|
|
|
NORMANISTS AND
ANTI-NORMANISTS |
|
A
brief notice in The Tale of
Bygone Years became the source for so-called Normanist
Controversy. Supporters of so-called "Normanist
theory" maintain that the sole reasons why the Old
Russian state emerged were of external nature - in particular,
that reportedly the Old Russian state acquired its forms not
in result of development of internal processes among the East
Slavs, but due to a Varangian invasion. The Normanist
Controversy is closely linked with the question of the origin
of the name "Rus": Normanists are absolutely
positive about the Varangian origin of the East Slavs'
self-description. Some Normanists use the term
|
 |
"Varangian
Rus", yet still they deny its any East Slavic origin. The
"Normanist theory" was introduced in the first half
of the 18th century by the German historians -
Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) and Gerhard
Friedrich Müller (1705-1783). They both settled in
Russia during the reign of Anna Ioannovna, worked for years in the Petersburg Academy of
Sciences, and published a lot of works. Müller, in
particular, spent many years on studying Siberian archives and
became the author of the monumental History
of Siberia. In 1761-1767 in Russia also worked another
quite respectable German historian, August Ludwig Schlötzer
(1735-1809), who studied old Russian chronicles, and The
Tale of Bygone Years in particular. It was Schlötzer,
who named Nestor as the author of
The Tale of Bygone Years. Schlötzer is probably the
most remarkable representative of the "Normanist
theory".Already in
the 18th century against the "Normanist theory"
stood many outstanding historians, in particular Vasily
Tatischev (1686-1750) and Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765) - they
began so-called "Slavic school", Tatischev in his Russian
History, and Lomonosov in a number of polemic
pamphlets, in particular in the Ancient
Russian History (published in 1766, after the author's
death). Both teachings co-existed during the 18th century,
although with advantage for the Normanists, to whom belonged
Nikolai Karamzin, and Mikhail Pogodin (1800-1875), and Sergei
Solovyev, and many other historians, for example the author of
many works about the mutual relations between Rus, and
Scandinavia, Byzantium and Turkic peoples, Arist (Ernst) Kunik,
a Russianized German himself. Some historians assumed
ambiguous positions, supporting sometimes one teaching, and
sometimes the opposite one. Among them was the greatest
perhaps Russian Byzantinist, Vasily Vasilevskiy (1838-1899).
Also existed other theories of the foundation of the Old
Russian state, among others "Gothic",
"Lithuanian", and even "Finnish", but they
had no followers, and are merely the result of private and
unsystematic researches. Among the leading anti-Normanists
found themselves first of all Stepan Gedeonov (1818-1878), the
author of the Varangians and
Rus, the work published in two volumes in 1876. Among
the anti-Normanists were also such conservative historians
like Dmitriy Ilovayskiy or Mikhail Moroshkin (1829-1870).
The opposition of the two aforementioned teachings continued
in the 20th century; although now the advantage was on the
side of the anti-Normanists, it still took another twenty-five
years after the October Revolution before the "Normanist
theory" was finally discredited. Since then it has been
popular only in the United States of America and sometimes in
the West European historiography, most notably in Nazi Germany
(1933-1945).
The political aspect of the "Normanist theory", to
some degree inalienable even from the earliest researches,
nowadays comes, even excessively, to the forefront, mostly
courtesy of various self-styled historical businessmen. They
want to see the Russian state as a product of foreign
invaders, very scanty on top of that, who brought with them
from abroad what lacked weak, dispersed in vast areas, and
vegetating on low cultural level East Slavic and Finno-Ugric
tribes. If it had been different, few Varangian bands (even
the most zealous Normanists do not dare to claim any massive
invasion) would not have been able to come to such
achievements. Such a theory, of course, would presume solely
passive role of the Slavs, incapable to influence their own
fates and demonstrate organization skills in the course of
foundation of the state. Without Germanic invaders there would
be no Slavic state - here is another proof of the racial
inferiority of the Slavs in all kinds of comparisons.
