"Norman theory" and the emergence of the Old Russian state
Introduction
1. Origin and meaning of the onym "Rus"
2. Ethnicity of the first Russians
3. The role of the “Varangian element” in the early government agencies Ancient Rus'
4. Origin of the state Eastern Slavs
Conclusion
These events are legendary. Moreover, similar legends associated with the origin state institutions, many other peoples of the world have. And yet, some scientists took the news of the calling of the Varangians literally and came to rather peculiar conclusions.
Thus, the creators of the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state, Johann Gottfried Bayer and Gerard Friedrich Miller, two German historians invited by Peter I to work in St. Petersburg in 1724, argued, relying on the PVL, that Russia - along with statehood - received its name from Scandinavians.
Bayer's works were highly valued by Russian historians of the 18th century. Tatishchev borrowed from him the Norman theory of the origin of the Varangians-Rus, which he expounds in his history according to Bayer. The German scientist was an expert in Scandinavian languages, but did not consider it necessary to become at least somewhat familiar with the language of the country whose history he took up. Very accurately, it seems to me, N. Nadezhdin said about Bayer: “Only due to an inexplicable strangeness, living in Russia, being a Russian professor, studying Russian history, he not only did not know a word, but did not even want to study in Russian” ( quote from Mavrodin).
All followers of Bayer and Miller began to be called Normanists. There is hardly any need to talk about all the Normanists, there were many of them, and the views of each of them had their own shades, from those who argued for the “extreme savagery” of the Slavs before Rurik, and to researchers who recognized only the Scandinavian origin of the ruling dynasty in Rus'.
The founder of the “anti-Norman theory” was Mikhail Lomonosov. His "Ancient" Russian history"was the first work of an anti-Normanist, the work of a fighter for the honor of the Russian people, for the honor of their culture, language, history, work directed against the theory of the Germans. He knew the past of Rus', believed in the strength of the Russian people, in their bright future.
The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists, either calming down or intensifying again, has been going on for over two centuries.
Among the works of the Normanists with a certain degree of convention, of course, can be attributed “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin. He cannot be blamed for a lack of patriotism, just like Solovyov (“History of Russia since Ancient Times”) and Polevoy, who hold similar views. But everyone expresses their love for the Motherland in their own way.
TO end of the 19th century century, the number of supporters of the “Norman theory” significantly exceeded the supporters of the “anti-Norman” one.
After the work “The Beginning of the Russian State” by Wilhelm Thomsen was published in Russia in 1891, many Russian historians agreed that the Norman origin of Rus' had already been proven. And although the anti-Normanists of that time, Gedeonov and Ilovaisky, continued their speeches, the majority of scientists accepted the Norman position.
This theory was also recognized by the majority of Soviet scientists, in particular I.A. Rozhkov, M.N. Pokrovsky.
Since the 20s of the 20th century, many works on the history of Russia began to be published. It is worth noting the work of A. Shakhmatov, devoted to the problem of the origin of the Russian state. Shakhmatov’s attitude to the “Norman problem” is very complex; his works played important role in criticism of Normanism, but, on the other hand, the scientist himself took a Normanist position.
Since the 30s of the 20th century there has been a surge in the activity of anti-Normanists. B.D. Grekov in his works (“On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'”, “The struggle of Rus' for the creation of its own state”, “Kievan Rus”) argues that a state cannot be created by individual people even in one year.
Fundamental changes took place in Russian historiography, and V.A. was the first to directly criticize the “Norman theory”. Parkhomenko (“On the question of the “Norman conquest” and the origin of Rus'.” //IM, 1938, #4)
In the 40s V.V. Mavrodin (“ Ancient Rus'", "Formation of Russian statehood", "The fight against Normanism in Russian historical science") considered the issue of the participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus'. He showed the limited nature of this participation, although there are moments in his works where the role of the Normans is exaggerated.
In the post-war years, an anti-Normanist movement developed. These are articles by B.D. Grekov and works by S.V. Yushkova (“Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state.” M., 1949)
I will use these and other works of remarkable Russian historians in the main part of my work.
