Norman theory: where and whose

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 Russian Academy scientists 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' (until 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 studies of the layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement, a significant number of finds of military equipment and clothing of the Vikings were discovered, objects of the Scandinavian type were discovered (iron hryvnias with Thor hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence immigrants 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 refer specifically to 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

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.

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, 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.”

M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of this “anti-scientific concept of genesis 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 historical development 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.” But 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 attention on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it is not the weakness or inability of the Russians to public administration, as supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, and class contradictions, which 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, placing Rus' on one stage of development with them.

And although the Norman theory has not received absolute historical confirmation, we can say that with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared:

Shipbuilding, sailing, seafaring, navigation by the stars.
Expansion of trade relations.
Warfare.
Jurisprudence, laws.
The Scandinavians put Rus' on the same level of development as other developed countries.

Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov

Faculty of Management

Department of Russian and World History

in the discipline "History"

Norman theory

Completed by: Shashkina D.M.

1st year student, group 1130

Checked by: Sokolov M.V.

Moscow - 2013

Norman theory- a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of the Slavic state.

The concept of the Scandinavian origin of the state among the Slavs is associated with a fragment from The Tale of Bygone Years, which reported that in 862, in order to stop civil strife, the Slavs turned to the Varangians with a proposal to take the princely throne. 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 and more on their own.” 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 and reign over us.” As a result, Rurik sat down to reign in Novgorod, Sineus in Beloozero and Truvor in Izborsk. 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. The "Norman theory" was put forward in the 18th century. German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller, invited by Peter I to work at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. They tried to scientifically prove that the Old Russian state was created by the Varangians. In the 19th century the Norman theory acquired in official Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. An extreme manifestation of this concept is the assertion that the Slavs, due to their unpreparedness, could not create a state, and then, without foreign leadership, were unable to govern it. In their opinion, statehood was brought to the Slavs from the outside.

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 or language... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.

CM. Solovyov considers the Varangians a key element in the early government agencies Rus', and moreover, he considers them the founders of these structures. The historian writes: “...what is the significance of Rurik’s calling in our history? The calling of the first princes is of great importance in our history, it is an all-Russian event, and Russian history rightly begins with it. The main, initial phenomenon in the founding of a state is the unification of disparate tribes through the emergence among them of a concentrating principle, power. The northern tribes, Slavic and Finnish, united and called upon this concentrating principle, this power. Here, in the concentration of several northern tribes, the beginning of the concentration of all other tribes was laid, because the called principle uses the power of the first concentrated tribes, so that through them to concentrate other forces, united for the first time, begin to act.”

N.M. Karamzin considered the Varangians to be the founders of the “Russian monarchy,” the boundaries of which “reached to the East to the present Yaroslavl and Nizhny Novgorod Provinces, and to the South to the Western Dvina; Already Merya, Murom and Polotsk depended on Rurik: for he, having accepted autocracy, gave control to his famous fellow citizens, except for Belaozer, Polotsk, Rostov and Murom, conquered by him or his brothers, as one might think. Thus, along with the supreme princely power, it seems that the Feudal, Local, or Appanage system was established in Russia. former foundation new civil societies in Scandinavia and throughout Europe, where the Germanic peoples dominated.”

N.M. Karamzin wrote: “The names of the three Varangian princes - Rurik, Sineus, Truvor - called by the Slavs and the Chud, are indisputably Norman: thus, in the Frankish chronicles around 850 - which is worthy of note - three Roriks are mentioned: one is called the Leader of the Danes, the other the King ( Rex) Norman, the third is simply Norman." V.N. Tatishchev believed that Rurik was from Finland, since only from there could the Varangians come to Rus' so often. Platonov and Klyuchevsky completely agree with their colleagues, in particular Klyuchevsky writes: “Finally, the names of the first Russian Varangian princes and their warriors are almost all of Scandinavian origin; we find the same names in the Scandinavian sagas: Rurik in the form of Hrorek, Truvor - Thorvardr, Oleg in the ancient Kiev accent on o - Helgi, Olga - Helga, in Constantine Porphyrogenitus - ????,Igor - Ingvarr, Oskold - Hoskuldr, Dir Dyri, Frelaf - Frilleifr, Svenald - Sveinaldr, etc.”

The origin of the ethnonym “Rus” is traced back to the Old Icelandic word Roþsmenn or Roþskarlar - “rowers, sailors” and to the word “ruotsi/rootsi” among the Finns and Estonians, meaning Sweden in their languages, and which, according to some linguists, should have turned into “Rus” when this word was borrowed into the Slavic languages.

The most important arguments of the Norman theory are the following:

· Byzantine and Western European written sources (in which contemporaries identified Rus' as Swedes or Normans.

· Scandinavian names of the founder of the Russian princely dynasty - Rurik, his “brothers” Sineus and Truvor, and all the first Russian princes before Svyatoslav. In foreign sources, their names are also given in a form close to the Scandinavian sound. Prince Oleg is called X-l-g (Khazar letter), Princess Olga - Helga, Prince Igor - Inger (Byzantine sources).

· Scandinavian names of most of the ambassadors of the “Russian family” listed in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 912.

· The work of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (c. 949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: “Russian” and Slavic, where a Scandinavian etymology can be proposed for most “Russian” names.

Additional arguments are archaeological evidence documenting the presence of Scandinavians in the north of the East Slavic territory, including finds from the 9th-11th centuries at the excavations of the Rurik settlement, burials in Staraya Ladoga (from the mid-8th century) and Gnezdovo. In settlements founded before the 10th century, Scandinavian artifacts date specifically to the period of the “calling of the Varangians,” while in the most ancient cultural layers

Points of view on the origin of the Old Russian state. Norman theories:

Norman Scandinavian Old Russian state

Disputes around the Norman version at times took on an ideological character in the context of the question of whether the Slavs could have created a state on their own, without the Norman Varangians. During Stalin's time, Normanism in the USSR was rejected at the state level, but in the 1960s, Soviet historiography returned to the moderate Norman hypothesis with the simultaneous study alternative versions origin of Rus'.

Foreign historians for the most part consider the Norman version as the main one.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the modern era, the scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory, which explains the emergence of the Old Russian state as the result of foreign initiative, has been fully proven. However, her political meaning still poses a danger today.

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

The main evidence of the emerging statehood was: the widespread spread of agriculture using iron tools, the collapse of the clan community and its transformation into a neighboring one, the growth in the number of cities, the emergence of squads, i.e. As a result of economic and socio-political development, statehood began to emerge among the Eastern Slavic tribes.

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

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

Old Russian state Norman theory

History of Normanism and Anti-Normanism

The Norman theory was formulated in the 1st half of the 18th century under Anna Ioannovna by the German historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Bayer (1694-1738), later by G. Miller and A. L. Schlözer.

The nationalist-patriotically minded M.V. Lomonosov, who was joined in the 19th century by D.I. Ilovaisky and others (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). The weakness of the first anti-Normanists includes their versions, based mainly on logic and intuition, but not supported by historical evidence.

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 so-called Joachim Chronicle, the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

In the 1930s, Soviet historiography, after a short break, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The political confrontation with Nazi Germany forced the leadership of the USSR to intervene in the historical dispute from an ideological position. The main argument was recognized as the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism, F. Engels, that “the state cannot be imposed from the outside,” supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonist theory of the linguist N. Ya. Marr, officially promoted at that time, which denied migration and explained the evolution of language and ethnogenesis with class point of view.

The ideological setting for Soviet historians was the proof of the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the “Rus” tribe. Characteristic excerpts from a public lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin, given in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:

“It is natural that the “scientific” servants of world reaction strive at all costs to discredit and denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the importance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[…]
These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that the thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from beyond the sea,” which long ago should have been archived along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the serpent, the tempter, the global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a weapon in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[…]
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the comments of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Synopsis of a textbook on the History of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state emerging at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials from the history of the Russian state. Thus, in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, there is and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the “wild” East Slavic tribes.”

Normanist arguments

Old Russian chronicles

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

The chronicles left in Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians of Rus' (until 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 first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list of the treaty of 944.

Written evidence from contemporaries

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

The most important argument of the Norman theory is the essay of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus “On the management of the empire” (g.), 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 2. Yield(s)	-	1. - 2. other-Sw. Stupi: waterfall	Staro-Kaidatsky
Island niprah	threshold island	Ostrovny Prague	Ulworthy	other sw. Holmfors : island threshold	Lokhansky and Sursky rapids
Gelandri	Threshold noise	-	-	other sw. Gaellandi : loud, ringing	Zvonets, 5 km from Lokhansky
Neasit	Pelican nesting area	Unsatisfied	Aifor	other sw. Aei(d)force : 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	On the street (on the rod)	Strukun	Other-Islamic Strukum : narrow part of the river bed	Extra or Free

At the same time, Konstantin reports that the Slavs are tributaries (paktiots) of the Ros.

Archaeological evidence

see also

Notes

Links

• E. S. Galkina, “Secrets of the Russian Kaganate” - in chap. “The First Battles for the Russian Kaganate” examines the history of Normanism.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the “Norman theory” is in other dictionaries:

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

NORMAN THEORY, a direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of statehood in Ancient Rus'. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century. G. 3. Bayer, G. F. Miller and others N. t ... Russian history

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