For a long time, there has been a discussion in Russian science of Normanists and anti-Normanists, which concerns the role of the Normans (Scandinavians) in the formation of medieval statehood in Russia. This debate takes place in different planes - ideological and scientific.
Discussion history
The debate about the Normans arose around the 17th century, when Swedish historians used information about the Varangian roots of Russia to justify the expansion of their native country in Eastern Europe. Such rhetoric provoked the denial of domestic ideologists of the 18th century (primarily Mikhail Lomonosov). The anti-Normanists rejected any connection between Russia and the Varangians.
At the end of the 19th century, this criticism practically disappeared. By that time, many serious scientific works of linguists had been published, substantiating the Scandinavian origin of the names of the first Russian princes in medieval sources (such as Oleg, Rurik, Igor, etc.). Especially important were the publications of the famous Danish explorer Wilhelm Thomsen. About the Vikings, who appeared in Russia in the VIII century, there is a lot of double-checked evidence. Their influence on the culture of the Eastern Slavs is studied to this day.
However, the dispute between the Normanists and the anti-Normanists resumed with renewed vigor already in the Stalin era, when the concept of anti-Normanism was used against Nazi propaganda about the superiority of Germanic peoples over Slavic peoples (Swedes and Scandinavians in general are the closest ethnic relatives of Germans). Since the days of the USSR, criticism of everything Varangian has been preserved to this day.
Origin of Rurik
Most Normanists and anti-Normanists argue about the identity of Rurik - the prince who ruled in 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 Finno-Ugric peoples invited them to rule Novgorod land. Local tribes suffered from endless feuds. The internal quarrels among the Slavs of North-Western Russia began after they drove out the former Vikings, to whom they paid tribute in exchange for their safety. Independence led to constant bloodshed. Finally, the warring aristocratic groups of Novgorod agreed to invite a neutral ruler from the side who would be able to stop the discord between them.
This man became Rurik. The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists concerns the influence that the newly arrived Vikings had on the eastern Slavs. There is no doubt that the prince arrived from Scandinavia with his squad and advisers. In the annals of this nation is called "Rus." Normanists and anti-Normanists disagree 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 anti-Normanists interpret the origin of the first Novgorod prince in different ways. For example, some scholars identify him with Rerik Jutland, who lived in the middle of the IX century and belonged to the Skjeldung dynasty from Denmark. This theory is based on the similarity of names, although this insignificant feature is the only thing that supports the hypothesis.
Source fragmentation
All modern disputes between Normanists and anti-Normanists are based on medieval chronicles, which either corresponded or were partially lost due to fires and decrepit paper. All this gives rise to a lot of insinuations and speculation.
If you compare the positions of the Normanists and the Anti-Normanists, it will become clear that their dispute affects several Russian annals, sometimes contradicting each other. For example, the successor of Rurik Oleg was first called his governor. In treaties with Byzantium at the beginning of the 10th century, he was already mentioned as a relative of the first Novgorod prince. Later Russian sources of the XII century also echo this hypothesis, contradicting the early works of Russian chroniclers.
Another problem is that historians do not have independent foreign sources of that period that would confirm the legends of Rurik and his two brothers. In this regard, there is no exact dating of the activities of the Varangian princes.
Swedish studies
By tradition, it is believed that Normanists and anti-Normanists began their discussion in the first half of the 18th century. However, the first studies on the relationship of the Scandinavians and Russia date back to the 16th-17th centuries, when the first Western Europeans came to Muscovy. So, the imperial ambassador Sigismund Herberstein was interested in the issue of the origin of the Varangians. Other researchers took the path he had planned.
The idea of the Swedish origin of Rurik was defended by the Swedish diplomat and historian Petr Petreus de Herlesund, who lived in Russia in the era of Boris Godunov. His works gained popularity abroad and were even translated into German. The Swedish writer Olaf Dalin, who officially wrote The History of the Swedish State, identified Rurik with Eric Bjarnson from the Scandinavian Ingling dynasty. Soon, however, this hypothesis was disproved.
Gottlieb Bayer's book
The first scientific work, with which Normanism began in Russia, is considered the work "On the Varangians." Its author was a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Bayer (1694-1738). He was the first to investigate the set of historical sources of the early Middle Ages, which eventually became food for thought for the next several generations of scientists.