And in order to achieve the goal of my essay, namely, to characterize the “Norman theory” as a version of the origin of the Old Russian state, it seems to me that I need to agree with V.O. Klyuchevsky and divide the “Norman problem” into a number of “smaller”, but much more real and significant issues for understanding the early history of Rus':
The origin and meaning of the onym “Rus” itself;
Ethnicity of the first Russian princes;
The role of the “Varangian element” in the early state structures of Ancient Rus';
The origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs.
1. Origin and meaning of the onym “Rus”
The endless debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists about whether the Varangians should be identified with Russia, and, therefore, the term “Rus” should be considered a word of Scandinavian origin, came from several places in the PVL and, in particular, from the following two: geographical introduction, where “Rus” is one from the North Germanic peoples, along with the Swedes and Norwegians; and legends about the calling of the Varangians, where we find the same statement, and where it is indicated that the name “Russian Land” came from the summoned Varangian princes, who brought with them “all Rus'”. This also includes a remark of the same content, but only on a different occasion, placed in the PVL under 898.
Studies of chronicles have shown that the identification of the Varangians with Russia is not initial; it was introduced by the compiler of the “Tale of Bygone Years” of the first edition in 1111, and according to the preceding “Initial Code” of 1093, restored by Shakhmatov, the Varangian squads began to be called Rus only after they moved south, to Kyiv.
Now it’s worth moving on to the opinions of various Russian historians on this matter.
One of the first Russian historians to speak out on this topic was Karamzin. In his “History of the Russian State” he writes: “... the Slavs, tired of internal strife, in 862 again called to themselves the three Varangian brothers, from Russian tribe, who became the first rulers in our ancient fatherland and after whom it began to be called Russia. “This important incident, which serves as the basis for the history and greatness of Russia, requires special attention from us and consideration of all circumstances.” What circumstances does Karamzin consider in his work?
First of all, he is interested in who Nestor calls the Varangians. For Karamzin, the chronicler’s opinion is the law; he does not even try to doubt the authenticity of the information from the PVL. Therefore, it is natural that, following the chronicler, he considers the Varangians to be Scandinavians, or “inhabitants of the three kingdoms”: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In addition, he clarifies: “... there was no other people in the North, except the Scandinavians, so brave and strong as to conquer the entire vast land from the Baltic Sea to Rostov (Mary’s home).” This is the opinion of a true Normanist.
There is one more circumstance that concerns Karamzin no less, this is how the historian himself speaks about it: “... we want to know what kind of people, especially those called Russia, gave our fatherland the first sovereigns and the name itself, already at the end of the ninth century terrible for the Greek empire? To be fair, it should be said that Karamzin is looking for an answer to this question from other historians: “...however, historians find good reasons to think that Nestor’s Varangians-Rus lived in the Kingdom of Sweden, where one coastal region has long been called Rosskaya, Ros-lagen. Its inhabitants could in the 7th, 8th or 9th centuries be known in neighboring lands under a special name, just like the Gotlanders, whom Nestor always distinguishes from the Swedes. Finns, having no time with Ros- lagen more intercourse than with other countries of Sweden is still called everyone its inhabitants Rossami, Rotsami, Rootsami". Karamzin does not give other opinions special attention, obviously completely agreeing with this.
The Norman theory is a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.
The term “Varyags” itself arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the line of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers who analyzed Nestor’s narrative about the calling of the Varangians almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing the Varangian-Russians as immigrants from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G.F. Muller, Thunman, Schletser, etc. ). But back in the 18th century, active opponents of this “Norman theory” began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).
However, until the sixties of the 19th century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Safarik and Miklosic. However, since 1859, opposition to Normanism arose with new, unprecedented force.
Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, it was really founded by the Scandinavians, that is, the Swedes.
Norman theory denies origin ancient 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.” Some pre-revolutionary and most Soviet historians, although from different methodological positions, disputed this theory.
