According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Rus' were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.

Background

It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. Subsequently, many major Russian historians adhered to this theory, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.

The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully outlined by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered virtually proven.

In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory took hold in the wake of the growth of ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.

Today, the moderate Norman theory prevails, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.

Two ethnonyms

The key terms used by the “Normanists” are “Varangians” and “Rus”. They are found in many chronicle sources, including in the Tale of Bygone Years:

“And they said to themselves [the Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi]: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.”

The word “Rus” for supporters of the Norman version is etymologically related to the Finnish term “ruotsi”, which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. Thus, linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that from “Ruotsi” the name “Rus” can be formed purely philologically.

Norman philologists do not ignore other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - “Rhodes” (Swedish “rowers”) and “Roslagen” (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, “Rhodes” could well turn into “Russians”.

However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alan tribes, which is known as "Roksolans".

“Varyags” (other scan. “Væringjar”) “Normanists” also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, focusing either on the social or on the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, mercenary warriors without an exact localization of place of residence and specific ethnicity.

Sigismund Herberstein in “Notes on Muscovy” (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word “Varangian” and the name of the tribe of Baltic Slavs - “Vargs”, which, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians “were from different tribes and languages.”

Chronicle evidence

One of the main sources that brought to us the idea of ​​“calling the Varangians to reign” is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.

Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.

Moreover, being a collection of different chronicles, “The Tale of Bygone Years” offers us three different references to the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Rus'.

In the “Novgorod Chronicle,” which absorbed the “Initial Code” that preceded the Tale from the end of the 11th century, there is no longer a comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to Rurik’s participation in the founding of Novgorod, and then explains that “the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian family.”

In the “Joachim Chronicle” compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

Linguistic evidence

It has now been precisely established that a number of words in the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, and words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely steward). A number of names also passed from Old Scandinavian to Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor.

An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and “Russian” languages.

Each “Russian” name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, “Varuforos” (“Big Pool”) clearly echoes the Old Icelandic “Barufors”.

Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their insignificant number.

Archaeological evidence

Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, at the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects with the image of a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs.

Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson, dating back to the middle of the 10th century.

It is known that in 992, the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the burial ceremony of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the construction of a mound. Russian archaeologists discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread all the way to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.

However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian objects in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Rus', the burials were carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local rites.

Alternative view

Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Rus' existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of the northern and southern Slavs.

Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: “after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called polyans, the speech was Slavic.” The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people.

The Slavic theory was developed by 19th century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.

The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - the Obodrites, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym “Russian”.

The Rus and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper region.

A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the “Russian Kaganate”, put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the Russian state was located between the Dnieper and Don. The ethnonym “Rus”, according to this hypothesis, appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.

What does genetics say?

Genetics could answer the question about the ethnicity of the founders of the Old Russian state. Such studies were carried out, but they gave rise to many contradictions.

In 2007, Newsweek published the results of studies of the genome of living representatives of the Rurikovich house. It was noted that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich family) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard universities, disagrees with such conclusions, noting that “there are no Swedish haplotypes.” He defines his belonging to the Rurikovichs by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov’s research, could indeed have lived in the 9th century, but its Scandinavian origin is questioned.

“The Rurikovichs are either carriers of haplogroup R1a, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of haplogroup N1c1,” the scientist concludes.

Elena Melnikova, a professor at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the situation can be clarified by analyzing DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in northern Russia.

1. The meaning of the word “Norman theory” in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Norman theory, a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. The Norman theory was formulated by German scientists working at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century - G.3. Bayer, G.F. Miller and others. A.L., who came to Russia later, became a supporter of the Norman theory. Schlözer. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of the Old Russian state was the story in The Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Rus' in 862.

In the middle of the 18th century. The Norman theory was criticized by M.V. Lomonosov, who pointed out the scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory and its political meaning hostile to Russia. In the noble-monarchist historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. The Norman theory gained character official version origin of the Russian state (N.M. Karamzin and others). To one degree or another, the majority of bourgeois historians were “Normanists”. CM. Soloviev, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the Eastern Slavs and transfer it to the 9th century. concepts of national dignity characteristic of modern times. The struggle between “Normanists” and “anti-Normanists” and between Slavophiles and “Westerners” became especially acute in the 60s. 19th century in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862, when polemics that had a pronounced political nature unfolded around many issues of Russian history. Some noble and bourgeois historians opposed the Norman theory - D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonov, V.G. Vasilievsky and others. They criticized certain specific provisions of the Norman theory, but were unable to reveal its anti-science.

In Soviet historiography, the influence of the Norman theory was overcome in the 30-40s. The decisive role in this was played by the work of a number of Soviet historians and archaeologists based on Marxist-Leninist methodology: B.D. Grekova, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, S.M. Yushkova, V.V. Mavrodin and others, who established that East Slavic society reached in the 9th century. the degree of decomposition of the communal system when the internal prerequisites for the emergence of a state have matured. The presence of some ancient Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and Norman Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. They left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus'. The Norman Varangians who were in Rus' merged with the indigenous population and became glorified.

Since the 20s. 20th century The provisions of the Norman theory became an integral part of the bourgeois concept of Russian history, which is adhered to by some historians of Western Europe and the United States. In capitalist states, many monographs and articles on individual issues have appeared. Norman theory Modern Normanism is generally characterized by a defensive position in relation to the works of Soviet scientists. Supporters of the Norman theory strive to defend their positions on certain issues: about the composition of the ruling class in Ancient Rus', about the origin of large land ownership in Rus', about trade and trade routes of Ancient Rus', about archaeological monuments of ancient Russian culture, etc., in each of which Normanists consider a Norman element decisive, determining. Modern proponents of the Norman theory also argue that Norman colonization of Rus' took place and that the Scandinavian colonies provided the basis for the establishment of Norman rule. They believe that Ancient Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden. The Norman theory is scientifically untenable.