First of all, Bayer relied on the annals of that period. The academician rejected the then popular "Prussian theory", according to which the Vikings were of southern Baltic origin. Evidence from foreign sources, for example, from the Bertinsky Annals, also fell into his composition.
Under the Vikings, Bayer understood the 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 sources such as runic stone inscriptions, Greek works, and other monuments of that period. Bayer also took advantage of the writings of the Byzantine emperor of the X century Konstantin Bagryanorodny. 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". At the same time, the Russian scientist himself adhered to exactly the opposite positions to Bayer. Tatishchev was an apologist for anti-Normanism, considered the Varangians to be Finns and attributed the Finnish origin to Rurik himself.
In addition to the author of Russian History, two other outstanding researchers participated in the discussion about the Scandinavians in the middle of the 18th century. The first was a major ethnographer and geographer Gerard Miller (1705-1783), and the second was Mikhail Lomonosov (1711 - 1765). The latter was engaged in a variety of sciences and left a significant mark, including in historical discipline.
In 1749, on the occasion of the next day the namesake of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, a public assembly was to be held in the capital, at which prominent scientists were going to read versatile reports. Especially for this event, Lomonosov wrote his famous "Honorable Word." Miller, on the other hand, chose a rather slippery topic about the Origin of the People and the Name of the Russian. The text was prepared on time, but it was not allowed to public discussion, and the circulation already in print was withdrawn.
The report of Miller was not liked by many scholars and officials close to the empress, who saw in it "a prejudice of Russia." Lomonosov, who turned out to be a sharp opponent of the theory of the “Varangian” roots of Russia, was also defeated. Similar in views, Tatishchev evaded the discussion. As already many times before in 1749, the theory of Normans and anti-Normans caused a serious conflict between Russian scientists.
Miller, in his disgraced dissertation, largely echoed Bayer. Compare the positions of Normanists and anti-Normanists, try to determine what their key differences are. They can be easily distinguished by comparing the estimates of Miller and Lomonosov. The first, defending Norman theory, equated the Vikings with the Scandinavians and brought new evidence in favor of this hypothesis. In particular, Miller drew attention to the traditionally “Russian” names of the Dnieper rapids, which were given in the treatise “On the management of the empire” by the Byzantine ruler Konstantin Bagryanorodny. Also, the author of the sensational work drew to his study the evidence of the Scandinavian authors of the early Middle Ages, who mentioned the Eastern Slavs.
Historians Normanists and anti-Normanists often became actors in a complex political struggle. So the attacks on Miller were caused not so much by the scientific side of his work, but by its ideological implication. The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna began after the “dark decade”, when at the time of Anna Ioannovna too many Germans gathered around the throne. Under the new empress, a backlash followed. Everything foreign was criticized, and with Sweden the war at all began. Of course, against this background, the work that spoke of the Scandinavian origin of the Rurikovich was recognized as slanderous. Miller, finding himself in an awkward position, however, did not change his opinion. His work was published abroad, and in Russian it became available to the general reader only in 2006.
The arguments of the anti-Normanists
A detailed response to Miller’s publication came from his main opponent, Mikhail Lomonosov. A few years after the sensational dispute over the Vikings, the Russian scientist set about writing his own capital work on Russian history. He did not have time to finish it because of a sudden death. After Lomonosov’s death, only one volume of his “Ancient Russian History” was published. Nevertheless, the author considered the issue of Varangians (as one of the most priority ones) in his work.
“Rus before Rurik” Mikhail Vasilyevich devoted several scrupulous chapters. He ranked among the Slavs not only the Slavs proper, but also the Balts (Lithuania, Zhmud, Prussians), as well as Venets, Medes and Paflagonians, attributing the origin of this common ethnic group to the era of the Trojan War. Already in this promise one could notice the idea that no Varangians or any other tribes could influence the independent formation of Russia, the origins of which date back to antiquity. The main drawback of Lomonosov’s work was that the author adhered to the principles of historiography of the 16th-17th centuries, while new methods of critical analysis of sources were already developed in European science.
