Anti-Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state

The Norman theory was and remains one of the most controversial issues in the history of the ancient Russian state. Many well-known researchers (for example, Lomonosov and Solovyov) sharply condemned and called it barbaric in relation to the history of an independent country, as well as to its formation. The position of this theory was that the Slavic nation was secondary and untenable in national matters. However, since the second half of the twentieth century, this theory has lost its strength, and now it is not considered right at all.

Anti-Norman theory of the emergence of the ancient Russian state

The main assertion of the anti-Norman theory is that the term "Rus" itself appears in the pre-Varangian period. For example, in The Tale of Bygone Years there are facts that contradict the legend prevailing in history about the calling of three brothers to become the head of state. The same historical source contains an indication from 852, which states that during the reign of Michael in Byzantium, an independent Russian land already existed. In addition, in the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles, it is said that all the tribes of the North invited the Scandinavians to reign, and Russia was no exception.

The anti-Norman theory primarily drew arguments from written sources. The Soviet researchers of the Slavs Likhachev and Tikhomirov believed that the writing about the calling of the Varangian princes to rule appeared in the annals a little later in order to oppose Kievan Rus to Byzantium. And the scientist Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the Varangian squads began to be called Rus only after their transition to the south. In the Scandinavian written and oral sources, it was not indicated anywhere that there was “Rus” behind them, and the names of the first rulers of Russia (Oleg and Igor) are undoubtedly native and exclusively Russian. While the historically real names of that time of the Scandinavian princes (Olaf, Eimund, Harald) were not at all found among our princes.

This theory has been struggling with the arguments of the Normanists (adherents of the reverse scheme of development of the ancient Russian state) for more than two hundred years, but in recent years their positions have converged. However, this rapprochement is not a fact of establishing historical truth. Despite the rather large gap between the opposing sides, none of them could convincingly prove the true authenticity of their own theory.

Interesting materials:

Norman theory

Russia is a riddle wrapped in a riddle placed inside a riddle.

W. Churchill

The Norman theory of state formation in ancient Russia is based on the legend that the Slavic tribes could not govern themselves, so they turned to the Varangian Rurik, who came here to rule and founded the first dynasty on the Russian throne. In this material, we will consider the main ideas of the Norman and anti-Norman theories, and also study the weaknesses of each of the theories.

The essence of the theory

Let us consider a brief summary of the Norman theory, which is presented in most history textbooks today. According to it, even before the formation of the Old Russian state, the Slavic tribes could be divided into two groups:

• Northern - paid tribute to the Varangians
• Southern - paid tribute to the Khazars.

In 859, the Novgorodians expelled the Varangians and all the northern tribes began to be subordinate to the elder Gostomysl. According to some sources, this man was a prince. After the death of Gostomysl, an internecine war began between representatives of the northern tribes, as a result of which it was decided to send messengers to the son of the Varangian king (prince) and the daughter of Gostomysl Umila - Rurik. Here is what the chronicle says about it.

Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, go and rule over us.

Chronicle of the call of Rurik

Rurik came to Novgorod Thus began the reign of the Rurik dynasty, which lasted more than 5 centuries.

The origin of the theory

The emergence of the Norman theory dates back to the 18th century, when a number of German professors appeared at the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), who formulated this theory. Bayer, Schlozer and Miller played a key role in creating the theory of the Norman origin of the Russian state. It was they who created the theory of the inferiority of the Slavs as a nation that is not capable of self-government. It was under them that records first appeared in the old chronicles, on the basis of which the Norman theory was built. They were not embarrassed that practically all European countries have theories of the foreign origin of the state. In general, this was the first case in the world when foreign historians wrote the history of the country.

Suffice it to say that an active opponent of the Norman theory was Mikhail Lomonosov, whose disputes with German professors often ended in a fight.

Controversial sides of the theory

Norman theory has a huge number of weaknesses that make it possible to doubt the veracity of this theory. Below is a table that presents the main questions to this theory and its main weak points.

A controversial issueIn the Norman theoryIn the anti-Norman theory

Origin of Rurik	Was Norman, Scandinavian or German	A native of the Southern Baltic, Slav
The origin of the word "Rus"	Scandinavian origin	Slavic origin from the river Ros
The role of the Varangians in the formation of the state	The Russian state was created by the Varangians	The Slavs already had a control system
The role of the Vikings in the development of society	Big role	Insignificant role, since there were few Varangians in the country
Reasons for inviting Rurik	The Slavs are not capable of independent government	The suppression of the dynasty as a result of the death of Gostomysl
Influence on Slavic culture	Great influence in the development of crafts and agriculture	The Varangians were at the lowest level of development and could not have a positive impact on culture
Slavs and Russ	different tribes	The same tribe

Essence of foreign origin

The very idea of ​​a foreign origin of power is not unique within the Norman theory, since in most European countries there are legends about a foreign origin of power. For example, Widukind of Corvey, on the origin of the English state, said that the Britons turned to the Anglo-Saxons and called on them to rule. Here are the words from the chronicle.

The great and spacious land, rich in many blessings, we entrust to your power.

Chronicle of Widukind of Corvey

Pay attention to how the words in the annals of English and Russian are similar to each other. I do not urge you to look for conspiracies, but the similarities in the messages are obvious. And such legends of the foreign origin of power, when the people turn to foreign representatives with a request to come and rule, are characteristic of almost all peoples inhabiting Europe.

Another fact is also noteworthy - the information in the annals, as a result of which a brief essence of the Norman theory was later formed, was originally transmitted orally, and appeared in writing only under Vladimir Monomakh. As you know, Monomakh was married to the English princess Gita. This fact, as well as the virtually verbatim coincidence of the text in the annals, allows many modern historians to say that stories about foreign rulers are fiction. But why was it necessary in those days, in particular, to Vladimir Monomakh? There are two reasonable answers to this question:

1. Strengthening the authority of the prince and his elevation above all other people in the country.
2. Confrontation between Russia and Byzantium. With the arrival of the first Russian ruler from the north, Vladimir Monomakh emphasized that this state had nothing in common with Byzantium.

Consistency of the theory

If we consider the Norman theory not from the point of view of prejudices, but only on the basis of the facts that are in the arsenal of modern history as a science, then this theory cannot be seriously considered. The foreign origin of the state is a beautiful legend, but nothing more. If we consider the classical side of this issue, it turns out that the Slavs had nothing at all, but after Rurik appeared in the country, Kievan Rus appeared and the development of statehood began.

First of all, I want to note the fact that the Slavs, even before the arrival of Rurik, had their own cities, their own culture, traditions and customs. They had their own, albeit not the strongest, army. Slavic traders and merchants were known both in the West and in the East. That is, these were signs of the emergence of statehood, which could only appear on the condition that the peoples inhabiting the territory of the East European Plain developed well even before the arrival of the Varangians.

Confrontation with Byzantium

In my opinion, one of the best proofs that the Norman theory is inferior is the fact of the confrontation between Russia and Byzantium. If you believe the Western theory of the origin of the Russian state, then in 862 Rurik arrived and from that moment the formation of the state and the development of the Slavs as a nation began. That is, at the time of 862, the country should be in such a deplorable state that it is forced to turn to a foreign prince to come to rule. At the same time, already in 907, Prince Oleg, who was then called the Prophet, stormed Tsargrad, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. It was one of the most powerful states of that time. It turns out that in 862 we had neither a state nor the inclinations to found this state, and only 45 years later, Russia defeats Byzantium in the war.

There are two reasonable explanations for what is happening: either there was no war with Byzantium, or the Slavs had a powerful state, the origins of which are still hidden. Taking into account the fact that there are a huge number of facts indicating the reliability of the war between Russia and Byzantium, as a result of which Constantinople was taken by storm in 907, it turns out that the Norman theory is an absolute fiction and a myth. This is exactly how it should be treated, since today there is not a single real fact that can be used in defense of this theory.