• 2. Formation of Kievan Rus. "The Norman Question" in Russian historiography. The problem of the origin of Rus' is complex and multifaceted. The hottest debates in the 18th-19th centuries. raised the "Norman question". Briefly it can be formulated as follows. Who created the Russian state: the Slavs themselves or foreigners? Historians have answered this question differently, depending on the interpretation of the Tale of Bygone Years, in particular, the legend about the calling of the Varangians. The founders of the “Norman theory” are considered to be the German historians G. - E. Bayer, G. - F. Miller and A. - L. Schletser. They argued that the Russian state was created by the Varangians, i.e. Scandinavians; before the arrival of Rurik, in their opinion, the Slavs were a savage people. The first Russian scientist to criticize this theory was M.V. Lomonosov. He argued that the Russian people themselves created their own state, and suggested that the Varangians are not Swedes, but Slavs, the name of our country - Rus' - is not of Scandinavian, but of Slavic origin. The Normanists claimed that this was the name of one of the Swedish tribes. This opinion is based on Byzantine and Western European sources, in which all who arrived from the banks of the Volkhov or Dnieper were called Russians. Obviously, this argument does not stand up to criticism, since even now in the West all emigrants from the former USSR are called Russians, although in reality this is far from the case. However, M.V. Lomonosov did not have sufficient factual data, so the “Norman theory” continued to dominate Russian historical science. N.M. Karamzin did not question the chronicle story about the calling of the Varangians and considered them Scandinavians, because, firstly, the Baltic Sea in Rus' in the Middle Ages was called the Varangian Sea, and in the 9th century. it was dominated by the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians; secondly, epigraphic inscriptions found in the Scandinavian countries testify to their long-standing contacts with Russia. N.M. Karamzin also drew attention to the similarity of “Russian Truth” with German, in particular, with Norman laws and considered this proof of the reliability of the chronicle story about the calling of the Varangians. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky explained this phenomenon not by borrowing or conquest, but by the kinship of Russian customary law with German: “The symbols of our law are not identical at all, but only very close, akin to the German ones, this shows that our rituals were not borrowed from Germany, but developed from one source, just as in a Russian language a word of the same Aryan root as a German one usually differs significantly from it both in sound and form.” A more convincing argument is the names of the first princes: Rurik, Truvor and Sineus. In Frankish chronicles and Icelandic sagas, leaders of Norman squads with such names are mentioned. However, this evidence is not indisputable. Having found out that the Varangians were Normans, N.M. Karamzin posed the following question: which of the Scandinavian peoples did they belong to? Having studied the Bertin Chronicles, the historian came to the conclusion that the Varangians were Swedes. Thus, N.M. Karamzin had no doubt that the first Russian princes were Swedes. However, he noted that the Slavs voluntarily called upon the princes, i.e. They realized the need for a state, and shortly before that they expelled the Varangians from their land, therefore, militarily they were stronger than them or, at least, equal to them. Already in the 6th century. The Slavs had cities, agriculture not only satisfied internal needs, but also produced marketable products. The Slavs traded not only bread, but also linen; items made of metal, clay, and wood found by archaeologists indicate high level craft development. Consequently, in the 9th century. In Rus' there were all the prerequisites for the formation of a state; the Slavs were aware of the need for unification. Rus' was not inferior to other European countries, in particular Sweden, either militarily or economically. As N.M. wrote Karamzin, Sweden was then “divided into small regions.” These facts were brought to the attention of S.M. Soloviev. He believed that the Slavs were striving for unification, and Rurik and his brothers were called in as arbitrators: “The clans that collided in one place, and therefore strived for civil life, for defining relations among themselves, had to look for the force that brought If they had peace, order, they would have to look for a government that would be alien to clan relations, a mediator in disputes, an impartial, in a word, a third judge, and this could only be a prince from someone else’s family.” Consequently, the Varangian princes, according to S.M. Solovyov, were called not because they were superior to the Slavs in anything, but because they were not associated with any of the Slavic tribes and clans and could be mediators in disputes between them. The Slavs could have played the same role in Sweden, because and she wasn't at that time a single state. Thus, the Russian state was formed under the influence of internal reasons. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, the first Slavic states were urban areas - not tribal, but territorial entities, since they were inhabited by representatives of various tribes. So, in the Novgorod region lived the Ilmen and Krivichi Slavs, in the Smolensk region - the Krivichi and Radimichi, in the Chernigov region - the Radimichi, Vyatichi and Severians, in the Kyiv region - the Polyana and the Drevlyans. The cities were commercial, military and administrative centers. IN. Klyuchevsky believed that “large armed cities that became rulers of regions arose precisely among those tribes that took the most active part in foreign trade.” The main reasons for the unification of urban areas are the need for defense against external enemies and common economic interests. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Swedes appeared in Rus' in the first half of the 9th century. as armed merchants, similar to those who were in Russian cities. As often happened at that time, they combined trade with piracy. Some of these merchants went to Byzantium along the famous route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” others remained in Rus' and became military mercenaries, then in some areas they carried out a coup and seized power. IN. Klyuchevsky considered Rurik the leader of such a mercenary army and assumed that he was invited to protect Novgorod from other Swedes. However, Rurik seized power in the city, two years later the Novgorodians raised an uprising, but it was suppressed. Nevertheless, Rurik was afraid of the Slavs, so he lived not in Novgorod, but in Ladoga, closer to the border. The legend itself about the calling of princes, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, reflects the realities of the 11th-12th centuries, and not the 9th century. Thus, Rurik is not a ruler elected by the people, but a usurper. The Slavs themselves created their own state, and the Swedes are not civilizers or even conquerors, but just military mercenaries who seized power through a coup. Such an explanation is honorable for the ancient Slavs and at the same time serves as a warning to us, their descendants. It should be noted that in the VI - XI centuries. The Normans conquered England, as well as certain regions of France, Germany and Italy, while they came to Rus' as merchants and mercenaries. This already indicates that in those days Rus', both in terms of the level of economic, political and cultural development, and in terms of military power not inferior to the countries of Western Europe. B.D. Grekov noted that when concluding treaties with Byzantium, Oleg and his warriors swore by the Slavic gods, and not the Scandinavian ones, and swore by weapons according to Slavic custom. In the lives of George of Amastrid and Stephen of Sourozh and in the speeches of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius, the Russian campaigns against Byzantium in the 40s of the 9th century are mentioned. and June 860. In the Tale of Bygone Years, the calling of the Varangians dates back to 862 B.A. Rybakov believed that the formation of the Russian state began with the formation of tribal unions. The main reasons for their occurrence were wars with nomads, campaigns in Byzantium, and the transformation of the tribal community into a neighboring one. The highest authority in such a union or “tribal principality” was the veche. The process of state formation, according to B.A. Rybakov, was largely completed by the beginning of the 9th century: “By the beginning of the 9th century, the state of Rus' had formed in the center of the East Slavic tribes, uniting almost half of the tribes around Kiev and fighting the nomads, Byzantium and the Varangians. The Russian state had formed long before the arrival of the Varangians without any external influence." So, the Russian state was created East Slavs. Neither culturally nor economically Rus' was inferior to the countries of Western Europe. The “Norman theory” was created by Germans who did not speak Russian, and therefore were unable to correctly understand “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Russian historical science gradually freed itself from the influence of this theory. However, there is some truth in every legend. In this case, it lies in the fact that Rus' fought with Sweden already in the 9th century. Subsequently, the Swedes served to the Kyiv princes and often their behavior aroused the wrath of the people. Relations between Russia and Sweden during the Kiev period were built on the principle: “friendship of governments - enmity of peoples.” Which of these trends would prevail was unknown at the time.
• 3. Norman theory, a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. N.t. was formulated by German scientists working at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century - G.3. Bayer, G.F. Miller and others. Later, A.L., who came to Russia, became a supporter of N. t. Schlözer. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of the Old Russian state was the story in The Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Rus' in 862.

The political meaning of N. was to present Ancient Rus' as a backward country, incapable of independent state creativity, and the Normans as a force that from the very beginning of Russian history influenced the development of Russia, its economy and culture.

4. Norman theory- a set of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.

Normanists- adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such a one was actually founded by the Scandinavians, i.e. Swedes.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the Old Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment the Varangians were called to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, “of whom Rurik and his brothers were, were not of Slavic tribe and language. They were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.”

This article states that M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of this “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power. He focuses on the fact that it was not the weakness or inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad, which were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.

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

So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).

5. According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and constituting the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the Rurik princes. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the 9th-11th centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists.

What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which translated into the generally accepted calendar is the year 862: In the summer of 6370:

“They drove the Varangians over the sea, and did not give them tribute, and they themselves became increasingly ill, and there was no truth in them, and generation after generation arose, and they increasingly fought against themselves. And they decided within themselves: “Let us look for a prince like him.” would have ruled over us and judged by right." And I went to the Varangians, to Rus'; the sitse botii is called Varyazi Rui, as the sedrzia are called Svie, the druzii are Urman, the Anglyans, the druzii G'te, tako and si.

Decided to Rus' Chud, and Sloveni, and Krivichi all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it, let you come to reign and rule over us.” And he was chosen by his brothers from his clans, and girded all of Rus' around him, and came to the Slovenians first , and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik sat in Ladoz, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bela, and the third Izbrst, Truvor. And from those Varangians it was nicknamed the Russian Land. ""

This excerpt from an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, taken on faith by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists claim that the arriving Varangians practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural influence on the Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is completely clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, while at the same time subjugating them to themselves.

6. Excerpt from the article by Andrei Bortsov: “Rus: “rulers on loan”?”: The main directions of the Norman theory.

Normanism - this is not a single theory; it is divided into "subspecies". Like, if you are not satisfied with this hypothesis about the inferiority of Russians, here is another one, but about the same thing. The main directions of the Norman theory:

• 1. Conquering. The Old Russian state was created by the Normans, who conquered the Slavic lands.
• 2. Colonization. Argues that the Varangian colonies were the real basis for establishing the rule of the Normans over the Eastern Slavs (T. Arne).
• 3. Class. According to her, ruling class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them (A. Stender-Petersen).

All options agree that the appearance of the Normans gave an impetus to development, without which the state in Rus' would never have arisen.

7. One of the ardent opponents of the Norman theory was Dmitry Ilovaisky (1832-1920), an outstanding Russian historian who passionately polemicized with supporters of the Scandinavian system. He believed that all sorts of tensions and contradictions clearly appear in the Norman theory. And the Norman theory existed only because of its external harmony and ostentatious logic.

The Normanists relied heavily on the treaties of Oleg and Igor to support their system, and some of them defended the authenticity of the treaties. Indeed, there is no serious reason to doubt their authenticity; These are almost the only documentary sources listed on the first pages of the chronicle. Therefore, their content largely contradicts the legendary stories with which they are surrounded. Upon careful examination, they can serve as one of the most important evidence not of the truth, but of the falsity of the Norman theory. If Oleg was a Norman who came to Russia with Rurik, and his squad consisted of Normans, then how, according to the agreement, do they swear by the Slavic deities Perun and Volos, and not the Scandinavian Odin and Thor? The same oath is repeated in the treaties of Igor and Svyatoslav. Rus', by all undoubted signs, was a strong, numerous people. If these were people who came from Scandinavia, then how could they change their religion so quickly and who could force them? Where did the legend about the calling of princes come from and about the calling specifically from Scandinavia? It is known that medieval chronicles loved to attribute to their people some distant origin that flattered the people's pride. The most common method was to remove peoples from Scandinavia. That such a widespread custom of bringing one’s ancestors out of Scandinavia was, in all likelihood, reflected in our chronicle legend about the exit of Varangian Rus' from there. But everything convinces us that the fatherland of Rus' was not in the north, but in the south, it extended its dominion from south to north, and that Rus' and the Varangians are two different peoples. The chronicle itself calls the Black Sea Russian, and the Baltic Sea Varangian. The beginning of Russian history is dated to Novgorod only by the legend about the calling of princes. Even the title of "The Tale of Bygone Years" talks about Kyiv. Chronological data also dates the beginning of our history to Kyiv.