Of course, one could simply ignore such rudimentary theories
of racial inferiority if it were not for one circumstance: the
"Normanist theory" was quite popular among Russian
scientists. One can understand German scientist brought up in
ideas of racial superiority, but what made the Russians to
accept such theory? The answer is quite trivial - the "Normanist
theory" was considered scientifically sound and as such
it was defended. Discreditation of the "Normanist
theory" became possible only as a result of long and
thorough researches, after innumerable analyses of the Tale
of Bygone Years, Russian and non-Russian written
sources, archaeological excavations, and onomastic materials.
Nowadays it is known that the legend of inviting Rurik to
Novgorod indeed is a political factor, but purely Russian, and
of later origin. In 1113 prince Vladimir Monomachus, a ruler
famous for his power and wisdom, was "invited" to
rule in Kiev; only his rule would guarantee peace among
rivalling parties after long and bloody fratricidal fights.
But for that Monomachus had not sufficient legal basis, he was
a "usurper", and it was necessary to consolidate his
position by an additional factor, which was built in a sense
on an ancient tradition. Therefore, somewhere between 1116 and
1118 was made the notice about "invitation" of Rurik.
With Rurik law and order came to Rus, the same will happen
with Monomachus.
On the other hand one cannot ignore inclination to exaggerate
among the anti-Normanists, otherwise it would be impossible to
deny the very presence of the Normans in Rus or - to a lesser
degree - any manifestations of their activities. Some go as
far as to denial of the historic existence of Rurik, which
might be possible but rather with a low probability. That
would be a very strange epoque (after 862), where Rurik did
not exist but existed his entire genealogy. It is worth
recalling that the whole dynasty of Russian princes, at least
since Igor (according to the chronicles - Rurik's son), and
then czars till the end of the 16th century bore the name of
the Rurikoviches.
Neither written sources nor archaeological excavations testify
to Norman origins of the Old Russian state. In the course of
long process of developing and achievements of the material
culture (agriculture, crafts), East Slavs came to such forms
of the economical and social relations, which made more and
more possible creation of first tribal unions, and then more
complex state organism, which is confirmed by a number of
evidence. Just as it happened among the West Slavs, and
especially the South Slavs, who did not interact with the
Normans. There are only single and scientifically baseless
hypotheses of the foundation of the Polish state as a result
of Norman invasions, like the one proposed by Franciszek
Piekosiński (1844-1906). Rus developed in her own
historic and geographic conditions, and within her own circle
of neighbours, while, at the period of their animated
expansion, Swedish Varangians were penetrating territories of
the East Slavs and their Finno-Ugric neighbours. Very dynamic
and bellicose, always inclined for military expeditions and
trade, they used to sail in many seas, including the Black
Sea, and sometimes conquer for a while this or that region
(for example Normandy in France or Sicily in Italy). In
general, they gladly used to make contacts with local
population, and Slavic chieftains and princes often used to
hire them for military service and form Varangian bands for
military expeditions and protection of merchant caravans,
especially among the nomads of the steppes.
Few in numbers, Varangians inevitably assimilated in the
foreign environment, and the same happened to them in the
Slavic environment, although with time. As they stood on lower
level of material culture than the Slavs, Varangians could not
influence local population to a significant degree. All has
left after them are few geographic and personal names; the
latter - names of military commanders and princes - are
perhaps the most significant Norman trace in the Slavic world.
Askold and Dir, mentioned in the chronicles, could seize power
in Kiev through a coup d'état,
but that power already existed before. The same could happen
in 862 in Novgorod, where the power fell to Varangian Rurik,
who earlier settled elsewhere, most probably on the coasts of
the Lake Ladoga. So, there was no need to "invite"
the prince from Sweden, and in Novgorod itself the state power
already existed in some form before his arrival. As to the
references to Rurik's brothers, Sineus and Truvor, they are
unclear and historians are not unanimous about their origins,
not to mention that Medieval chroniclers loved legends, whose
heroes were three brothers. Whereas Rurik's descendants quite
long, until they got Russianized completely, used Norman
names: Igor - Ingvar, Olga - Helga etc. Even Vladimir is
sometimes associated with Waldemar, but it is not indisputable
either. |
|
|