Tell me that 45 years is enough time to form a state and create a strong army? Suppose, although in reality this is impossible to do. Back in 866 (only 4 years had passed since Rurik's invitation), Askold and Dir organized a campaign against Constantinople, during which they burned the entire province of this city, and the capital of the Byzantine Empire was saved only because the Russian army was in light boats, and a strong storm began, as a result of which most of the boats were destroyed. That is, Tsargrad survived only because of the unpreparedness of this campaign.

The founders of the theory and the role of Tatishchev

• Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), Russian historian. Considered the founder of the theory.
• Miller Gerard Friedrich (1705-1783), German historian. Moved to Russia in 1725. Known for having collected copies of documents on Russian history (I emphasize - copies).
• Schlozer August Ludwig (1735-1800), German historian. He worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767, and from 1769 he was an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Known for studying The Tale of Bygone Years.
• Bayer Gottlieb Siegfried (1694-171738), German historian, founder of the Norman theory. Since 1725, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

A unique case - the history of one state is written by historians from another state. Our history was written by the Germans and, surprisingly, Rurik has German-Scandinavian roots. But “our Germans” erred and referred to Tatishchev in their works - they say, the Russian historian laid the foundation of the theory, and they have already finalized it.

Tatishchev's problem in this matter is important, since his name is often used to justify the Scandinavian origin of Russia. I will not go into this topic in detail, since this is a story for a whole scientific presentation, I will only say the main things. Firstly, the “history of Tatishchev” was published after the death of the author. Moreover, the original (manuscripts) were lost and later restored by Miller, who became the editor and publisher of the book. That is, when we talk about the history of Tatishchev, we must understand that all the materials were published by Miller. Secondly, all materials are published without historical sources!

It turns out that the book, according to which the Germans put forward the Norman theory, although Tatishchev is indicated in it as the author, was published by the Germans themselves and without any reference to historical sources.

Problems of anti-Norman theory

The Norman theory, which we briefly reviewed above, is not indisputable and has a huge number of weaknesses. The positions of the anti-Norman theory are also controversial today, since in an attempt to refute the Scandinavian version of the origin of the Russian state, some historians further confuse an already difficult topic.

The main problems of the anti-Norman theory are as follows:

• Origin of the name "Rus". There are 2 versions of the origin of the word: northern and southern. The anti-Normans completely refute the northern origin of the word, although both versions are controversial.
• Refusal to identify Rurik of Novgorod and Rerik of Jutland, despite the fact that many Western chronological sources find amazing parallels between these characters.
• Building a theory on the numerical minority of the Varangians, as a result of which they could not significantly affect Ancient Russia. There is logic in this statement, but it must be remembered that the Varangians constituted the elite of the troops of ancient Russia. Moreover, often the fate of the country and the people does not depend on the majority, but on a strong and more promising minority.

At the same time, the anti-Norman theory is actively developing in the post-Soviet period. Of course, there are enough problems in this development, but it is important to understand that the Norman and anti-Norman theories are extreme points, embodying diametrically opposed points of view. The truth, as you know, lies somewhere in the middle.

It remains to note that the main representatives of the anti-Norman theory are: M.V. Lomonosov, S.A. Gideon. Criticism of the Norman theory came mainly from Lomonosov, so most modern historians refer to his works.

Tver State Technical University

Faculty of Additional Professional Education

Department of History and Political Science

History test

1 semester

Completed by: 1st year student of the FDPO

TMC 122 groups

Checked: Ivanov V.G.

Tver

2009

Introduction

Norman theory and anti-Normanism

Conclusion

Bibliography

Norman theory - a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e. "Varangians"), being called to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood on it. According to the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scholars raise the question not of the influence of the Varangians on the already formed tribes of the Slavs, but of the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Russia as a developed, strong and independent state.

The very term "Varangians" 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 clan of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers involved in the analysis of Nestor's story about the calling of the Varangians almost generally recognized its authenticity, seeing in the Varangian-Russians people from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G. F. Muller, Tunman, Schletser, etc. ). But as early as the 18th century, active opponents of this "Norman theory" began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).

However, until the sixties of the XIX 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, Shafarik and Mikloshich. However, since 1859 the opposition against Normanism has risen with a new, hitherto unprecedented strength.

Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangians-Russians from across the sea, find confirmation of this story in Greek, Arabic, Scandinavian and Western European testimonies and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, really founded by the Scandinavians, i.e. the Swedes.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the ancient Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Russia with the moment of calling the Varangians to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, "of which Rurik and his brothers were, were not a 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.

2 Norman theory and anti-Normanism

The Norman theory is one of the most important debatable aspects of the history of the Russian state. In itself, this theory is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was imputed to a certain secondary importance, it seems that, on the basis of reliable facts, a terrible inconsistency was attributed to the Russian people even in purely national issues. It's a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Russia 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, ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the positions of the Norman theory in science in general were strong and unshakable.

It was only in the second half of our century that Normanism lost its position in science. At this time, the standard is the assertion that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the struggle of the Normanists and anti-Normanists, the former were engaged in the search for these very proofs, often fabricating them, while the 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 nevertheless interesting to weigh all the pros and cons and come to your own opinion on this issue.

According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of the Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by princes - the Rurikovichs. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the IX-XI 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. Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and more often Volodya themselves in themselves, and not be in them the truth, and stand up kindred, and often fight for yourself. And they decide in themselves: "Let's look for a prince, who would rule over us and judge by right." And go for Mork to the Varangians, to Russia; The sister of both is called Varyazi Ru, as if all of them are called Svie, the friends of Urman, Angliane, the friends of Gyte, taco and si. Resha Russia Chud, and Slovenia, and Krivichi all: "our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it, but go to reign and rule over us. the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and gray-haired old Rurik in Ladoza, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bele, and the third Izbrsta, Truvor. And from those Varangians, they called 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 Norman theory contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists argue that the Varangians who came practically created a state, which the local population was beyond the power of; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural impact on the Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is quite clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, and at the same time subjugated 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 "Bironism", when many the highest positions at the 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 this theory was developed by Schletzer. Some Russian scientists, in particular 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 infringed 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 to devastating criticism all the main provisions of the "anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Russia." The ancient Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disunited 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 Russia. He showed this especially vividly 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 torn apart the ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of the rule of the people: the Novgorodians "fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to obtain 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 plentiful, but we have no outfit; yes, 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 stubbornly tried to assert, but class contradictions, which were suppressed by the strength of the Varangian squad, were the reason for calling the Varangians.

In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refute the Norman theory: “The Normans were not a dominant tribe, they only served the princes of native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Russia forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society, there can be no question of the rule of the Normans, of the Norman period.

It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. The catch is that the opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially stood on the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the chronicle source story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.

2. The emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs. Formation of the Old Russian state. Theories of the origin of the Old Russian state

Information about the Slavs (ancestors of the Slavs) has been mentioned in archaeological sources for two millennia. Over time, they created the ground for the formation of three branches of the Slavs - Western, Southern and Eastern Slavs.

Information about the social and political system of the Eastern Slavs until the 9th century. extremely scarce. Western and eastern sources note already in the IV-VI centuries. the presence of strong leaders among the Eastern Slavs, reminiscent of monarchs. The unity of laws, i.e., a certain legal order, is also noted. Sources of the 7th century. they talk about the existence of three East Slavic associations: Kuyavia - in the region of Kyiv land, Slavia - in the region of Lake Ilmen, Artania - either Tmutarakan on the Taman Peninsula, or an area in the Volga basin. Statehood among the Eastern Slavs during the formation of feudalism was very primitive, but it created the foundation for the later emergence of the Old Russian state.

Moment the emergence of the Old Russian state cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy, different historians date this event differently, but most authors agree that the emergence of the Old Russian state should be attributed to the 9th century. In the German chronicles since 839, Russian princes - Khakans - are mentioned.

According to The Tale of Bygone Years, in 862 Rurik and his brothers were called to reign in Novgorod. From this date, the tradition begins the countdown of Russian statehood. The Varangian princes came to Russia and sat on the thrones: Rurik - in Novgorod, Truvor - in Izborsk (near Pskov), Sineus - in Beloozero.

After some time, Rurik united the lands of the brothers under his rule.

In 882, Prince Oleg of Novgorod captured Kyiv and united the two most important groups of Russian lands; then he managed to annex the rest of the Russian lands. Since that time, the East Slavic lands have been united into a huge state at that time.

Theories of the origin of the Old Russian state.

Norman - the state was organized by the Varangians, called to reign - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. The basis of the theory is the "Tale of Bygone Years" by Nestor, which mentions the calling to Novgorod for the reign of Rurik and his brothers. This decision was allegedly caused by the fact that the Slavs quarreled among themselves and decided to turn to foreign princes to establish order. The Varangians established the state system in Russia.

Anti-Norman - The Old Russian state was formed under the influence of objective reasons. A number of other sources indicate that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs existed even before the Varangians. The Normans in that historical period were at a lower level of economic and political development than the Slavs. In addition, the state cannot organize one person or several even the most prominent men; this is the result of a complex and long development of the social structure of society.

Before delving into history, it would be better if you first find out what it is in general - the anti-Norman theory, what is its essence and basic principles.

The anti-Norman theory (it is also called the Slavic theory or the national concept) is a theory that rejects the ideas of the Norman theory, which says that the Old Russian state was created by the Normans with the consent of the Slavs living on the territory of this very state. The anti-Norman theory is based on the idea of ​​denying the influence of the Normans on the formation of Russian statehood and calling the Varangian princes to reign. She does not deny any influence of the Varangians (as the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula were called in Russia) in some aspects of the life of the Slavs or their state, but, in no case, in the participation in the formation of the ancient Russian nation.

The author of the anti-Norman theory and its founder is Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov. He often criticized the works on Russian history by Miller and Bayer, foreign historians who adhered to the Norman theory and considered it the most truthful and reliable. Lomonosov began active work and eventually formed his own theory, which is described here. The same opinion, like our famous compatriot, is shared by many modern historians, among them: V. V. Fomin and V. N. Tatishchev.

In his writings, Mikhail Vasilyevich expressed the opinion that on the land where the state of the Slavs appeared, there lived Chud (as Lomonosov calls the Finno-Ugric tribes) and the Slavs themselves, who initially occupied relatively equal territories. Over time, according to the historian, the boundaries of the possessions of the Slavs gradually increased due to the annexed lands of the Chud, part of the Chud tribes dissolved among our ancestors, and the rest were forced out to the north and northeast. This combination of Slavs and Chuds is evidenced by a mixture of cultures and agreement on common princes. This serves as proof that even at the time of the alleged arrival of Rurik to reign in Novgorod, Russia had its own principality and princes.

Lomonosov also believed that there were Varangians-Scandinavians and there were Varangians-Russians who lived on the Baltic coast, whom Mikhail Vasilievich ranked among the Slavic tribes. In the Slavic language there are no words of Scandinavian origin, from this we can conclude that the Varangians, who are mentioned in the annals of Nestor, may not be Scandinavians at all.

D. I. Ilovaisky, a prominent historian of the 19th century, believed that Rurik's vocation had never been, and Nestor's chronicle was incorrect and inaccurate.
It is generally accepted that the founder of Russian statehood was Rurik, the Varangian prince and the founder of the Rurik dynasty, who was called by the Ilmen Slovenes to rule over them in 862. But is it really so? Adherents of the anti-Norman theory give an affirmative and a negative answer to this question.

The name of Rurik is mentioned only in two independent sources - the life of the holy prince Vladimir, written, as historians think, back in 1070, and the chronicle of the monk Nestor, which was written by him about forty or fifty years later. We must take into account the fact that Nestor could write a legend about the calling of Rurik on the basis of the above life and repeat the mistake of its author, the monk Jacob. There are no more sources that could be somehow trusted. True, there are other sources from Europe, where they tried to connect the name of Rurik with the Varangian Rorik, but it is stupid to make bases on the basis of these sources.

There are big doubts about the existence of Rurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor. Many claim that the Norman theory is unscientific and untrue. More and more often voices are heard for the anti-Norman theory opposite to it. It is hard to believe that numerous Slavic tribes could not create their own centralized state.