The Norman theory erases from history an entire mighty people who have lived in southern Russia since time immemorial, and in its place it calls out from across the sea some shadow that it does not know what to call: either a people or a squad, and claims that this shadow was real Russia and that in a few years it covered the entire space “from the cold Finnish rocks to the fiery Colchis.” Together with the unprecedented people of the Varangian-Russians, an unprecedented Norman period was created in our history, and then almost all the main phenomena of our state life are declared not to be our own, but alien, brought from overseas, by causes and traditions.

Archaeological science, relying on the conclusions of Norman historians, has hitherto followed the same false path in explaining many antiquities. If some objects discovered in Russian soil resemble objects found in Denmark or Sweden, then for our monuments the explanation is ready: this is Norman influence. At the same time, two simple circumstances are not taken into account: many things of the same fabrication, with the help of trade, were distributed over a very vast area, in addition to any political influences; many similar objects are often found among completely different peoples who have never had relations with each other.

Dmitry Ilovaisky sums up the following results of his polemics with the Norman theory and its representatives: “In support of the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians and their theory about the origin of Rus' from Scandinavia, the Normanists cite various evidence: but there is not a single doubt between them.

• 1. From the mass of Byzantine evidence, the Normanists found one unclear expression in their favor: “Rus, the so-called Dromites, from the Frankish family.” This expression has no specific meaning; it is used in the sense of the European people, with which the Normanists themselves agree. And moreover, it does not belong to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, not Photius or Leo the Deacon, but to the successors of Theophanes and Amartol. And what can this expression mean in comparison with many other indications of the Byzantines that Rus' is a Scythian or Tauro-Scythian people? Is it possible to talk about the Franks after the famous words of Leo the Deacon, an eyewitness of Svyatoslav’s Rus': “Tauroscythians, who in their own language call themselves Rus'.” Regarding the funeral rites of the Russians, he says that the philosophers Anacharsis and Zamolxis taught them the Hellenic mysteries, and he counts Achilles himself among the same tribe.
• 2. From the mass of Arabic evidence about the Russians, the Normanists found only one expression in their favor: “In 844, the pagans, called Russia, plundered Seville.” But this is a clear mistake, as has long been proven, and moderate Normanists do not stand for such strange evidence. Arab writers of the 9th and 10th centuries had previously dark concepts about geography and ethnography northern Europe that they ranked its inhabitants among the closest people known to them, Rus'; and the Baltic Sea was considered a branch connecting the Black Sea with the Western Ocean, and therefore the rumor about an attack by some northern barbarians on Spain was attributed by Al-Katib or his later writer to Rus', because The name of the people around that time became famous as a result of raids on the shores of the Black and Caspian Seas. This Seville Rus loses all meaning in the line of many other Arabic news pointing to native and Slavic Rus.
• 3. From all the medieval Latin chronicles mentioning Rus', the Normanists extracted two testimonies in their favor, Liutprand and Prudentius. Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, notes about the Russians that they are a people living north of Constantinople, between the Khazars and Bulgars, which the Greeks call by their external quality
• 4. The news of the Bertin Chronicles (Prudentius) about Rus' “from the Sveon tribe” cannot be interpreted by the Swedes.

The very absence of gold Byzantine coins of that time in Swedish treasures contradicts the existence of Swedish Rus'.

• 5. The route from the Varangians to Greece, described in the chronicle, cannot support the Norman theory, because this description refers not to the 9th, but to the 11th century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, describing the same route in the 10th century, begins it from Novgorod and does not mention the Varangians anywhere. The Russian names of the thresholds given by him cannot be explained exclusively from Scandinavian languages. The Normans could sail along the Dnieper only after the founding of the Russian state, being in the service of the Russian princes or under the patronage, therefore, when the Russian names of the rapids already existed.
• 6. Some names of the first princes and warriors are similar to Scandinavian ones. This is completely natural given the commonality of many names among the Slavic and Germanic peoples, with the long cohabitation of the Goths and Russians in Eastern Europe, as well as during the original cohabitation of the Goths and Slavs on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea. But no stretch of the imagination can prove that they are not only exclusively, but also predominantly Scandinavian.

These are all the arguments of the Norman school, worthy of any attention and collected by it over more than a hundred years to reinforce the chronicle fable about the calling of the Varangians and its opinion about the origin of the state of Rus' thanks to Scandinavia. As for the thoughts of the Normanists that our ancient government system has Norman features - these are completely arbitrary interpretations. There will be common features - they are inevitable among all European peoples, but there will also be differences that clearly indicate our Slavic origin.

In parallel with the arguments of the Normanists, we will briefly repeat the grounds on which we reject the legend about the calling of the Varangians, and most importantly, we affirm the indigenous origin of Rus' as a state.

• 1. The improbability of the calling. History does not provide us with examples of any nation calling another nation to rule over itself.
• 2. If it is possible to find some analogy for the fable about the foreign origin of the people of Rus', then the analogy is only legendary or literary.
• 3. Rus' was not just a squad or an insignificant tribe that could, unnoticed by history, move in its entirety from Scandinavia to Russia. They were a numerous and strong people. Otherwise it is impossible to explain his dominant position among the Eastern Slavs, his extensive conquests and campaigns undertaken over several tens of thousands of years. And if Rus' were just a visiting squad, then inexorable logic asks: where did the Russian people in Scandinavia disappear without a trace, i.e. the people from which this squad came? 4. The existence of many rivers in Eastern Europe with the name Ros. And it is known that folk names are often in direct connection with the names of rivers.
• 5. Geographical distribution of the name Rus by the end of the 9th century. from Ilmen to the lower Volga makes it absolutely incredible that it appeared in Eastern Europe only in the second half of this century. History does not provide the slightest analogy for this.
• 6. The Sarmatian people Roksolane have long lived between the Sea of ​​Azov and the Dnieper. News about him from Greek and Latin writers, starting from the 2nd century. BC, continue until the 6th century. AD inclusive and are also confirmed by the famous Peutinger tables, or the road map of the Roman Empire. And in the 9th century. In the same places, the people grew, or Ros, again in Byzantine news.
• 7. The name Prussia is the same as Russia, or actually PoRussia. It arose, however, independently of our Rus', for the Lithuanian people, the Prussians, were not even neighbors of our Russians throughout the Middle Ages. This name, in all likelihood, is also in connection with the names of rivers. The mere existence of Prussia overthrows any attempt to remove Rus' from Scandinavia; otherwise the Prussians must be produced from there.
• 8. The complete absence of the name Rus' among the Scandinavian peoples.
• 9. The long-standing existence of Ugric or Transcarpathian Rus', as well as the assignment of this name to Galician or Chervonnaya Russia, which for a relatively short time belonged to Russian princes. Such strength of the name would be incredible if it were not original, but alien.
• 10. The gravity of our original history and the very name of Rus' is to the south, and not to the north.
• 11. Our oldest documentary sources, treaties with the Greeks, do not give the slightest hint from which one could suspect the foreign origin of Rus'. Rus' has always treated the Varangians as foreigners and foreigners.
• 12. The commercial nature of Rus' and its trade relations with Byzantium and Khazaria, which undoubtedly had
• 13. The worship of Russians to Slavic deities, attested by treaties with Byzantium. The newly arrived people, and the dominant ones at that, could not immediately change their gods and accept the religion of the subordinate tribe.
• 14. Their existence Slavic writing, proven by the Slavic translation of the same treaties.
• 15. The absence of the alien Scandinavian element in the Russian language; as well as the absence of any struggle between the Russian and Slavic peoples before their supposed merger. If the Russians were a Scandinavian people, they could not have turned into Slavs so quickly.
• 16. Complete absence of news about the calling of princes or the coming of Rus' from Scandinavia in all foreign sources. Particularly important is the silence about Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who reported the greatest amount of information about the Russians and who himself personally enters into relations with the second generation (allegedly who came from Scandinavia) of Russian princes.
• 17. The Byzantines never confuse the Russians with the Varangians.
• 18. The Icelandic sagas, which would most naturally speak about the extraordinary happiness of the Normans in Eastern Europe, know nothing about the Norman tribe of the Russians, or about Rurik, or about the sailing of the Normans along the Dnieper. The sagas speak of the Russians as the great native people of Eastern Europe.
• 19. The physical impossibility of Norman campaigns along the Greek waterway before the political unification of southern and northern Rus' is consistent with the lack of historical evidence about this voyage.
• 20. The distance of about 250 years (even according to the calculations of the Normanists) between the calling of the Varangians and the compilation of our initial chronicle in itself makes the legend unreliable, which is confirmed by its completely legendary connotation.

This list of arguments and comparison of historical data could be continued."

Such arguments against the Norman theory are given by Dmitry Ilovaisky.

8. Criticism of the Norman theory.

There are 4 main arguments of Normanism, which are still used to prove the truth of this theory (3 were formulated by Bayer, 1 Miller):

Norman theory Old Russian state

• 1. The name “Rus” itself comes from the Finnish name for Sweden “Ruotsi” (Estonian “Rootsi”).
• 2. The names of ambassadors and merchants in the treaties between Rus' and the Greeks (10th century) are not Slavic, therefore they are Germanic.
• 3. The names of the Dnieper rapids in the book of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (mid-10th century) are given in Slavic and Russian, but the Slavic and Russian names are clearly different, therefore, the Rus, according to Bayer, must be recognized as German-speaking Swedes
• 4. The Varangians, according to the most ancient chronicles, live “beyond the sea”, therefore, they are Swedes.

