lesnoy, etc.). Soviet historians Grekov, Tikhomirov, Nasonov, Tretyakov and many others have done a lot of work, but they have not introduced anything fundamentally new. All of them brilliantly proved (especially archaeologists) that the roots of Russian culture are completely original, that it is not at all necessary to talk about the influence of the Normans. However, they still recognized the princely dynasty as Norman. Here, the anti-Norman theory again faces a political problem, in an era of universal equality and the brotherhood of the proletariat, national history becomes irrelevant, the existing system is interested in the struggle of the people against the royal power. And it seems that science, freed from church pressure, falls under the pressure of the Soviet political worldview.

Currently, the political system goes hand in hand with the ROC. For the existing totalitarian system, which is fighting against any manifestations of national self-consciousness, the Norman theory remains the only true one.



In the 9th century, vast areas developed in Eastern Europe, which were inhabited by various peoples, where the Slavic population most of all prevailed. One part of the Slavs settled along the Dnieper in the northeast, and the other along its tributaries. It is from them that the people of Russian nationality originate.

The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were created by the ethnic and economic community of the Eastern Slavs. Because the collapse of tribal ties created a number of difficulties in order to resist the enemies. So, in the development and formation of the ancient Russian state, two main theories stand out: Norman and anti-Norman.

Briefly about the anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state

The anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was once presented by Lomonosov, it was he who resolutely opposed the existing Norman theory. The anti-Norman theory was based on the following principles:

1. Normans and Varangians are completely different peoples.
2. Scandinavians were Balto-Slavs.
3. The Prussians and Prussia are Poruses who live next to the Russes.
4. The name Rus comes from the name of the river Ros.
5. "Gradorika" ("country of cities") - this is how the Normans called the lands of the Slavs. The Normans themselves did not yet have cities at that time. Based on this, we can conclude that they could not teach the Russians "statehood".

When creating this theory, Lomonosov relied only on internal factors. Today, many scientists can say with confidence that in his theory there are many unproven factors and a large number of conjectures.

For example, the anti-Norman theory says that the term "Rus" arose in the pre-Varangian period. But in the "Tale of Bygone Years" there is data that completely contradicts the well-known legend about the calling of three brothers to reign. The instruction of 852 states that the Russian land already existed in Byzantium during the reign of Michael. The arguments of the anti-Norman theory were taken exclusively from written sources.

At the beginning of the 19th century, not only compatriots, but also foreigners began their struggle with the Norman theory. Storch (1800) and Ewers (1814) collected quite solid material against the adherents of the Norman theory. But, the anti-Normanists began to act decisively only at the end of the 1850s.

Briefly about the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state

The founders of the Norman theory are German historians and scientists: Gottlieba Bayer, August Schlozer and Gererd Miller. These scientists proved the Norman (Varangian) origin of statehood. The main factor describing the Norman theory is that the Scandinavians created the Russian people. It was they who gave him statehood and culture, so to speak, subjugated him to themselves. The Russian scientist Lomonosov generally perceived this theory as an insult to the entire people of Russian nationality. They were sure that the Norman theory was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Russian chronicles. To this day, the Norman theory is one of the most controversial issues in the entire history of the origin of the Russian state. Researchers have already been able to prove the illegitimacy of this theory.

History of Normanism and Anti-Normanism

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

Against the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness for the formation of a state, the nationally patriotic-minded M. V. Lomonosov actively spoke out, who was joined in the 19th century by D. I. Varangian identification). Lomonosov, in particular, claimed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). The weaknesses of the first anti-Normanists include their versions, based mainly on logic and intuition, but not supported by historical evidence.

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

In the 1930s, Soviet historiography, after a break, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The political confrontation with Nazi Germany forced the leadership of the USSR to intervene in the historical dispute from an ideological standpoint. The main argument was the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism F. Engels that “the state cannot be imposed from outside”, supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonic theory of the linguist N. Ya. class point of view.

The ideological setting for Soviet historians was to prove the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the Rus tribe. Characteristic excerpts from a public lecture delivered in 1949 by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalinist period:

“It is natural that the “scientists” servants of the world reaction strive at all costs to discredit, denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the significance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[…]
These examples are enough to come to the conclusion that a thousand-year-old tradition about the “calling of the Varangians” by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from across the sea”, which should have been archived a long time ago along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the serpent, tempter, the global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[…]
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the remarks of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Summary of a textbook on the history of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state that arises at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials of the history of the Russian state. Thus, already in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism there is no and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the “wild” East Slavic tribes.

Normanist Arguments

Old Russian chronicles

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym "Germans", which unites the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.

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

Written testimonies of contemporaries

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

The most important argument of the Norman theory is the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus "On the management of the empire" (g.), where the names of the Dnieper rapids are given in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and the interpretation of names in Greek.
Table of threshold names:

Slavic title	Translation in Greek	Slavic etymology	Rosskoe title	Scandinavian etymology	Name in the 19th century
Essupi	Do not sleep	1. Nessupi 2. Give in (ledges)	-	1. - 2. other-Sw. Stupi: waterfall	Staro-Kaydatsky
Niprach island	Threshold islet	Island Prague	Ulvorsi	other sw. Holmfors : island threshold	Lokhansky and Sursky rapids
Gelandri	Noise Threshold	-	-	other sw. Gaellandi : loud, ringing	Zvonets, 5 km from Lokhansky
Neasit	Pelican nest	Don't eat	Aiphor	other sw. Aei(d)fors : waterfall on the water	insatiate
Vulniprah	Big backwater	International Prague	Varouforos	other-isl. Barufors : threshold with waves	Volnisskiy
Verucci	boiling water	Vruchii (boiling)	Leandi	other sw. Le(i)andi : laughing	Not localized
Directly	small threshold	On the line (on the line)	Strukun	other-isl. Strukum : narrow part of the river	Superfluous or Free

At the same time, Constantine reports that the Slavs are tributaries (paktiots) of the Ross.

archaeological evidence

see also

Notes

Links

• E. S. Galkina, "Secrets of the Russian Khaganate" - in Ch. "The First Battles for the Russian Khaganate" examines the history of Normanism.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "Norman theory" is in other dictionaries:

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

NORMANN THEORY, a direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of statehood in Ancient Russia. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century. G. 3. Bayer, G. F. Miller and others. N. t ... Russian history

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

NORMANN THEORY- a direction in the study of the domestic past, whose supporters consider the Scandinavians, Vikings, Normans the founders of the Russian state. The thesis of the “calling of the Varangians”, which formed the basis of the theory, like itself, has been used in scientific and political disputes for more than three centuries as an ideological justification for the concept of the inability of the Slavs, and above all Russians, to independent state creativity and development in general without the cultural and intellectual assistance of the West .

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

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

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

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

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

1) "The concept of conquest", leaning towards the idea of ​​the conquest of the Russian land by the Normans (shared by most Russian historians)

2) "The concept of colonization" (T. Arne) - the capture of Russian territory by the Normans by creating Scandinavian colonies.

3) "The concept of political cooperation" between the Swedish kingdom and Russia. Initially, the role of the Varangians in Russia was the role of merchants who knew foreign countries well, later - warriors, navigators, sailors.

4) "The concept of a foreign elite" - the creation of an upper class in Russia by the Vikings (A. Stender-Petersen).

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

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

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

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

4) The Normans (Varangians) themselves recognized the high level of development of Gardariki - the "country of cities", as they called Russia.

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

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

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva