Tsar Saltan and Copper Mountain Mistress

Is scientific criticism of antinormanism possible?

One of the most frequent reproaches from neoantinormanists 1 is that none of the professional historians and archaeologists disassemble their hypotheses and guesses from a scientific point of view. “ And when with the capital five-part work of S. A. Gedeonov, A. G. Kuzmin himself and V.V. Fomin himself, extremely rich facts, arguments, questions, and really attracting a huge number of sources, often elusive the attention of the Normanists, “ straighten out ” in one or two phrases, leaving the issues posed by the“ criticism ” not convinced at all T "[ 1 ].

Indeed, the performances of real scientists on this subject, as a rule, are designed in a sarcastic manner and ridicule the unscientific approach of the followers of A. G. Kuzmin to the complex problems of the history of Ancient Rus', attempts to solve them with simple means. As examples, one can cite the "Renaissance of the Middle Ages?" E. A. Melnikova, “In longing for the lost time” by N.F. Kotlyara, “The path from the Greeks” V.V. Murasheva and other critical articles of professional historians and archaeologists about modern antinormanism.

Is it possible to approach the works of neoantinormanists differently? The main problem of modern antinormanism is the lack of historical sources that set out the history of Ancient Rus' in the key desired for them. Our ancient chronicle-“The Tale of Bygone Years” (PVL)-they immediately anathematize due to the “Tales of the Calling” and multiple unambiguous instructions for the Scandinavian of the Varangians. But after all, other sources (Byzantine, Latin, Scandinavian, Arabic), close to the studied period of time (IX - X centuries), indicate the Scandinavian nature of the Varangians and Rus ...

The anti -Normanists have the only dubious source that is close in time to the events under study is the Joachim Chronicle (Il) V.N. Tatishchev. Disputes about the authenticity of the silt are still continuing, although after a thorough study by A.P. Tolochko [2] it is difficult to doubt that Il is a falsifier, the creation of Tatishchev himself. Therefore, neoantinormanist V.I. Merkulov is forced to turn to the works of German scientists of the 16th - 18th centuries, called by him “Mecklenburg genealogies” and supposedly containing traces of ancient legends about the origin of the Varangians and Rus. A. Paul is also forced to turn to such a dubious source as the manuscripts dated to the XIV - XV centuries, specifying the legends set forth in them in the key deserted for antinormanists. All this is necessary to A. Paul in order to question the unambiguous instructions about the plunder of Hamburg Normans contained in the annals of the francs, and with the help of obvious stretches, attribute this act by the Baltic Slavs the Objectives.

Well, there are no historical sources that say that the antinormanists would like to hear! And, moreover, such early medieval sources as the “Slavic chronicle” of Helmold, dedicated to the whole history of the Baltic Slavs and at the same time knowing Rus', or “Acts of the Hamburg Archbishops” Adam Bremen, do not indicate any connection between Rus' and the Baltic Slavs, no matter how our neoantinormanists would like this. And when they tell their opponents that since the coming of the Slavs and the Finns of the Rurik Frishandsky / Rurik is not mentioned in the Scandinavian sagas, this indicates the Scandinavian hypothesis of the origin of Rus', it would be nice to indicate what historical sources the Baltic Slavic hypothesis is confirmed.

Since the works of A. A. Romanchuk are the most serious in nature among the works of modern anti -Normanists, they deserved and received a serious critical analysis in the articles of L. S. Klein and mine. But, of course, Romanchuk himself may not consider this critical analysis of his articles as such.

In order to assess the possibility of scientific criticism of modern antinormanism as a whole, we turn to the most odious cases, because on such an example with all clarity one can see whether the scientific criticism of their opuses is possible .

Since there are no suitable historical sources, the anti -Normanists only remains to turn to Bazhov’s “fairy tales” by A. S. Pushkin. It is difficult to believe a serious scientist, but this is not a joke, not a draw, this really takes place in the “scientific” works of neoantinormanists with the degree of candidate of historical sciences.

These works by V.I. Merkulov and L.P. Grott were published recently in the magazines Rusin and Historical Format.

The candidate of historical sciences L.P. Grot is taken to study the "ancient" social processes in Rus' by analyzing the events of the Time of Troubles, the Indian cosmogony and ... "Tales" of Bazhov! L.P. Grott passes to the Vedic cosmogonic myths and searches for parallels to the “fairy tales” by P.P. Bazhov. And imagine, finds it! Piercing into the Indian Vedic Cosmogony, L.P. Grott again returns us in the Time of Troubles and tries to understand why it was necessary to “ organize“ physical contact with the representative of the royal family ”to endow the False Dmitry with legitimate power? ". In this way, it is taken to determine the “ ancient traditions of the transfer of power in Russian history ” [4]. It would be difficult to believe in this, but everyone can turn to her article in the infamous journal of the anti -Normanists “Historical Format” and make sure that this is the case. The fact that this is not an isolated case becomes clear when meeting an article by another candidate of sciences, V. I. Merkulov, also an anti -Normanist and follower of A. G. Kuzmin, in the historical scientific journal Rusin. He is taken to study the history of Ancient Rus' of the 9th - 10th centuries. With the help of scientific analysis ... Tales of A. S. Pushkin about King Saltan! In the article “An Old Russian Tradition from the Rügen Island”, Merkulov tries to draw parallels between the island of Ruyan (as he reinss the toponym Rügen) and the island of Buyan from the fairy tale of Pushkin, however, is quite unproven [5]. And again, everyone can turn to the article of this author and make sure that there is no grotesque and exaggeration in my statements.

That's what miracles leads to a stubborn desire, in spite of what to advance the reanimated marginal hypothesis, rejected in the 19th century, in the absence of messages confirming it in real historical sources!

I think that after the analysis of such examples of “works” of modern neoantinormanists, the question of scientific criticism of their work disappears by itself.

Oleg Gubarev

1. Romanchuk A. A. Varangian-Russian question in modern discussion: a view from the side // Bulletin of Kigit . 2013. No. 6 (36) . S. 73–131.
2. Tolochko A. “History of Russian” Vasily Tatishchev: Sources and Izvestia. M.: New Literary Review (series Historia Rossica); Kyiv: Criticism, 2005.
3. Fomin V.V. Varyagi and Varangian Rus'. To the results of the discussion on the Varangian issue. M.: Russian Panorama, 2005.
4. Grot L.P. The oldest traditions of transferring power in Russian history // Historical format, No. 3–4, (2017), 2018. P. 80–94.
5. Merkulov V. I. Old Russian tradition from the island of Rügen // Rusin, No. 1 (35), 2014. S. 165–171.

I call them 1 neoantinormanists in order to distinguish from the antinormanists of the royal and Soviet times, the vast majority of whom, although it denied the role of the Varangians, could not but objectively recognize the Varangians with the Scandinavians. Therefore, the current neoantinormanists, the followers of A. G. Kuzmin, declare almost all the anti-Normanists of previous times (with the exception of S. A. Gedeonov, Venelin, Moroshkin and Zabelin, who considered the Varangians-Russian Slavs) “imaginary antinormanists” [3].