Let's try to analyze the argument regarding the origin and meaning of the term "Rus". Lomonosov also pointed out the illogicality of creating the name “Rus” from the Finnish designation for the Swedes “ruotsi”, since neither the Slavs nor the Varangians knew such an ethnonym. Miller's objection, who turned to the examples of “England” and “France,” was countered by Lomonosov with an obvious argument: the name of a country can be traced back either to the victors or to the vanquished, and not to the names of a third party. Philologists from Europe - Ekblom, Stender-Petersen, Falk, Ekbu, Mägiste, as well as historians Pashkevich and Dreyer tried to establish and strengthen the construction according to which “Rus” comes from “ruotsi” - the word that the Finns use to call the Swedes and Sweden. “Rus” in the sense of “Russian state” meant the state of the Swedes - Rus'. Pashkevich said that “Rus” are Normans from Eastern Europe. G. Vernadsky spoke out against these constructions, saying that the term “Rus” is of southern Russian origin, and that “rukhs” is Alan tribes southern steppes of the mid-1st millennium AD. The word “Rus” denoted the strong political association Rus that existed long before the appearance of the Varangians, which carried out military campaigns on the Black Sea coast. If we turn to the written sources of that time - Byzantine, Arabic, we can see that they consider Rus' one of the local peoples of southeastern Europe. Also, some sources call it, and this is especially important, Slavs. The identification of the concepts of “Rus” and “Normans” in the chronicle, which the Normanists emphasized, turned out to be a later insertion. The other main point of the Norman theory is the origin of the word “Varangians”. Among the various hypotheses, there is one that suggests not the Scandinavian origin of this term, but Russian. Back in the 17th century. Herberstein drew parallels between the name "Varangians" and the name of one of the Baltic Slavic tribes - the Vargs. This idea was developed by Lomonosov, and later by Svistun. The general meaning of their hypotheses boils down to the fact that the “Varangians” are aliens from the Baltic lands who were hired to serve the East Slavic princes. If we proceed from the correctness of these hypotheses, it becomes unclear where the word “Varangians” came from in the chronicles. It is clear that looking for it in the Scandinavian sagas is completely pointless.

More than fifty scientists have been studying the problem of Scandinavian borrowings in the Russian language for two centuries. The Normanists wanted to show that many objects and concepts in the Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. Especially for this, the Swedish philologist K. Törnqvist did a huge job of searching for and sifting out Scandinavian borrowings from the Russian language. The result was completely disappointing. A total of 115 words were found, the vast majority of which are dialects of the 19th century, not used in our time. Only thirty are obvious borrowings, of which only ten can be cited as proof of the Norman theory. These are words such as “gridin”, “tiun”, “yabetnik”, “Brkovsk”, “pud”. Words such as “narov”, “syaga”, “shgla” are used once in the sources. The conclusion is obvious. With exactly the same success, researcher A. Backlund tried to prove the presence of Scandinavian names on the territory of the Russian state. In general, if you carefully analyze all the data that seems to support the Norman theory, they will certainly turn against it. In addition, the Normanists use different sources than the anti-Normanists, and most of these sources are Western, for example, the three lives of Otto of Bamberg. Such sources are often falsified and biased. The Byzantine sources, which can be taken on faith, for example, clearly indicate that Rus' should not be confused with the Varangians; Rus' is mentioned earlier than the Varangians; Russian princes and squads prayed either to Perun or to Christ, but not to the Scandinavian gods. Also trustworthy are the works of Photius and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which say nothing about the calling of the Varangians to Rus'.

The same can be said about Arabic sources, although at first the Normanists managed to turn them in their favor. These sources speak of the Russians as a tall, fair-haired people. Indeed, one might think of the Russians as Scandinavians, but these ethnographic conclusions are very shaky. Some features in customs point to the Slavs.

The totality of all sources boldly suggests the inconsistency of the Norman theory. In addition to these irrefutable evidence, there are many others - such as evidence of the Slavic origin of the names of the Dnieper rapids, some archaeological data. All these facts debunk the Norman theory. The conclusion from all of the above is the following: it can be assumed that the role of the Normans in Rus' in the first period of their appearance on the territory of the Eastern Slavs (until the third quarter of the 10th century) was different than in the subsequent period. At first, this is the role of merchants who know foreign countries well, then - warriors, navigators, and sailors. A glorified Scandinavian dynasty was called to the throne, apparently glorified in the second half of the 9th century or at the time of Oleg’s arrival in Kyiv. The opinion that the Normans played the same role in Rus' as the conquistadors in America is fundamentally erroneous. The Normans gave impetus to economic and social transformations in Ancient Rus' - this statement also has no basis.

Lomonosov noted Bayer's "Germanization" of the names of Slavic princes. His conclusion is very important and convincing that “in the Scandinavian language these names do not have any meaning” (an example of the “Germanic” interpretation of Slavic names is the interpretation of the princely name Vladimir as “forest warden”). None of the Normanists have yet overcome Lomonosov’s conclusion. Also, Lomonosov’s remark is very significant that since the adoption of Christianity in Rus', Greek and Jewish names have been established, but this does not mean that the bearers of these names are Greeks or Jews, and therefore the names themselves do not indicate the language of their bearers. In accordance with this reflection, Lomonosov admitted that the name “Rurik” was Scandinavian, but the prince came with the Varangians - Russia from the southern coast of the Baltic. His conviction was also based on the fact that, while in Germany, he visited the coast of the Varangian Sea, where not only Slavic place names were still preserved, but in some places Slavic speech was also heard.

9. Modern researchers, overcoming the extremes of Normanism and anti-Normanism, have come to the following conclusions:

The process of forming the state began before the Varangians; the very fact of their invitation to reign indicates that this form of power was already known to the Slavs.

Rurik, a real historical figure, having been invited to Novgorod to play the role of arbiter and, perhaps, defender from the overseas Varangians (Svei), seizes power, suppressing the uprising under the leadership of Vadim (most likely a local tribal prince). His appearance in Novgorod (peaceful or violent) has nothing to do with the birth of the state.

There are other points of view that deny the reality of Rurik, but it is obvious that the question of the origin of Rurik is not connected with the problem of the formation of the ancient Russian state

The Norman squad, not burdened by local traditions, more actively uses the element of violence to collect tribute and unite Slavic tribal unions, which, to a certain extent, accelerates the process of the formation of the state. At the same time, there is a consolidation of the local princely squad, its integration with the Varangian squads and the Slavicization of the Varangians themselves.

Oleg, having united the Novgorod and Kyiv lands and brought together the path from the Varangians to the Greeks, provided an economic basis for the emerging state.

Ethnonym Rus' of northern origin. And although the chronicle refers her to one of the Norman tribes, most likely this is a collective name (from the Finnish ruotsi - oarsmen) under which was hidden not an ethnic, but an ethnosocial group, consisting of representatives of various peoples engaged in sea robbery and trade and representing the prince's squad. Then, on the one hand, it becomes clear the rapid spread of this concept, no longer associated with any ethnic group, among the Eastern Slavs, whose tribal elite merged with the alien element, and on the other, the rapid assimilation of the Varangians themselves, who also accepted the East Slavic pagan cults and those who did not hold on to their gods.

10. Interesting fact about the Norman colonies established after archaeological excavations:

Dramatic changes occurred in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists. This was caused by a certain surge in the activity of anti-Normanist teachings, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the old school were replaced by scientists of the younger generation. But until the mid-30s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit. Archaeologists were the first to come up with anti-Normanist ideas, directing their criticism against the provisions of the concept of the Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, who published his work “Sweden and the East”. Archaeological research by Russian archaeologists in the 30s produced materials that contradict Arne’s concept. An important role in this was played by the criterion developed by Soviet archaeologists for resolving the issue of the ethnicity of funerary monuments. It was found that the decisive point is not the presence of certain things in the burial, but the entire burial complex as a whole. This approach allowed V.I. Ravdonikas, on the basis of excavations of burial mounds in the South-Eastern Ladoga region carried out in the late 20s, criticized Arne’s statements about the existence of Norman colonies in this area and established that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the Normanists' claim about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensk lands, showing that here, too, most Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which burial was carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local custom.

The theory of Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in subsequent decades. An attempt was made, by analyzing the toponymy of the Novgorod land, to confirm the existence of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by E.A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion that when studying this problem it is important to take into account not only interethnic, but also social relations in Rus'. However, these critical speeches have not yet changed the overall picture. The named scientist, as well as other Russian researchers, opposed individual Norman positions, and not against the entire theory as a whole.