Modern historians believe that the chronicle legend about Rurik is only right in that once a person with that name really sat on the throne of Novgorod. As you know, the Slavs often fought with the Varangians and repelled their raids on their lands, it is unlikely that our ancestors gave power into the hands of their enemies voluntarily. A. Rybakov is sure that once one of these major raids had a positive result for the Varangians and their leader, seizing power in the northern lands and taking advantage of this sat on the princely throne.

According to I. Ya. Froyanov, Rurik and his retinue were invited as a military ally, but as soon as hostilities ended, the Norman king overthrew Prince Vadim the Brave, who had previously reigned in the northern lands of the Slavs and treacherously seized power, subjugating the subjects of the murdered prince.

Many historians believe that the brothers Rurik Sineus and Truvor did not exist. The chronicle states that, having come to Russian soil with their elder brother, they reigned in their domains until 864. So, in the annals it is written that Sineus reigned in the city of Beloozero, but this is not true, since archaeologists have established that such a city has existed since the 10th century, that is, Sineus could not rule in this city.

We know the legend about the founding of Kyiv. It says that this majestic city was founded by Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv - three brothers from the Slavic tribe of the Polyans. It is quite possible that Nestor wanted to create a similar legend about the founding of Veliky Novgorod by three brothers - Sineus, Rurik and Truvor, but already from a warlike Scandinavian tribe. Thus, D.S. Likhachev believed, the chronicler wanted to elevate this city to the level of Kyiv and speak about the majestic beginning, the so-called founders.

Which theory to adhere to, everyone chooses for himself, but the anti-Norman theory seems more plausible and reliable.

In our time, there are two hypotheses for the formation of the "Old Russian state". According to the Norman theory, based on the Primary Russian Chronicle and numerous Western European and Byzantine sources, statehood was introduced to Russia from outside by the Varangians (Rurik, Sineus and Truvor) in 862.

So, the Norman theory is a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the Slavic state. The concept of the Scandinavian origin of the state among the Slavs is associated with a fragment from The Tale of Bygone Years, which reported that in 862, in order to end civil strife, the Slavs turned to the Varangians ("Rus") with a proposal to take the princely throne. As a result, Rurik sat down to reign in Novgorod, Sineus - in Beloozero and Truvor in Izborsk.

The "Norman theory" was put forward in the 18th century. German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller, invited by Peter I to work at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. They tried to scientifically prove that the Old Russian state was created by the Vikings. The extreme manifestation of this concept is the assertion that the Slavs, due to their unpreparedness, could not create a state, and then, without foreign leadership, they were not able to manage it. In their opinion, statehood was introduced to the Slavs from outside.

In 1749, Miller delivered a speech at a solemn meeting of the Academy of Sciences in connection with the anniversary of Elizabeth Petrovna's accession to the throne, in which he formulated the main provisions of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of the Russian state. The main theses of his report boiled down to the following: 1) the arrival of the Slavs from the Danube to the Dnieper can be dated no earlier than the reign of Justinian; 2) the Varangians are none other than the Scandinavians; 3) the concepts of "Varangians" and "Rus" are identical.

M.V. was the first to speak out against the Norman theory. Lomonosov. He and his supporters began to be called anti-Normanists. Lomonosov argued that the Slavs were ahead of the Varangian tribes in terms of development, which by the time they were called to Novgorod did not know statehood: moreover, Rurik himself was a native of Porussia, a Rus, that is, a Slav.

So, the anti-Norman theory is based on the concept of the impossibility of introducing statehood from outside, on the idea of ​​the emergence of the state as a stage in the internal development of society.

Over the next centuries, the struggle of two directions in determining the causes of the origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs acquires a political character. Pre-revolutionary historiography (N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, V. Klyuchevsky), recognizing the Norman version, emphasized the fact of the voluntary calling of the supreme power by the people, in contrast to the West, where the state was formed as a result of conquest and violence.

The researchers B. Grekov, S. Yushkov, M. Tikhomirov, recognizing the internal reasons for the formation of the Kievan state, did not deny the role of the Varangians in accelerating this process. But gradually, militant anti-Normanism is established in Soviet historiography as a reaction to the position of foreign historiographers who denied the role of the Slavs in creating their own state.

