National_Nord
05-29-2009, 06:09 PM
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.
M. Arushev
http://www.cozy-corner.com/history_eng/link_books_normanists_antinormanists.htm
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.
M. Arushev
http://www.cozy-corner.com/history_eng/link_books_normanists_antinormanists.htm