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the legendary chronicler Nestor first addressed the issue of the origin of Kievan Rus more than eight centuries ago in The Tale of Bygone Years. The interpretation of this issue is one of the most confusing in domestic and world historiography. The narrowness of the source base, the inconsistency and ambiguity of the known factual material, false methodological approaches, political bias and ideological sympathies of historians have repeatedly prevented an objective view of the process of the emergence of the Old Russian state. In the middle of the 18th century. German historians, members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences G. Bayer and G. Miller substantiated the concept of Normanism. Referring to the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians to Rus', these scientists put forward the thesis about the Scandinavian origin of the Old Russian state. Lomonosov became the decisive opponent and passionate critic of Normanism. Almost immediately, the controversy fell into the mainstream not of scientific discussion, but of ideological confrontation. The “cosmopolitanism” of German scientists, who, by absolutizing the “Varangian factor,” humiliated the state ability of the Slavs, was contrasted with “state patriotism,” which was a unique manifestation of growing national self-awareness. At the initial stage of this centuries-old discussion, the concepts of both Normanists and anti-Normanists were based on a false methodological principle - they considered the emergence of the state, firstly, as a culminating one-time act, and secondly, as a direct result of the activity of a specific individual. Official Soviet historiography called the Norman theory politically harmful because it did not recognize the ability Slavic peoples create an independent state on your own. The discussion flared up with renewed vigor.

The purpose of the work is to study the problem of the formation of the state "Kievan Rus".

1. Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

The political unification of the Antes, like all similar state associations of the early Middle Ages, turned out to be fragile. However, the process of formation of a class society and the emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs continued, which was due to the internal evolution of their society. Historical facts indicate that proto-state formations, princely power and other elements of the state process are mainly of local origin and appeared long before the formation of the Old Russian state. Let's look at the prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus in Figure 1.

Picture 1 - Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

The emergence of the phenomenon of the Old Russian state in the 9th century. in Eastern Europe - the result of the interaction of various factors in all spheres of not only the society of that time, but also of antiquity. The economic system of the Eastern Slavs was based on agriculture, with developed cattle breeding and rural crafts playing a supporting role. The improvement of agricultural tools in the 7th-9th centuries, the increase in labor productivity, and the growth in the production of surplus product led to dramatic changes in the social sphere. Class differentiation deepened - landowners turned into feudal lords, and free community members became a feudal-dependent population, creating the preconditions for an active state process.

The separation of crafts from agriculture, the emergence of commodity production in the 8th - 10th centuries. led to a noticeable increase in internal exchange and expansion of foreign trade. Trade relations with Great Moravia, Bulgaria, Khazaria, Byzantium and other countries were especially lively. The expansion of trade, on the one hand, contributed to the enrichment of the Slavic tribal nobility and increased the differentiation of society, on the other hand, it raised the issue of protecting important trade routes extremely acutely. The original foundation of the first proto-states in Eastern Europe were large alliances of Slavic tribes - Dulebs, Buzhans. With the collapse of the tribal system and the emergence of classes in the VIII-IX centuries. The process of unification of tribes and their unions is intensifying. Gradually, state formations emerged - tribal principalities and their federations. According to Arab authors, already in the VIII-IX centuries. there were three cells of East Slavic statehood: Kuyavia (land of glades with Kiev), Slavia (Novgorod land) and Artania (Rostovo-Suzdal, and possibly Black Sea and Azov Rus'). The first was a state association, which the chronicler called the Russian Land (Arab authors associate it with Kuyavia) with its center in Kyiv. It was this that became the territorial and political core around which the Old Russian state grew.

2. Theories of the origin of Kievan Rus

All theories of the origin of Kievan Rus can be divided into three types. Let's look at them in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Theories of the origin of Kievan Rus

Normanism and anti-Normanism are two theories of the formation of the Kyiv state. The author of the first version is Byron, who made his conclusions based on the manuscripts he read. The author of the second version is Lomonosov. Both theories agree that Kievan Rus was formed since the reign of the Ruriks, but their points of view diverge in determining the nationality of the Ruriks: Normanism defends the view that Rurik is a Norman by birth; anti-Normanism is of the opinion that the Ruriks are not Normans.

3. Norman theory of the origin of Kievan Rus

In the 18th century a number of German scientists, in particular Gottlieb Bayer, Gerhard Miller and August-Ludwig Schlozer, who at that time worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, developed the so-called. Norman theory. It proved that Kievan Rus was founded by the Varangians - a German-Scandinavian people known in the West as the Vikings or Normans. Emphasizing the importance of Germanic influences and hints at the inability of the Slavs to create their own state aroused the indignation of the 18th century Russian scientist. Mikhail Lomonosov, who argued the primary role of the Slavs in the creation of Kievan Rus. M. Lomonosov’s statement was called the anti-Norman concept and marked the beginning of a debate that continues today.

In a word, the theory attributed the creation of the Russian state to the Normans - Scandinavian Vikings (in Rus' they were called Varangians). The basis for this theory was the chronicle story about the calling to reign in Novgorod in 862 of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. This story is available in three versions - the Laurentian and Ipatiev copies of the Tale of Bygone Years and the First Novgorod Chronicle. The chronicles report that initially the Varangians took tribute from the Novgorodians, then they were expelled, but civil strife began between the tribes (according to the Novgorod Chronicle - between cities): “And they began to fight more often themselves.” After which the Slovenes, Krivichi, Chud and Merya turned to the Varangians with the words: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no outfit in it. May you come to reign and rule over us.” The Varangians responded to the call “and were chosen from their brothers from their generations”: Rurik, who settled in Novgorod, Sineus - on Beloozero and Truvor - in Izborsk. The Norman theory suggests that the Rus people come from Scandinavia during the period of Viking expansion, which Western Europe called Normans. This conclusion is based on The Tale of Bygone Years.

4. Criticism of the Norman theory of the origin of Kievan Rus

What factors contributed to the formation of the Kievo-Russian state? Was statehood introduced from the outside, were both internal and external factors at work? How did they interact with each other? Whether the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian peoples, like the Western and South Slavic peoples, as well as most European peoples, trace their origins back to state times

The current relevance of these issues is due to the peculiarities of the historical fate of the Russian Federation, which also carry a certain political load. Starting the study of this problem, namely, the solution to the specific task of studying the main modern theories of the origin of Kievan Rus and ethnocultural processes during the period of the Kievo-Russian state, we used comparative historical and typological methods as one of the important means of organizing and analyzing the material. The problem of the history of Kievan Rus, its origins, the formation of statehood was studied by Harvard University professor Omelyan Pritsak. Believing that history begins when written sources appear, when there is a human community, a conscious historian, unlike archaeologists, O. Pritsak is sure, has no way to describe events, but to show the functions of these events in their development. In his work “The Origin of Rus'. Ancient Scandinavian sources (except for the sagas) "the researcher decided to develop a new approach and a new methodology, turning directly to the primary sources. Having analyzed the essence of the heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists about the origin of Rus', O. Pritsak, giving a critical overview of the arguments, points out the weaknesses of both sides.

O. Pritsak proposes to consider the emergence of the Old Russian state only “as a historical experiment within the framework common system"and identifies four important historical events, each of which caused a chain reaction and had an impact on the origin of Rus': the appearance in history of the Franks, Frisians and Anglo-Saxons, the formation of a new type of steppe empire - the Avar Union, the invasion of the Arabs into the Mare Nostrum basin, and the Khazars in the Eastern Europe and a whole network of destruction - the Avar state, the empire of Charlemagne.It is from this angle that O. Pritsak explores the origins of Kievan Rus.

In our opinion, the discussion is still not over, because in their discussions historians often replaced new, improved means of historical methodology with political (or patriotic) concepts, had limited knowledge of world history, and used primary sources with bias.

The work of such historians can be compared to the work of mosaic makers. Like the latter, they combine passages from sources of different origins into one whole, but often do not pay attention to the true meaning of the original, because they are accustomed to relying on simple translations, neglecting the study of primary sources in the original and independent experience of the semantics of cultural spheres.

Figure 3 - History of the Rus Kaganate O. Pritsak

O. Pritsak divided the history of the Rus Khaganate into three phases: the Volga period (c. 839-930), Dnieper (c. 930-1036) and Kiev (1036-1169) (Figure 3). During the first two phases, the Rus owned mainly trade routes and tribes, rather than territories; the third phase was the beginning of the cultural consolidation of Rus' and an attempt to “nationalize” it.

If in the 9th-10th centuries. multi-ethnic, multilingual, the object is a socially and economically connected organism, represented by the maritime and trading communities of the Baltic Sea, brought there by immigrants from Mediterranean countries, then in the 12th century. this former territorial-free community becomes a political and religious center with a high culture, from which Kievan Rus emerged - this is the conclusion made by O. Pritsak.

Archeology researcher and ancient history Slavs V. Baran, on the basis of his scientific research and the manual “Historical Origins of the Ukrainian People,” tried to illuminate this problem object objectively, without political or any other prejudices. Based on a systematic study of archaeological, linguistic, historical sources and his own developments, V. Baran in his work clearly and clearly sets out the latest achievements of archaeological and historical science on the issues of ethnocultural and social development of the Slavs during the princely period. The scientist reveals the mechanisms of formation of the Slavic peoples, in particular the Ukrainian, and tries to give substantiated and objective answers to a number of questions about the formation of the Kievo-Russian state and ethno-national processes. V. Baran, based on archaeological data, notes that in Ladoga and other settlements of the northeastern part of the Slavs in the 9th century. Even before the calling of the princes, there were both Slavs and Norman Varangians, and the name “Rus”, “Russian Land”, appeared only at the end of the 9th century. and are of Scandinavian origin.

However, as Vladimir Danilovich clarifies, the Rurikovichs would not have built a state on the territory of Ukraine when the people were not ready for this. It is the formation of a state that is possible only on the condition that society itself has already reached the appropriate economic, social and cultural level. The fairly rapid Slavicization of princes from the Rurik dynasty and the adoption of an Orthodox faith separate from other Scandinavian peoples is undoubted evidence of the political activity of the local East Slavic elite, capable of influencing processes. Broad layers of the boyars and even the burghers are also involved in these processes, as evidenced by the effectiveness of veche structures in Rus'. Often the boyars and the population of the capital centers of the principalities, in particular Kyiv, Galich and others, invited or drove away their princes. The examples given by the author do not allow us to ignore the internal factors in the formation of East Slavic statehood. Rurik first came not to Kiev, but to Ladoga, but the Krivichi, Yatichiv and Ilmen Slovenes did not create states. Relying on the Varangian military squads, he actually limited himself to the conquest of tribes and the collection of tribute. According to archaeological materials, the level of socio-economic development of the south Eastern tribal groups were higher compared to the northeastern ones, who were exploring new lands populated by an even more backward Finno-Ugric population. In addition, princes Vladimir and Yaroslav were already more “Yang” than Normans, but they remembered their origins. The chronicle, treaties with Byzantium, and Arab written monuments indicate that it was the Norman Rurik dynasty in the 9th century. brought the name “Rus” to Kyiv, which became the official name of the East Slavic Slavic empire they led. And the collapse of this state is a logical consequence of the incompatibility of the economic, cultural and political interests of those different word “Yang and non-word” tribes that were part of it, just like the USSR.

So, V. Baran defends the concept that two factors acted on the formation of the Kiev state: the internal one - the people themselves, their tribal elite, reached an understanding of the need for state organization, and the external one - the Varangian princes with military wives, who gradually, subjugating the north-eastern Volga, and then the southern Dnieper-Dniester tribal associations of the Slavs raised the state process to that highest supra-tribal level, which ensured the activities of state institutions. Some researchers denied the possibility of the creation of Kievan Rus by Proto-Ukrainians, citing the well-known historical fact that the first Kyiv princes were Scandinavian Varangians. In his monograph “From the Sklavins to the Ukrainian Nation,” L. Zaliznyak noted that there is no doubt about the important role of the Scandinavian military-aristocratic and trading element in the crystallization of the state of Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries. This is convincingly evidenced by both medieval written sources and archaeological finds in the Dnieper region - typical Viking jewelry, characteristic funeral rites, runic inscriptions, etc.

The scientist draws attention to the fact that the Scandinavian names of the first Russian princes and their warriors - Askold, Olaf (Oleg) Ingvar (Igor), Helga (Olga) - with the establishment of the Russian state in the 2nd half. X century the words Kupyansk - Svyatoslav, Vladimir, Yaropolk, etc. are replaced. This supposedly formal indicator reflects the deep process of assimilation by the Russian-proto-Ukrainians of the newly arrived foreign nobility. It was a typical phenomenon for the early medieval states of Europe. Most European medieval ethnic groups of the 8th-10th centuries. Having matured to create their own states, they consolidated around the foreign nobility. Thus, the military aristocracy of the German Frankish tribe became the state elite of France during the time of Charlemagne. So in Rus', the English kings and aristocrats of the 10th-11th centuries. were the Vikings of Denmark and Normandy. At the same time, the Kingdom of England is still considered the first state of the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. the British, at the early medieval stage of ethno-historical development. Based on these considerations, by analogy, L. Zaliznyak argues that Kievan Rus arose as a state of southern Russians - proto-Ukrainians.

In his work "Kievan Rus" Tolochko moved away from the scheme of a land or regional presentation of the history of Rus', and considers it in its full socio-political, economic, ethnocultural and territorial scope. This position, according to the author, allows us to better understand the historical phenomenon that Kievan Rus was, to trace the evolution of its state development, the unity of the historical and cultural life of all its components, which were in close interaction with Kiev and among themselves. Tolochko, having analyzed the historical sources of Kievan Rus, showed that Kievan Rus IX-XIII centuries. constituted an integral state organism, although it was affected by feudal separatism. At the first stage of its existence (from the 9th to the 30s of the 12th century), all the main institutions of power were formed (prince, cathedral, council, veche, row), the internal administrative-territorial structure was determined state borders. The political form was an early feudal monarchy with expressive elements of feudalism. At the second stage (30s of the 12th century - 40s of the 13th century), Rus' became a federation of relatively independent principalities headed by Kiev and the Grand Duke of Kyiv as the elder of the Russian princes. Although Kyiv had lost many of its former greatness, it remained the political center of the country, a symbol of its ethnocultural unity and the ecclesiastical capital. In the pre-Mongol period, neither Vladimir on Klyazma nor Galich could replace him.

Regarding the name “Rus”, Tolochko sees in it something alien to the eastern words of the Lviv people, introduced into their life only in the 9th-10th centuries. On the contrary, in his opinion, the fact that this name quickly spread to the entire East Slavic “Slavic world” indicates the ancient traditions of its existence in this environment. Regardless of the origin, according to the historian, during the period of East Slavic Slavic political and ethnocultural consolidation, the name “Rus” “was identical to the name of the “words of grass.” Tolochko notes that in the constructions of historians who defend the idea of ​​a foreign origin or its predominant impulse in the creation of the Kiev state, there is not only an answer, but even a formulation of the question why among the nomadic Khazar or Pomors - the Scandinavian world processes of political consolidation took place, but in Slavic society with its ancient sedentary agricultural culture - no. And the Khazars or Scandinavians could not create for the Eastern Slavs what they were unable to create for themselves on their lands.

The researcher is convinced that the new princely dynasty of the Rurikovichs in Rus', northern in origin, at first contributed to the involvement of the Varangians in the processes of state life of the country. But the attraction never took the form of domination, the dominance of foreigners. The process of their influx into Rus' was strictly controlled, and living in the Kupyansk environment had its own regulation, expressed in the extraterritoriality of the Varangian squads relative to large ancient Russian cities. The princely dynasty of Slavic-Scandinavian origin in Rus' very quickly became simply the words of Kupyansk, did not imagine itself outside the interests of the state body at the head of which it found itself. Within one or two generations, the northern peoples, who went to serve the Kyiv princes and remained permanently, were completely assimilated - Tolochko adheres to this opinion on the problem of the origin of Kievan Rus. Leading researcher at the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Historical Sciences V. Richka, in his article “Kievan Rus: whose heritage?” expressed the opinion that if traditional genealogies of nations with their inherent justification for their historical rights, in our case to the Kievo-Russian inheritance, originate in modern times, then the question of dynastic-state succession was formulated by the political practice and ideology of medieval Rus'.

It should be remembered that the problem of the origin of the name “Rus” is not equivalent to the problem of the formation of ancient Russian statehood. V. Rychka does not agree with the statement about the organizing role of the senior Varangian-Russians in creating the foundations of the Old Russian state. The scientist notes that the formation of the latter was a natural consequence of the internal, socio-economic, political and cultural development of the local, basically Slavic population. During the early Middle Ages, Varangian mercenaries were recruited to public service many countries of what was then Europe. Kievan Rus was no exception in this regard. However, according to the historian, the Norman ethnic component was not prevalent here, even within the military squad. From the very beginning of the latter's existence, its composition included multi-ethnic elements. Consequently, there is no need to talk about the original Norman basis of this ancient Russian social institution.

Kotlyar notes that Kievan Rus was historical homeland not only the Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian peoples. As part of this state, dozens of large and small non-Slavic peoples of the Black Sea region, the European North, the Volga region, and the North Caucasus lived and became involved in the socio-political and cultural life.