Thus, Academician B.A. Rybakov argued that the Varangians appeared in Eastern Europe when the Kievan state (which supposedly arose in the 6th century) had already taken shape and was used only as a hired military force. He considered the chronicle information about the peaceful “calling of the Varangians” to be a late insertion, invented under the influence of the political situation that developed in Kyiv during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh. “Rus”, in his opinion, is a derivative of the Ros River (the right tributary of the Dnieper south of Kyiv).
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.
Noting the role of the Slavs in the development world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus, Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially clearly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where “the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves.” However, during that period, the class contradictions that tore apart ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of popular rule: the Novgorodians “fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to gain a majority.”
And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “Our land is great and abundant, but we have no outfit; Yes, you will come to us to reign and rule over us.”
Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.
In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refuted the Norman theory: “The Normans were not the dominant tribe, they only served the princes of the native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find any obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society there can be no talk of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period” (S.M. Solovyov, 1989; p. 26).
So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).
However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could have occurred not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate government, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.
In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and most likely these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also those cut down here in Rus'. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.
Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some settle here - some become princes, some warriors, some remain traders. Subsequently, the Slavs and Varangians together continue their journey “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.
Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states had long since emerged, into the Middle Ages.
And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared:
Shipbuilding;
Sail handling, navigation;
Navigation by stars;
Expansion of trade relations;
Warfare;
Jurisprudence, laws.
It was the Scandinavians who put Rus' on the same level of development as other developed countries.
Modern researchers, overcoming the extremes of Normanism and anti-Normanism, came to the following conclusions: the process of the formation of 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, being invited to Novgorod to play the role of arbiter and, perhaps, defender from the “overseas Varangians” (Svei), seizes power. His appearance in Novgorod (peaceful or violent) has nothing to do with the birth of the 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.
The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, just not to give the Normanists a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the polemics on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the leading role in considering this issue. After his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists (Ilovaisky, Gedeonov) continued their polemics, the majority of representatives of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea was established about the victory of the Normanistic concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work. Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history.” Presnyakov A.E. Wilhelm Thomsen o ancient period Russian history. Also the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the overwhelming majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter, in Rus' “the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg.” This statement perfectly illustrates the situation that developed in Russian science at that time - in fact, you couldn’t imagine a worse situation.
Already by the forties, the positions of Russian scientists on the Norman survey were formulated by M.I. Artamonov: the Varangians penetrated Rus' early, but they stood at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, and therefore could not bring either a higher culture or statehood to Rus'; they only joined the local process of state formation.
In the post-war years, the anti-Normanist movement developed. First of all, these are articles by B.D. Grekov with criticism of the Normanist works of T. Arne and the Finnish philologist V. Kiparsky: “On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'” and “Anti-scientific fabrications of the Finnish “professor”, the latter of which was published in 1950. Even more detailed criticism of the Norman theory was contained in the works of S. .V. Yushkova In general, what happened in science was what should have happened: the polemics of Soviet science with Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle with the scientific constructions of the last century they began to move to a specific criticism of the currently existing and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main trends in foreign science.
More specifically, the Norman theory should be understood as a direction in historiography, which tends to believe that the Varangians and Scandinavians (Normans) became the founders Kievan Rus, that is, the first East Slavic state.
This Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state became widespread in the 18th century, during the so-called “Bironovschina”. During that period of historical development, most positions at court were occupied by German nobles. It is important to note the fact that the Academy of Sciences also included a significant part of German scientists. The founders of such a theory about the origin of Rus' can be called scientists I. Bayer and G. Miller.
As we found out later, this theory became especially popular under political phenomena. Also, this theory was later developed by the scientist Schletzer. In order to present their statement, scientists took as a basis messages from the famous chronicle called “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Back in the 12th century, the Russian chronicler included in the chronicle a certain story-legend that told about the calling of the Varangian brothers - Sineus, Rurik and Truvor - by the princes.
Scientists have tried in every possible way to prove the fact that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs is the merit of the Normans alone. Such scientists also spoke about the backwardness of the Slavic people.
So, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state contains well-known points. First of all, Normanists believe that the Varangians who came to power are the Scandinavians who created the state. Scientists say that the local people were not able to do this act. Also, the Varangians had a great cultural influence on the Slavs. That is, the Scandinavians are the creators of the Russian people, who gave them not only statehood, but also culture.
