Who are the norminists and antinormanists?

In Russian science there has been a discussion of norminists and antinormanists for a long time, which concerns the role of Normans (Scandinavians) in the formation of medieval statehood in Russia. This dispute is taking place in different planes - ideological and scientific.

History of discussion

The dispute about the Normans arose around the XVII century, when historians of Sweden used information about the Varangian roots of Russia to justify the expansion of their native country in Eastern Europe. Such rhetoric evoked the rejection of the domestic ideologists of the eighteenth century (primarily Mikhail Lomonosov). Antinormanists rejected any connection between Russia and the Varangians.

At the end of the XIX century, this criticism almost disappeared. By that time a lot of serious scientific works of linguists had come up, which substantiated the Scandinavian origin of the names of the first Russian princes in medieval sources (such as Oleg, Rurik, Igor, etc.). Particularly important were the publications of the famous Danish researcher Wilhelm Thomsen. About the Varangians who appeared in Russia in the VIII century, there are many verified certificates. Their influence on the culture of the Eastern Slavs is studied to this day.

However, the dispute between the Normans and the anti-Normanists resumed with renewed vigor in the Stalin era, when the concept of anti-Normanism was used against Nazi propaganda about the superiority of the Germanic peoples over the Slavic peoples (Swedes and Scandinavians in general are the closest ethnic relatives of the Germans). Since the USSR, the criticism of the whole Varangian has survived to this day.

Rurik's Origin

Most of all norminists and antinormanists argue about the personality of Rurik, the prince who ruled Novgorod in 862-879. He came to Russia with his brothers Truvor and Sineus. According to the "Tale of Bygone Years" in 862, the Ilmen Slavs and local threaten Finns invited them to rule Novgorod land. Local tribes suffered from endless feuds. Internal quarrels among the Slavs of North-Western Russia began after they drove out the former Varangians, whom they paid tribute in exchange for their safety. Independence has led to constant bloodshed. Finally, the hostile aristocratic factions of Novgorod agreed to invite a neutral ruler from the side who would have succeeded in stopping the strife between them.

This man became Rurik. The controversy between Normanists and anti-Normanists concerns the influence that foreign Varangians have had on the Eastern Slavs. There is no doubt that the prince came from Scandinavia along with his squad and advisers. In the annals, this people is called "Rus." Normanists and antinormanists differ in the interpretation of this term.

Rurik received Novgorod, Sineus - Beloozero, Truvor - Izborsk. The name of the older brother goes back to Hrærekr - the Scandinavian name, which means there is no doubt that he was a Varangian. However, Normanists and antinormanists differently interpret the origin of the first Novgorod prince. For example, some researchers identify him with Rerik Jutland, who lived in the middle of the 9th century and belonged to the Scheldung dynasty from Denmark. This theory is based on the similarity of names, although this insignificant feature is the only thing that is supported by the hypothesis.

Scratched sources

All modern controversies of Normanists and antinormanists are based on medieval chronicles, which either corresponded or were partly lost due to fires and dilapidated papers. All this creates a lot of insinuations and speculations.

If you compare the positions of Normanists and antinormanists, it becomes clear that their dispute affects several Russian chronicles, sometimes contradictory to each other. For example, Rurik's successor Oleg was first called his voivode. In treaties with Byzantium at the beginning of the tenth century, he was mentioned as a relative of the first Novgorod prince. Later Russian sources of the 12th century also echo this hypothesis, contradicting the early works of Russian chroniclers.

Another problem is that historians do not have foreign independent sources of that period who would have confirmed the legends about Rurik and his two brothers. In this regard, there is no exact dating of the Varangian princes.

Swedish Studies

By tradition, it is believed that Normanists and antinormanists began their discussion in the first half of the 18th century. However, the first studies on the relationship of Scandinavians and Rus dates back to the 16th-17th centuries, when the first Western Europeans came to Muscovy. So, the issue of the origin of the Varangians was interested in the imperial ambassador Sigismund Herberstein. Other researchers have chosen other paths.

The idea of the Swedish origin of Rurik was defended by a Swedish diplomat and historian Peter Petrey de Erlezund, who lived in Russia during the epoch of Boris Godunov. His works have gained popularity abroad and have even been translated into German. The Swedish writer Olaf Dalin, who had officially written the History of the Swedish State, identified Rurik with Eric Björnsson from the Scandinavian Inglings dynasty. Soon, however, this hypothesis was refuted.

Gottlieb Bayer's book

The first truly scientific work from which normality began in Russia is the essay "On the Varangians". Its author was Professor of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Bayer (1694-1738). He was the first to study that set of historical sources of the early Middle Ages, which eventually became food for thought by several subsequent generations of scientists.