The Old Russian state, the researcher writes, was multi-ethnic from the beginning of its existence. In Eastern Europe, more than 20 non-Slavic peoples lived together with the Slavs. And the main way by which non-Slavic lands became part of Kievan Rus was predominantly peaceful colonization, development and settlement of the Slavs. Archaeological research confirms both the political coexistence of Slavs and non-Slavs, as well as the existence of Slavic-Finno-Ugric, Slavic-Turkic, parietal Iranian, Slavic-Iranian and Slavic-Baltic socio-cultural symbiosis in Eastern Europe. Kotlyar, concluding his consideration of the plot of the entry of non-Slavic peoples into the East Slavic proto-state, and then state association - Kievan Rus, emphasizes that in territorial, political, economic and cultural terms the words “Slavic, then Old Russian ethnos” always prevailed in these associations. R. Ivanchenko in his manual “Kievan Rus: the beginnings of the Ukrainian state” completely excludes the Norman theory of the origin of Rus', considering the emergence of the Kievan state as completely original public education south-eastern Slavs of the Dnieper region "I, who quite independently created their own forms of existence on the basis of Proto-Slavic tribal customs, and also absorbed the customs and traditions of the neighbors with whom she communicated peacefully or militantly. In this state, a diversity of tribes and peoples was preserved, established themselves under the rule of common rulers, but who managed to preserve their ethnic differences, which affected the formation of a stable national identity of the East Slavic peoples.R. Ivanchenko is convinced that the basis for the creation of the Kiev state was the population of the Dnieper glades. And these glades, having taken on another name - Rus were the ancient ancestors of the Ukrainian people.The Kiev state, like any other country of the early or late Middle Ages, arose and developed in close proximity - peaceful or warlike - with other peoples, Slavic and non-Slavic.

Thus, it should be noted that there is now general agreement regarding the influence of the Scandinavians on the society and culture of the Eastern Slavs. Traveling as part of small detachments of warrior-merchants, the Varangians quickly adopted the East Slavic Slavic language and culture and, due to their small numbers, were unlikely to seriously influence the way of life of the local population. However, it is difficult to deny the participation, even the leading role, of the Varangians in political life due to the fact that all the rulers of Kyiv before Svyatoslav, as well as their warriors, had Scandinavian names. The Varangians acted as a catalyst for political development by either subduing the Slavs and organizing them politically, or by creating a threat to them that forced them to better organize themselves. True, in a number of cases the interests of the Eastern Slavs and Varangians coincided. This, in particular, concerned limiting the influence of the Khazars, resisting attacks by nomads, and ensuring and protecting the Dnieper trade route to Byzantium. Therefore, there are good reasons to consider the emergence of Kyiv not the achievement of any individual ethnic group, but the result of complex Slavic-Scandinavian interaction.

Norman theory Kievan Rus

Conclusion

The problem of the origin of Kievan Rus has been controversial for a long time. Back in the 18th century. German historians G. - Z. Bayer and G.F. Miller put forward the Norman concept of the origin of the Kyiv state. At first, the discussion revolved around the origin of the name "Rus". In historical sources this term is interpreted differently. Some researchers are trying to prove its Finnish origin, others are looking for its roots in Swedish and Slavic languages. This indicates the widespread use of the name “Rus” in the languages ​​of other peoples. According to Kotlyar, according to the latest linguistic and historical research, the word “Rus” is of Finnish origin (ruotsi). It was used first to refer to the Scandinavians, and later to the wife of Old Russian princes. Gradually, the squads of the Varangian princes from the Rurik clan in the East Slavic lands became diverse, but the term “Rus” extended to all the squads. Under this name, arson was first carried out by the glades that reigned in the proto-state formation in the Dnieper region, and then by all the Eastern Slavs. Subsequently, the Normanists even proclaimed the origin of the Kievan state to be the formation of Scandinavian aliens - the Varangians, thereby denying the ability of the Slavic peoples to create their own state on their own. This concept was strongly criticized by M. Lomonosov, who wrote an angry letter to the Germans, proving the primary role of the Slavs in the creation of Kievan Rus. M. Lomonosov's statement was called the anti-Norman concept.

Anti-Normanists believed that the name “Rus” is of Slavic origin and is closely related to the Ukrainian names of the rivers Ros, Rusa, Rostavitsa in Central Ukraine. They argued that no tribe or people called “Russians” was known in Scandinavia and no ancient Norman source, including the sagas, mentions it. Anti-Norman views were consistently held by such two leading Ukrainian scientists as N. Kostomarov and M. Grushevsky.

Bibliography

1.Baran, V.D., Baran Y.V. Historical origins of the Ukrainian people [Text]: textbook for universities. / V.D. Baran - K.: Geneza, 2011. - 340 p.

2.Emelin, A.S. History of Russia [Text]: textbook for universities. / A.S. Emelin - M.: Infra, 2011. - 320 p.

.Isaev, I.A. History of state and law of Russia [Text]: textbook for universities. / I.A. Isaev - M.: "Lawyer", 2011. - 448 p.

.History of Russia [Text]: textbook for universities. / Ed. Yu.P. Titova. - M.: Norma, 2012 - 450 p.

.Kotlyar, M.F. Education of the Old Russian State [Text]: textbook for universities. / M.F. Kotlyar - M.: Infra, 2013. - 115 p.

.A manual on the history of the Fatherland [Text]: a textbook for universities. /Ed. Kuritsina V.M. - M.: Prostor, 2012. - 670 p.

.Pritsak. O.P. Origin of Rus'. Ancient Scandinavian sources (except sagas) [Text]: textbook for universities. / O.P. Pritsak - K.: Amulets, 2012. - 134 p.

.Tolochko, P.P. Kievan Rus [Text]: textbook for universities. / P.P. Tolochko - K.: Abris, 2011. - 153 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Chapter 1. “Norman theory” of the origin of the state in the East

Slavs and its criticism in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

1.1. The emergence of the “Norman theory” in the middle of the 18th century: authors, sources, main provisions, first critics…………………………………………………………….....5

1.2. Development of discussion in the 19th century……………………………………………………9

Chapter 2. Normanism and critics of the Norman theory in the 20th century…………….........12

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of references………………………………………………………………...17

Introduction

There is no question in the history of Russia that would not cause such lengthy, fierce debates with the participation of many scientists than the question “where did the Russian land come from”, who is Rurik and his “Varangians”, identified by Russian chronicles with “Rus”.

Written sources date the emergence of the Old Russian state to the 9th century. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Ilmen Slovenes and their neighbors - the Finnish Meri tribes - paid tribute to the Varangians, but then, not wanting to tolerate violence, “...In the year 6370 (862) they drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation arose, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas, to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and everyone said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us.” And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and they came and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, in Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk."

Further, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that the boyars of Rurik, Askold and Dir, “asked for leave” from their prince to go on a campaign against Byzantium. Along the way, they captured Kyiv and arbitrarily called themselves princes. But Oleg, a relative and governor of Rurik, killed them in 882 and began to reign in Kyiv with Rurik’s young son Igor. Thus, in 882, Kyiv and Novgorod united under the rule of one prince, and the Old Russian state of Kievan Rus was formed.

This is the chronicle legend about the beginning of Russian statehood. There have been endless debates surrounding it for a long time. The story told by the chronicler served as the basis for the creation in the 18th century of the “Norman theory” of the emergence of the Old Russian state. The founders of this theory were the German scientists Bayer, Miller and Schlozer who worked in Russia in the 18th century. They believed that the main role in the formation of Kievan Rus was played by the Varangians, by whom they understood the Normans.

The Norman theory aroused sharp criticism almost immediately after its creation. It was first expressed within the framework of the anti-Norman theory formulated by M.V. Lomonosov and based on the hypothesis of the absolute originality of Slavic statehood.

More than two and a half centuries have passed since the creation of the Norman and anti-Norman theories. During this time, a huge amount of new source material has been accumulated, and hopes that the issue will be finally resolved are not justified. Both the Norman and anti-Norman theories developed with varying intensity all this time and to this day each has a large number of supporters. At the same time, among the “anti-Normanists”, some agree that the Varangians are Scandinavians, and at the same time argue that they did not bring statehood to Rus', but only played some political role as mercenaries at the princely courts and were assimilated by the Slavs. Another part of the “anti-Normanists” found and defended evidence that the Varangians and the Rus, identical to them, are Slavs.

At present, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been fully clarified. In Scandinavia, the history of Rus' is presented as the history of Greater Sweden, which arose as a result of the conquests of the kings in Eastern Europe. The great traveler Thor Heyerdahl sponsored archaeological expeditions in the south of Russia, which discovered numerous material evidence of the presence of Vikings on the territory of Rus' during the 10th-12th centuries: weapons, utensils, etc. Due to a lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean toward a compromise option: the Varangian squads had a serious influence on the formation of Slavic statehood.

Chapter 1. "Norman theory" of origin

states among the Eastern Slavs and its criticism in

XVIII-XIX centuries

1.1 Creation of the Norman theory in the middle of the 18th century: authors,

sources, main provisions

In the 30-40s of the 18th century. Russian scientists of German origin who served in the 18th century. in Russia, academicians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Miller and August Ludwig Schlozer proposed the so-called “Norman theory” of the origin of the ancient Russian state.

The main sources on which the first Russian academicians relied were, firstly, “The Tale of Bygone Years.” This chronicle that has come down to us describes the events of Russian history up to the tenth years of the 12th century. Its first edition was compiled around 1113 by Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, by order of Prince Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich. Subsequently there were several more editions.

Secondly, as sources on which Bayer, and after him Schletser and Miller, relied, one can name the names of princes and warriors indicated in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with Byzantium, as well as mentions of Byzantine writers about the Varangians and Rus', Scandinavian sagas, news Arab writers and the Finnish name of the Swedes Ruotsa and the name of the Swedish Upland Roslagen.