The “Russophile” theory that the Rurikovich descended from the Slavs was also supported by Catherine II, who was attentive to the “History” of Vasily Tatishchev. So, one of the most important historiographers of that time, Mikhail Shcherbatov (1733-1790) considered the first Novgorod prince to be a relative of the elder of the Ilmen Slovens of Gostomysl.
Opinion Karamzin
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 Russian culture and science.
Karamzin was equally attentive to what both Normanists and anti-Normanists said. He took into account the arguments of both sides with the utmost care for the facts. Karamzin revered the works of Bayer and Miller, considering them unforgettable for all historical science. But the anti-Norman concept of Tatishchev was criticized by him. The writer's particular skepticism was evoked by evidence obtained from the Joachimian record.
In total, Karamzin noted six fundamental circumstances confirming the Scandinavian origin of Rurik and the Varangians as a whole. Firstly, the testimonies of Western European authors, for example, the Bishop of Cremona of Cremona, Liutprand, in which the Rus were considered to be Normans. Secondly, this is the name of Rurik and other drafted princes with a clear Scandinavian etymology. Thirdly, Byzantine sources. It was the Scandinavian knights who were called Varangians in Constantinople. Fourth, Miller’s argument about the names of the Dnieper rapids. Fifth, the similarity of the collection of laws of Russian truth with the same German and Scandinavian codes. Sixth, The Tale of Bygone Years, where its author Nestor mentioned that the Vikings lived in the west, beyond the Baltic Sea.
Norman victory
The heated discussions of ideological opponents made the debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists one of the main “damned questions” of Russian history. The turning point in its 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 complete quintessence of classical Norman theory was first presented. Most of all, Thomsen's book from its predecessors was distinguished by a bias in linguistics. The scientist's arguments regarding the linguistic component of medieval sources have not lost their relevance today.
As his only serious opponent, Thomsen noted Stepan Gedeonov (1816-1878), since it was his work “Varangians and Rus” that made the Danish “an impression of serious deliberation”. The linguist called the other anti-Norman works anti-scientific. In his book, Thomsen gave an in-depth review of Arab Byzantine and Latin-language sources about the Vikings.
Parsing 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 regard, Thomsen suggested that the Scandinavians who lived on the shores of the Gulf of Finland and embarked on trips to neighboring countries called themselves that name. In the same way, the linguist made out the word “Varangian”. According to his hypothesis, it came from the Swedish root “var”, which translates as “patronage” or “protection”.
Thomsen identified another dozen words of the Old Russian language, which clearly traced the Scandinavian etymology (tyun, grid, bench, whip, etc.). Summing up his research, the author proposed a capacious metaphor: the Scandinavians laid the foundation for a small state, which the Slavs had already increased to gigantic proportions with their own forces. If you compare the positions of the Normanists and the Anti-Normanists, then such a comparison will surely rest against the arguments that the Danish Wilhelm Thomsen first brought.
Dispute Results
When determining who is right in the dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists, it should be emphasized that their polemic only made sense in the best case in the 19th century, when the formation of the state was associated with the origin of the dynasty. But even the author of a key medieval source, 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 arise?” Approximately the same approach is followed by today's historical science.
Modern Normanists and anti-Normanists continue their debate, although it has long been clear that the process of state formation does not depend on the ethnicity of the ruling family. The fact that Rurik was a newly arrived Varangian did not prevent his son Igor from growing up in a completely different environment and assimilating from infancy. His offspring Svyatoslav and grandson Vladimir no longer resembled the Scandinavians - they were Slavs both by blood, and by habit or language. The same thing happened with the Varangian clans of advisers, combatants, and other northerners called from across the sea to Russia.
Compare the positions of Normanists and anti-Normanists, try to determine how great the influence of the Scandinavians on the creation of the Old Russian State was. Although Novgorod was ruled by the Varangians (Rurik), and Kiev was captured by his adviser or relative (Oleg), the vast majority of the population of the new country was always Slavic. The Scandinavian element eventually disappeared into this sea. And therefore, the scientific victory of the supporters of the “Varangian theory” cannot humiliate the “national pride of the Great Russians,” about which the very first Normanists and anti-Normanists argued. In short, this controversy is a thing of the past. Professional and in-depth studies of the Varangian influence on Ancient Russia continue today, however, they relate to small details: certain words in Russian, customs in military affairs, etc.