Anti-Norman theory
Naturally, this theory, like many others, immediately found opponents. Russian scientists opposed this statement. One of the most prominent scientists who spoke about disagreement with the Norman theory was M. Lomonosov. It is he who is called the initiator of the controversy between the Normanists and the opponents of this movement - the anti-Normanists. It is worth noting that the anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state suggests that the state arose due to the fact that it was accompanied by reasons that were more objective at that time.
Many sources insist that the statehood of the Eastern Slavs existed long before the Varangians appeared on the territory. The Normans were at a lower level of political and economic development, unlike the Slavs.
Another important argument is that a new state cannot arise in one day. This is a long process of social development of a particular society. The anti-Norman statement is called by some as the Slavic theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. It is worth noting the fact that Lomonosov, in the Varangian theory of the origin of the ancient Slavs, noticed the so-called blasphemous allusion to the fact that the Slavs were attributed to “defectiveness”, their inability to organize a state on their own lands.
According to exactly what theory the ancient Russian state was formed is a question that worries many scientists, but there is no doubt that each of the statements has its right to exist.
In Russia, patriotic forces have always opposed the Norman theory of the origin of national statehood, since its appearance. Its first critic was M.V. Lomonosov. Subsequently, he was joined not only by many Russian scientists, but also by historians of other Slavic countries. The main refutation of the Norman theory, they pointed out, was the fairly high level of social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. In terms of their level of development, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not borrow the experience of state building from them. The state cannot be organized by one person (in this case Rurik) or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of the complex and long development of the social structure of society. In addition, it is known that the Russian principalities various reasons and in different time They invited squads not only of the Varangians, but also of their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, and Torks. We do not know exactly when and how the first Russian principalities arose, but in any case they already existed before 862, before the notorious “calling of the Varangians.” (In some German chronicles, already from 839, Russian princes were called Khakans, i.e. kings). This means that it was not the Varangian military leaders who organized the Old Russian state, but the already existing state that gave them the corresponding government posts. By the way, there are practically no traces of Varangian influence in Russian history. Researchers, for example, calculated that per 10 thousand square meters. km of the territory of Rus', only 5 Scandinavian geographical names can be found, while in England, which was subjected to the Norman invasion, this number reaches 150.
Norman theory
a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians (See Varangians)) to be the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. N. t. was formulated by German scientists who worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century - G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller, and others. A supporter of N. t. A. L. Shlyotser. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of the Old Russian state was the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” (See 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. In the middle of the 18th century. N.T. was criticized by M.V. Lomonosov, who pointed out the scientific inconsistency of N.T. and its hostility to Russia political meaning. In the noble-monarchist historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. N. t. acquired the character of an official version of the origin of the Russian state (N. M. Karamzin and others). To one degree or another, the majority of bourgeois historians were “Normanists”. S. M. Soloviev (See Solovyov), 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 acted as opponents of N. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, V. G. Vasilievsky, and others. They criticized certain specific provisions of N. T., but were unable to reveal its anti-scientific nature. In Soviet historiography, the influence of N. t. was overcome in the 30s and 40s. A decisive role in this was played by the work of a number of Soviet historians and archaeologists based on the Marxist-Leninist methodology: B. D. Grekova, B. A. Rybakova (See Rybakovs), M. N. Tikhomirov a, S. M. Yushkova, V.V. Mavrodina 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 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 provisions of N. t. included integral part into the bourgeois concept of Russian history, which is adhered to by some historians in Western Europe and the United States. In capitalist states, many monographs and articles have appeared on individual issues of scientific literature. Modern Normanism is generally characterized by a defensive position in relation to the works of Soviet scientists. Supporters of scientific theory strive to defend their positions on certain issues: on the composition of the ruling class in Ancient Rus', on the origin of large land ownership in Rus', on trade and trade routes of Ancient Rus', on archaeological monuments of ancient Russian culture, etc., in each of which Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive and decisive. Modern supporters of N. t. also claim that Norman colonization of Rus' took place and that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for the establishment of Norman rule. They believe that Ancient Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden. N. t. is scientifically untenable. Lit.: Shaskolsky I.P., Norman theory in modern bourgeois science, M. - L., 1965; Łowmiański N., Zagadnienie roli normanów w genezie państw słowiańskich, Warsz., 1957. A. M. Sakharov.