To confirm their correctness, supporters of the Norman theory paid considerable attention to the news of Western historians. Here, the main source can be cited as the Bertine Chronicles and the writings of Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, who was twice ambassador to Constantinople in the mid-10th century.

The theory was based on a legend from the Tale of Bygone Years about the calling of the Varangians by the Slavs. According to this legend, the Slavs, fearing internal strife, invited a detachment of Varangians led by the king, Prince Rurik, to rule.

The Norman theory is based on the idea that the Varangians mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years are none other than representatives of the Scandinavian tribes, known in Europe as the Normans or Vikings. Another professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the German T. 3. Bayer, who did not know the Russian language, much less Old Russian, in 1735, in his treatises in Latin, expressed the opinion that the Old Russian word from the chronicles - “Varangians” - is the name of the Scandinavians who gave statehood to Rus'. In his search for the corresponding term in the ancient northern languages, Bayer found, however, only the only word that roughly resembled “Varangian” was “varingjar” (vasringjar, nominative plural).

Another cornerstone conclusion is the conclusion, based on data from the same fragment of the chronicle, that the Slavs were unable to govern themselves. On this basis, it was concluded that the Varangians, that is, the Normans, brought statehood to the Slavic lands. There was nothing unusual in such a formulation of the question. It was well known that many European states were founded by foreign rulers, moreover, during conquest, but here we are talking about a peaceful vocation.

But it was precisely this conclusion that gave rise to such a fierce counter-speech by M.V. Lomonosov. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of violated dignity. M.V. Lomonosov saw in the story of the calling of princes an indication of the initial inferiority of the Slavs, who were incapable of independent state creativity. Indeed, any Russian person should have perceived this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like M.V. Lomonosov. The "Germans" were accused of bias.

Very indicative in this regard is the colorful story of the historian, albeit already of the 20th century, M.A. Alpatov about the emergence of the Norman theory: “The shadows of two compatriots - Rurik and Charles XII - hovered over those before whose eyes this question was born. Poltava Victoria crushed the ambitions of the conquerors since the time of Charles XII, the Norman theory, which traced Russian statehood to Rurik, dealt a blow to the ambitions of the Russians from the historical flag. It was an ideological revenge for Poltava. Covered with the dust of centuries, the ancient tale of the Varangians found a new life, became the most pressing modern plot... The Varangian question, "Consequently, he was born not in Kiev in chronicle times, but in St. Petersburg in the 18th century. He arose as an anti-Russian phenomenon and arose not in the field of science, but in the field of politics. The man who fired the first "shot" in this battle was Bayer."

It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. Opponents of the Norman concept also recognized the authenticity of the primary source chronicle story and did not argue about the ethnicity of the Varangians. However, referring to the chronicle story about the campaign of Askold and Dir and the capture of Kyiv, it was believed that before the appearance of the Norman Varangians, Kiev had its own princely Russian dynasty.

In addition, the answer to the question of who the Rus were was different... “So, Tatishchev and Boltin brought them out of Finland, Lomonosov - from Slavic Prussia, Evers - from Khazaria, Golman - from Friesland, Vater - from the Black Sea Goths .... "

In connection with the above, a number of questions arise: was the emergence of “Normanism” determined by the political background of the mid-18th century? And whose conclusions are more politicized: the founders of “Normanism” or their opponents?

What exactly is the Varangian question? In fact, we are talking about the degree of participation of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Old Russian state. From this neutral position, A.N. Sakharov’s article was written in the “Soviet Historical Encyclopedia”.

The author argued that the Norman theory is “a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'.” From this point of view, in the works of German academicians, the first Russian academicians, it is quite possible to see a truly academic attitude towards Russian history, based, first of all, on the study of sources.

There was another position in Soviet historiography. B.D. Grekov in the 1953 edition of “Kievan Rus” noted: “By Normanism we understand a “theory” that “proves” the inferiority of the Russian people, their inability to create their own culture and statehood, affirming the role of the founders of the Russian state and creators for the Norman Varangians Russian culture". This point of view was shared by D.A. Avdusin.

Researchers who dealt with the Norman question did not pay attention to the factual authenticity of the very calling of the Varangians and, in general, to the foreign origin of the princely dynasties. On the contrary, all researchers come from the above-mentioned legend and only interpret its text in different ways; for example: what does she mean by Varangians and Russia? Which sea does it point to? And in what sense should we understand the words “Girding all of Rus' around?”

Historians argued about spelling and punctuation marks in the chronicle text, trying to make it work in favor of their version. While this entire text is in no way able to withstand historical criticism, unclouded by preconceived ideas and interpretations.

Nevertheless, Bayer laid the foundation for the Norman theory of the origin of statehood in Rus', and in the 18th century, and in the next two and a half centuries, Bayer’s hypothesis found support from scholars both from among German-speaking scientists (G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, I.E. Thunman, H.F. Hollmann, K.X. Rafn) in Russia and abroad, and among Russian speakers (N.M. Karamzin, M.N. Pogodin, A.A. Shakhmatov, V. A. A. Brim, A. A. Vasiliev, N. G. Belyaev, V. A. Moshin, V. Kiparsky). The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version so as not to give the Normans a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. And the patriotic fervor of M.V. Lomonosov, S.P. Krascheninnikova and others gave the Normanists a reason to accuse these and subsequent anti-Normanists of the fact that their writings are just the fruit of patriotic sentiments or, worse, the imagination of amateurs.

History of development

For the first time, the thesis about the origin of the Varangians from Sweden was put forward by King Johan III in diplomatic correspondence with Ivan the Terrible. The Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei de Erlesund tried to develop this idea in 1615 in his book “Regin Muschowitici Sciographia”. His initiative was supported in 1671 by the royal historiographer Johan Widekind in “Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie”. Olaf Dahlin's History of the Swedish State had a great influence on subsequent Normanists.

The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the 1st half of the 18th century thanks to the activities of German historians in the Russian Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlözer.

M.V. Lomonosov actively opposed the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness to form a state, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, argued 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). One of the first Russian historians of the mid-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 Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

The subject of discussion was the localization of the unification of the Rus with the Kagan at its head, which received the code name Russian Kaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Russian Kaganate, while archaeologists (M.I. Artamonov, V.V. Sedov) placed the Kaganate in the south, in the region from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they still derive the ethnonym Rus from Iranian roots.

Normanist arguments

Old Russian chronicles

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym “Germans,” uniting the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.

The chronicles left in Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians of Rus' (before 944), most of them with a distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. The chronicle mentions the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium in 912: Rurik(Rorik) Askold, Dir, Oleg(Helgi) Igor(Ingwar), Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Goods, Ruald, Karn, Frelove, Ruar, Aktev, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).

The first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list of the treaty of 944, although the leaders of the West Slavic tribes have been known by distinctly Slavic names since the beginning of the 9th century.

Written evidence from contemporaries

Written evidence from contemporaries about Rus' is listed in the article Rus' (people). Western European and Byzantine authors of the 9th-10th centuries identify the Rus as Swedes, 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 essay of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and interpretation of names in Greek.
Table of threshold names:

Slavic Name	Translation in Greek	Slavic etymology	Rosskoe Name	Scandinavian etymology	Name in the 19th century
Essupi	Do not sleep	1. Nessupi (don’t eat) 2. Yield(s)	-	1. - 2. other-Sw. Stupi: waterfall (dat.)	Staro-Kaidatsky
Islanduniprakh	threshold island	Island Prague	Ulworthy	other sw. Holmfors : island threshold (date)	Lokhansky and Sursky rapids
Gelandri	Threshold noise	-	-	other sw. Gaellandi : loud, ringing	Zvonets, 5 km from Lokhansky
Neasit	Pelican nesting area	Gray owl (pelican)	Aifor	other sw. Aeidfors : waterfall on a portage	Nenasytetsky
Wulniprah	Big backwater	Volny Prague	Varouforos	Other-Islamic Barufors : threshold with waves	Volnissky
Verucci	Boiling water	Vruchii (boiling)	Leandi	other sw. Le(i)andi : laughing	Not localized
Naprezi	Small threshold	1. On the thread (on the rod) 2. Empty, in vain	Strukun	Other-Islamic Strukum : narrow part of the river bed (dat.)	Extra or Free

At the same time, Constantine reports that the Slavs are “tributaries” (Paktiots - from lat. pactio"agreement") Rosov.

Archaeological evidence

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikovichs with the image of a falcon, which may later become a symbolic trident - the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs. A similar image of a falcon was minted on English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson (939-941).

During archaeological research of layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement, it was discovered significant amount finds of military equipment and Viking clothing, items of the Scandinavian type were discovered (iron torcs with Thor's hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence of people from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.

Possible linguistic evidence

A whole series of words in Russian are considered Germanisms, Scandinavianisms, and although there are relatively few of them in the Russian language, most of them belong specifically to the ancient period. It is significant that not only words of trade vocabulary penetrated, but also maritime terms, everyday words and terms of power and management, proper names. This is how, according to a number of linguists, proper names appeared Igor, Oleg, Olga, Rogneda, Rurik, words