First of all, Bayer relied on the chronicles of that period. The academician rejected popular then "Prussian theory", according to which the Varangians had a South Baltic origin. In his work, there were also testimonies from foreign sources, for example, from the Bertinsky annals.

Under the Varangians, Bayer understood Scandinavians in the broad sense of the word: Swedes, Gotlanders, Danes and Norwegians. Having resorted to linguistics, he analyzed the names of the Russian nobility and princes of the 9th-10th centuries. For this, the author turned to such sources as stone runic inscriptions, Greek works and other monuments of that period. Bayer also used the writings of the Byzantine emperor of the 10th century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. As a result of the work done, the historian came to the conclusion that the names of Rurik and Truvor were of Scandinavian origin.

The work of Gerard Miller

Some fragments of the book "On the Varangians" attracted the attention of Vasily Tatishchev (1686 -1750) and were quoted by him in his "History of the Russian". In this case, the Russian scholar himself adhered to exactly the opposite of Bayer's positions. Tatishchev was an apologist for antinormanism, he considered the Varangians to be Finns and attributed the Finnish origin to Ryurik himself.

In addition to the author of The History of the Russian, two more outstanding researchers participated in the discussion of Scandinavians in the middle of the 18th century. The first was a large ethnographer and geographer, Gerard Miller (1705-1783), and the second - Mikhail Lomonosov (1711 - 1765). The latter engaged in a variety of sciences and left a significant mark, including in the historical discipline.

In 1749, on the occasion of the next day of the namesake of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, a public assembly was to take place in the capital, where prominent scholars were going to read versatile reports. Especially for this event Lomonosov wrote his famous "Praiseworthy Word". Miller also chose a rather slippery topic about the "Origin of the people and the name of Russia." The text was prepared on time, but it was never allowed to be discussed publicly, and the circulation already seized was seized.

Miller's report was not liked by many scholars and the officials close to the empress, who saw in him "the reprehension of Russia." Lomonosov also defeated the thesis, which proved to be a sharp opponent of the theory of the "Varangian" roots of Rus. Tatishchev, similar in his views, avoided the discussion. As already many times before in 1749 the theory of Normanists and antinormanists caused a serious conflict between domestic scientists.

Miller in his disgraced dissertation in many ways echoed Bayer. Compare positions of Norminists and antinormanists, try to determine what their key differences are. They can easily be distinguished by comparing the estimates of Miller and Lomonosov. The first, defending the Norman theory, equated the Varangians to the Scandinavians and led new hypotheses in favor of this hypothesis. In particular, Miller drew attention to the traditionally "Russian" names of the rapids of the Dnieper, which were quoted in the treatise "On the Management of the Empire" by the Byzantine ruler Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Also the author of the sensational work drew to his study the evidence of Scandinavian authors of the early Middle Ages, who mentioned the Eastern Slavs.

Historians Normanists and antinormanists often became actors in a complex political struggle. That's the attacks on Miller were caused not by the scientific side of his work, but by its ideological overtones. Elizaveta Petrovna's rule began after the "gloomy decade", when in the times of Anna Ioannovna around the throne gathered too many Germans. With the new empress, a backlash followed. Criticized everything foreign, but with Sweden, and at all the war began. Of course, against this background, the work that spoke of the Scandinavian origin of the Rurik people was deemed libelous. Miller, being in a delicate position, did not change his opinion, however. His work was published abroad, and in Russian it became available to a wide reader only in 2006.

Arguments of antinormanists

An extensive response to the publication of Miller followed from his chief opponent, Mikhail Lomonosov. A few years after the controversial dispute over the Varangians, the Russian scientist began to write his own major work on Russian history. He did not manage to finish it because of his sudden death. After the death of Lomonosov, only one volume of his "Ancient Russian History" was published. Nevertheless, the author considered in his work the issue of the Varangians (as one of the most urgent).

"Rus before Rurik," Mikhail Vasilievich devoted several scrupulous chapters. To the Slavs, he included not only the Slavs proper, but also the Balts (Lithuania, Zhmud, Prussians), as well as the Venetians, Medes and Paflagans, attributing the origin of this common ethnos to the era of the Trojan War. Already in this message it was possible to notice the idea that no Varangians or any other tribes could influence the independent formation of Rus, whose origins were related to antiquity. The main drawback of Lomonosov's work was that in it the author adhered to the principles of historiography of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, while in the European science new methods of critical analysis of sources were already being developed.

"Russophile" theory that the Rurikovichi descended from the Slavs was maintained even under Catherine II, who was attentive to Vasily Tatishchev's "History". Thus, one of the most important historiographers of the time, Mikhail Shcherbatov (1733-1790) considered the first Novgorod prince to be a relative of the elder of the Ilmen Slovaks of Gostomysl.

Karamzin's opinion

A more balanced and serious approach compared to his contemporaries was demonstrated by Nikolai Karamzin (1766-1826). His multi-volume "History of the Russian State" has become an important phenomenon of national culture and science.

Karamzin was equally attentive to what the Normans and antinormanists were saying. The arguments of both sides were taken into account with the greatest care for the facts. Karamzin revered the works of Bayer and Miller, considering them unforgettable for all historical science. But the antinorman concept of Tatishchev was criticized by him. Special skepticism of the writer was evoked by testimonies picked up from the Joachim chronicle.

In total, Karamzin noted six principal circumstances confirming the Scandinavian origin of Rurik and the Varangians as a whole. First, the testimonies of Western European authors, for example, the Cremona Bishop Liutpranda, in which the Rusovs were considered to be Normans. Secondly, it is the name of Rurik and other called princes with a clear Scandinavian etymology. Third, Byzantine sources. Varangians in Constantinople were called Scandinavian knights. Fourthly, Miller's argument about the names of the Dnieper rapids. Fifth, the similarity of the collection of laws of the Russian Truth with the same German and Scandinavian arches. Sixthly, The Tale of Bygone Years, where its author Nestor mentioned that the Varangians lived in the west, beyond the Baltic Sea.

Victory of Normans

Hot discussions of ideological opponents made the dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists one of the main "accursed questions" of Russian history. A turning point in his development was the book of the Danish linguist Wilhelm Thomsen (1842-1927) "The Beginning of the Russian State." It was in this work that the full quintessence of classical Norman theory was first presented. Most of all Thomsen's book differed from its predecessors with a slant in linguistics. The scientist's arguments concerning the language component of medieval sources have not lost their relevance today.

As his only serious opponent Thomsen noted Stepan Gedeonov (1816-1878), because it was his work "Varangians and Russia" that made the Dane "an impression of serious deliberations". Other antinorman works the linguist called unscientific. In his book, Thomsen gave an in-depth review of Arabic Byzantine and Latin-speaking sources about the Varangians.

Analyzing the origin of the word "Rus", the scientist called it the root of the Swedish root, equivalent to the words "swimming" and "rowing." In this connection, Thomsen suggested that the Scandinavians, who lived on the shores of the Gulf of Finland and who went on trips to neighboring countries, called themselves by this name. Similarly, the linguist understood the word "Varangian". According to his hypothesis, it originated from the Swedish root "var", which translates as "patronage" or "protection."

Thomsen singled out a dozen more words of the Old Russian language, which clearly traced the Scandinavian etymology (tyun, grid, bench, whip, etc.). Summarizing his research, the author proposed a capacious metaphor: the Scandinavians laid the foundation of a small state, which the Slavs had already increased to their enormous size. If you compare the positions of Normanists and antinormanists, then such a comparison necessarily rests against the arguments that were first brought exactly by the Dane Wilhelm Thomsen.

The outcome of the dispute

Determining who is right in the dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists, it should be emphasized that their polemics made sense only at best in the XIX century, when the formation of the state was connected with the origin of the dynasty. But even the author of the key medieval source of the "Tale of Bygone Years" Nestor separately answered three questions: "where did the Slavic people come from, who were the Rurikovichs and, finally, how did Russia itself originate." Approximately the same approach adheres to today's historical science.

Modern Normanists and anti-Normanists continue their argument, although it has long been clear that the process of state formation does not depend on the ethnicity of the ruling clan. The fact that Rurik was an alien Varangian did not prevent his son Igor from infancy from growing up in a completely different environment and assimilating. His offspring Svyatoslav and grandson Vladimir already did not remind the Scandinavians - they were Slavs by blood, by habit or language. The same thing happened with the Varangian clans of advisers, combatants and other northerners called from beyond the sea to Russia.

Compare the positions of Norminists and antinormanists, try to determine how great the influence of the Scandinavians was on the creation of the Old Russian state. Although Novgorod was ruled by the Varangian (Rurik), and Kiev was captured by his adviser or relative (Oleg), the absolute majority of the population of the new country has always been Slavic. The Scandinavian element eventually dissolved into this sea. And so the scientific victory of the supporters of the "Varangian theory" can not bring down the "national pride of the Great Russians", about which the very first Norminists and antinormanists were arguing. To put it briefly, this polemic remains in the past. Professional and profound studies of the Varangian influence on Ancient Rus continue today, but they concern small details: certain words in the Russian language, customs in military matters, and so on.