Big Soviet encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .
See what the “Norman theory” is in other dictionaries:
A trend in historiography, its supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the state in Dr. Rus'. N. t. was formulated in German. scientists who worked in St. Petersburg. AN in the 2nd quarter. 18th century, G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller and others. Supporter of N. t.... ...
Norman theory (Normanism) is a direction in historiography that develops the concept that the people of the Rus tribe come from Scandinavia during the period of Viking expansion, which in Western Europe called Normans. Supporters of Normanism include... ... Wikipedia
Norman theory- one of the scientific concepts of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The founders of Russia historians G. Bayer, A. Schletser, G. Miller (XVIII century). Based on materials from the Tale of Bygone Years of the most ancient chronicle code Kievan Rus, they believed that... ... Brief dictionary historical and legal terms
- (Normanism) a direction in historiography that develops the concept that the people of the Rus tribe come from Scandinavia during the period of expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe. Supporters of Normanism include the Normans (Varangians... ... Wikipedia - (Sverige) state in Northern Europe, occupies the eastern and southern parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula. Includes the islands of Gotland and Öland in the Baltic Sea. Borders with Denmark, Norway and Finland. Plogd. 449.8 thousand km2 (without inland waters 411.1 thousand km2). Population 8,177,000 people... Soviet historical encyclopedia
Philosophy Being an integral part of world philosophy, the philosophical thought of the peoples of the USSR has traveled a long and complex historical path. In the spiritual life of primitive and early feudal societies on the lands of the ancestors of modern... ...
Population State system. Constitutions and constitutional acts USSR(1922 1936). Sat. documents, M., 1940; Constitutions and constitutional acts of the RSFSR (1918 1937). Sat. documents, M., 1940; History of the Soviet Constitution... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Supporters of which considered 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 second quarter of the 18th century - G.3. Bayer, G.F. Miller. Later, A.L., who came to Russia, 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 “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Rus' in 862.
Negative side The Norman theory is to present Ancient Rus' as a backward country, incapable of independent state creativity, while the Normans act as a force that from the very beginning of Russian history influenced the development of Russia, its economy and culture. In the mid-18th century, M.V. criticized the Norman theory. Lomonosov, who pointed out its scientific inconsistency and political meaning hostile to Russia. In the noble-monarchist historiography of the 18th-19th centuries, the Norman theory acquired the character of an official version of the origin of the Russian state (N.M. Karamzin). CM. Soloviev, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', refused to see in this evidence of the underdevelopment of the Eastern Slavs and to transfer to the 9th century the concepts of national dignity characteristic of the new time. The struggle between “Normanists” and “anti-Normanists” and between Slavophiles and Westerners especially intensified in the 1860s in connection with the celebration of the millennium of Russia in 1862, when polemics that had a pronounced political character developed around many issues of Russian history. Opponents of the Norman theory were historians D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonov, V.G. Vasilievsky, who criticized its individual specific provisions.
Norman theory in the 20th century
In Soviet historiography in the 1930-1940s, the influence of the Norman theory was overcome. The work of historians and archaeologists B.D. played a decisive role in this. Grekova, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, S.M. Yushkova, V.V. Mavrodin, 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 had matured. Availability ancient Russian princes 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. The Norman Varangians who were in Rus' merged with the indigenous population and became glorified. Soviet historiography claimed that the Normans left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus'.
In Western historiography of the 20th century, the Norman theory was part of the concept of Russian history, which some researchers adhered to. Supporters of the Norman theory sought 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, in each of which Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, determining . Supporters of the Norman theory argued that Norman colonization of Rus' took place, that the Scandinavian colonies served as the basis for the establishment of the state system, that Ancient Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden.