As far as I remember, at school everything was simple and unambiguous. Yes Rurik, yes they called, yes the Vikings. Actually, this did not bother anyone. Well Rurik, well the Vikings.
Then, somewhere in the 90s, it probably began: "But they themselves could not, but only others can control you, what would you savages do without external civilized control." And then those who seemed to have nothing against Rurik began to prove that Rurik did not exist and all this is fiction.
In general, the "Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state" is one of the most scandalous concepts in Russian history. And by the way, she celebrates the anniversary.
And the scientific battles continue …
The theory of the Norman roots of the founders of the Russian state received wide and scandalous fame in the 18th century and since then continues to excite the minds of scientists. The origins of the conflict are in the speech of the Russian historian of German origin Gerhard Miller, which he prepared in 1749 for the ceremonial meeting of the Academy of Sciences. Based on the "Tale of Bygone Years", which describes the vocation of Rurik and his brothers to reign in Novgorod, Professor Miller argued: the creators of our statehood were the Varangians-Normans (they are also Rus). Mikhail Lomonosov immediately opposed this thesis, and Miller himself began to have troubles (he was demoted to associate degree and his salary was cut). It was only in 1768 that Miller published his scandalous findings in the German magazine Allgemeine historische Bibliothek - this happened exactly 250 years ago. Well, the Norman theory itself received a political connotation: in fact, it transformed … into a dispute between Westernizers and Slavophiles. But the most surprising thing: the controversy has survived to this day and has recently escalated again.
One historical nuance must be clarified here: the Second World War gave additional acuteness to the "Norman question".
“In his notorious work“My Struggle”, Adolf Hitler gave direct references to the Norman problem, thus trying to substantiate the thesis about the inferiority of the Slavs,” said German Artamonov, professor of the Department of Contemporary Russian History at Moscow State Pedagogical University, to “Ogonyok”. a historical theory that would have such dire consequences. Is it then surprising that many experts (including myself) raise the question of the need to continue scientific discussions …
Promotional video:
So today, even irreconcilable opponents seem to have come to a common, albeit paradoxical, opinion: most likely, Rurik … simply did not exist! Let's figure it out.
- Rurik, like his brothers, Truvor and Sineus, seems to be a myth, - explains German Artamonov. - And you can talk about real people, starting with Igor Stary (according to the chronicle tradition, the son of Rurik. - "Oh"), there are a number of sources that point to him as the ancestor of the princely dynasty. Moreover, according to "The Lay of Igor's Regiment", Troyan can be considered the ancestor of Russian princely families, and in the "Tale of Bygone Years" Kiy is mentioned as such. So the question about Rurik can be removed as unreliable. However, I would suggest leaving the question: who were the very Russians after all?
Here is another paradox associated with the Norman theory: in principle, both its supporters and irreconcilable critics agree that the Rus, who became the elite of Ancient Rus, were people "from the outside." It remains only to decide: where did they come from - from Scandinavia or from somewhere else?
It is worth telling about the mysterious Russia separately - some researchers suggest that they were Scandinavians. But there are also more original versions: for example, assuming that we are talking about professional affiliation - they say, these are rowers-merchants!
- The question, who are the Russes, remains to this day, - says German Artamonov from the Moscow State Pedagogical University. And that's why … The Slavs, unlike other Indo-European peoples, very early adopted the territorial form of communities, and it persisted until the twentieth century! Moreover, the Slavs, under no pretext (due to various and incomprehensible circumstances) did not accept private property, they did not have social stratification. And this makes the line between the Slavs and the Rus impassable - they just had a consanguineous community based on a rigid social hierarchy. However, they cannot be called Normans either - I will not dwell on the arguments why this is so. The question is: who are they? There are Celtic, Alanian, Baltic-Slavic and other versions of their origin, so I think the Russians are still waiting for their discoverer.
However, researchers often pose the question even more simply: why bother connecting the ethnic origin of the ancient Russian princes with the formation of a state in Eastern Europe?
- The ethnic origin of the rulers does not matter, - I am sure Igor Danilevsky, professor of the School of Historical Sciences at the Higher School of Economics. he also gave his son to a Polovtsian woman. Yuri Dolgoruky's mother was Anglo-Saxon (daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harold), Vladimir Monomakh's mother was Greek (he was the grandson of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomakh), Vsevolod Yaroslavovich's was Swedish … For that time, all this was quite normal. As for the Norman theory itself, it simply does not exist. Today it is clear that the Scandinavians were in Ancient Russia, but they did not create this state (especially since they themselves did not have a state in the modern sense then). They could only become a kind of third force - “referees” in local interethnic conflicts.
It is worth debunking one more myth at the same time: as Danilevsky notes, in general, the very legend about the calling of strangers (or, for example, three brothers) to the kingdom exists in many countries - so here we are not unique either. For example, in The Acts of the Saxons by Vidukind of Corvey, written a century before the Tale of Bygone Years, the Britons turn to the Saxons for protection - according to the same scenario as, according to the chronicle legend, the Novgorodians - to Rurik. So what is the argument about?
And the argument about … is it worth arguing about Norman theory at all? Many researchers admit: recently it has been heard again - for example, in connection with the release of the film "Viking" (about Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich) or in the wake of the discussion about the dissertation of the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky. What are the reasons for this new round of interest in the Normans? The experts have an explanation.
- Issues related to ethnic identity are really remembered at the time of the next aggravation of relations with the West, - German Artamonov admits. - But this is what does not suit me in the position of modern Normans: they believe that there is nothing to discuss here! And any disagreement is interpreted as a manifestation of leavened patriotism, they say, only Russians can complex about their origin. But is this fair? In conditions of methodological pluralism in the humanitarian sphere, none of these issues can be finally closed. And indeed, in the history of any nation, there is not a single major problem that could be solved unambiguously. After all, we are arguing not only about this - for example, the issue of “red” and “white” has not been closed yet. I think one of the reasons for such discussions is that we still have not made a civilizational choice,and its origins are there - in our past.
However, those same Normans usually object: they say, "the Norman theory is alive only for political reasons." It is necessary to prove that Russia is not Europe, so they take Miller's legacy from the dusty shelf in order to criticize it, no need - they take it back. Who is right here - go figure it out. But something else is quite obvious: over the past two and a half centuries, the "sore issue of Russian history", it seems, has not been cured.
Ogonyok magazine # 40. Author: Kirill Zhurenkov