Today there is no extreme confrontation between supporters and opponents of the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state. We are talking about the degree of Varangian influence on the process of establishing statehood among the Eastern Slavs. Most historians recognize the introduction of special relations between the prince and the squad on Slavic soil, the establishment of the Rurik dynasty, but they are not inclined to exaggerate this influence, because, as noted back in the 18th century. M. Lomonosov, in terms of political, economic and cultural development, they lagged behind the Slavs.

The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists acquired particular urgency in the 30s of the 20th century against the background of the aggravated political situation in Europe. The fascists who came to power in Germany used the existing theoretical concepts to substantiate their aggressive plans. Trying to prove the inferiority of the Slavs, their inability to develop independently, German historians put forward the thesis about the organizing role of the German principle in Poland, the Czech Republic, and in Russia.

Today, a significant part of researchers tend to combine the arguments of the "Normanists" and "anti-Normanists", noting that the prerequisites for the formation of the state among the Slavs were realized with the participation of the Norman prince Rurik and his squad.

No matter how the opinions of historians differ, one thing is important - the fact of the founding of a princely dynasty in Novgorod in 862, which ruled for more than seven centuries, was perceived by the chronicler as a kind of starting point of historical time, and the unification of Novgorod and Kyiv lands under the rule of Oleg - as a repeated moment in historical fate of the Eastern Slavs. According to the remark of one of the domestic historians, “through the beautiful fog of folk tales, history ... is visible only from the time of Oleg.” Sung by A.S. Pushkin Prophetic Oleg is not a legendary figure, but a historical one.

In the modern era, the scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory, which explains the emergence of the Old Russian state as the result of a foreign initiative, has been fully proved. However, its political meaning is dangerous even today.

The "Normanists" proceed from the premise of the supposedly primordial backwardness of the Russian people, who, in their opinion, are incapable of independent historical creativity. It is possible, they believe, only under foreign leadership and according to foreign models.

The main evidence of the emerging statehood was: the widespread use of agriculture using iron tools, the collapse of the tribal community and its transformation into a neighboring one, an increase in the number of cities, the emergence of a squad, i.e. as a result of economic and socio-political development, the statehood began to take shape among the East Slavic tribes.

Thus, the formation of the state of Rus (the Old Russian state or, as it was called after the capital, Kievan Rus) is the natural completion of a long process of decomposition of the primitive communal system among a dozen and a half Slavic tribal unions.

The established state was at the very beginning of its journey: primitive communal traditions retained their place in all spheres of life of the Eastern Slavic society for a long time.

old russian state norman theory

The controversy between the supporters of the two theories, Norman and anti-Norman, has been going on for more than two centuries. The reason for the emergence of the Norman theory, according to which we owe the emergence of statehood in Russia to the Varangians and Scandinavians (Normans), can be considered the mention in the annals of the story about the calling of three Varangian brothers to reign. The theory that was formed later is based on the inability of the Russian tribes to independently form a state.

Origin of the theory

There is a quite convincing version that the spread of the Norman theory had political reasons: during the period of the so-called "Bironism" in the 18th century, many important government posts at the court were occupied by German nobles. It is possible that the dissemination of the theory was intended to confirm the “inferiority” of the Slavic tribes and the superiority of the Normans over them, to whom Russia allegedly owed the formation of not only statehood, but also culture. The Tale of Bygone Years, which to this day is recognized as an important historical source, tells about the calling to rule in 862 of the Varangians with squads - three brothers, Sineus, and Truvor. The founders of the Norman theory are considered to be the researchers I. Beyer and G. Miller.

The emergence of the anti-Norman theory arose in opposition to and was largely dictated by the patriotic feelings of the opponents of the Norman theory. The counter-version is based on the assertion of the objective impossibility of the emergence of a state in one day and by the efforts of a small group of people, no matter how outstanding they may be.

The essence of the theory

V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov were ardent opponents of the Norman theory. In his statements, Lomonosov called the idea of ​​the Norman theory "blasphemous" and argued the absurdity of statements about the alleged "inferiority" of the Slavs, who were unable to create their own state on their own territory. Being the initiator of the controversy, M.V. Lomonosov argues that the emergence of the state requires objective reasons that are formed over the centuries and cannot arise overnight. We are talking about the necessary maturity of society for this, and about the reasons for domestic and foreign policy. The arguments cited by Lomonosov (not all of which, however, were confirmed in historical sources) about the failure of the Norman theory:

• The name of the state of Prussia arose from the incorrect pronunciation of the name of its inhabitants, the Prussians - in fact, the Porus, that is, who lived next to the Rus.
• Russ received the naming of their people by the name of the river Ros.
• The Slavic lands of the Normans were called "Gradorika", that is, the country of cities, in that historical period when the Normans themselves did not yet have cities.
• The Varangians called to reign are in fact of Novgorodian origin; according to Lomonosov, the daughter of a Novgorod headman was married off to a Varangian prince; from their union, Sineus, Rurik and Truvor were born.

There is a lot of evidence in chronicle sources that by 862 the Slavic state really already existed. In German sources, since 839, Russian princes have been called Khakans (kings). Historian V. Sedov claims that he is of Iranian origin, and the ancient Russian state was originally located between the Don and Dnieper rivers.

In the 19th century, D. Ilovaisky was considered the leading supporter of the theory, whose research was aimed at finding evidence of the unreliability of the entire history of the accession of the Rurikids. Soviet historiographers D. Likhachev and M. Tikhomirov suspected the possibility of falsifying information about the calling of the Varangians and adding it to the chronicle later than it was written. According to Shakhmatov, after the transition to the south, the squads of the Varangians began to be called Rus.

It should be noted that among foreign historiographers there are many scientists who consider the Norman theory doubtful. At present, the positions of Normanists and anti-Normanists are converging, however, the final unified version of the origin of the Old Russian state does not exist to this day.

Main proponents of the anti-Norman theory

According to researchers, for 10 thousand sq. km. Russian territories only 5 Norman geographical names. For comparison: in England that survived the invasion of the Normans, there are more than 150 such names.

The Lavrentiev and Ipatiev Chronicles testify that the Varangians with their squads were invited not only by the Russians, but also by all the northern tribes. Thus, invited princes could receive positions in pre-existing states. Moreover, the Russian tribes often invited not only the Varangians, but also their other neighbors - the Karakalpaks, Torks, and Pechenegs. In addition, there are not enough and completely reliable facts confirming the key influence of the Normans on the formation of the statehood and culture of Russia.

1.Norman theory

More specifically, the Norman theory should be understood as a direction in historiography, which tends to the fact 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 "Bironism". During that period of historical development, most of the posts at the court were occupied by German nobles. It is important to note the fact that the composition of the Academy of Sciences also included a significant number of German scientists. The founder of such a theory about the origin of Russia can be called the scientists I. Bayer and G. Miller. As it turned out later, this theory became especially popular under political phenomena. Also, this theory was later developed by the scientist Schletzer. In order to state their statement, scientists took as a basis the message from the famous chronicle called "The Tale of Bygone Years". As far back as the 12th century, a Russian chronicler included in the chronicle a certain story-legend that told about the calling of the princes of the Varangian brothers - Sineus, Rurik and Truvor. Scientists tried in every possible way to prove the fact that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs is the merit only of the Normans. Also, such scientists 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, the 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. It was also the Vikings who had a great cultural influence on the Slavs. That is, the Scandinavians are the creators of the Russian people, who gave it not only statehood, but also culture.

2.Anti-Norman theory

Naturally, this theory, like many others, immediately found opponents. Russian scientists opposed such a statement. M. Lomonosov became one of the brightest scientists who spoke about disagreement with the Norman theory. It is he who is called the initiator of the controversy between the Normanists and the opponents of this trend - 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 this was accompanied by more objective reasons at that time. Many sources say 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. Also an important argument is that a new state cannot arise overnight. This is a long process of social development of a 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 “inferiority” was attributed to one hundred Slavs, their inability to organize a state on their own lands. According to which 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.