 The Normanist Theory at "High Tide" Again? |
Nine years ago, I made my first brief trip to Ukraine. After a three year absence I returned to live in May 1998. For this period of time, and from time to time, I've casually studied and reflected on the people known to history as "Rus". Of late, I'm reflecting again.
Recently I've been reading the English translation of ”From Prehistory to the Eleventh Century”, volume one of Mykhailo Hrushevsky's multi-volume History of Ukraine-Rus (1997, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press). I had read various excerpts before, but only recently, by virtue of a gift, did I have access to the volume itself. And I've read or reread several articles on the subject of the Normanist Theory recently, primarily through the Internet. Normanist’s hold that Vikings initially were the Rus of history.
Hrushevsky of course was anti-Normanist. But, as in all I've read of Hrushevsky and about the famous historian, he develops his theories with the objectivity of an almost scientific mind and from that approach, that is, without bias. Certainly not as an advocate. At least such seems so to me.
He discusses the theory in Excursus 2 of volume one. After developing it thoroughly, he comes down as anti-Normanist. His conclusion is buttressed by his assertion that the Achilles heel of the Normanist Theory is the name Rus. He builds to that conclusion with evidence of the name Rus and various similar or like words being used prior to the time there is evidence of the first Varangians (Vikings) coming to Ukraine soil.
The editors of the volume I am reading, in notes to Hrushevsky's Excursus 2, settle the question contra to Hrushevsky's Achilles heel. Mentioning later works and scholarship, primarily that of H. Lowmianski around 1985, the editors state:
"The name Rus' is convincingly explained as a slavicized form - dating from the eighth century - of Ruotsi, the Baltic-Finnish name for the Swedes."
The question of from where the name Rus derives, on which the Normanist Theory seems constructed if the Varangians being the founders of Kyvian Rus is to be believed, seems determinative. And thus now decided.
Or is it? For about three centuries the question has been debated. And at different times has been answered conclusively, if but only for a period of time until challenged again by new evidence.
So, today I'm reading from a 1997 book with updated editorial notes to that time and my brief and inadequate research beyond that date shows little new debate.
The answer, the truth if it can be found, has important ramifications. Probably, the importance is overstated since the implication that the fabled history of the Kyvian Rus and the success of the Ukrainian people is solely a story of "mighty Vikings" is surely most incorrect.
But still, a lot rides on it due to the implications themselves. It has an effect on how readers of history understand Ukraine and its people, their language (independent or a variant of Russian, a dialect, or what?), the relationship of Ukrainians and Russians (Are they part and parcel of the same tribes? Or are Ukrainians the poor and inferior kin of the "great" Russians, being themselves but "little" Russians? Is there really a separate, true history of a separate Ukrainian people or do Ukrainians simply stand in the flow of history of various Slavic peoples that at some point melded into the Russian people? Or contra, has the Russian state merely grafted its history on the back of the Ukrainians, a separate people, when in fact their tracing should only be a recognition of some common linage by leadership and ownership and control of property?)
There are even more questions. Does the present prevalence of the Normanist Theory make for the end of the conflict on origin? If so, where exactly does that leave us with the Varangians? The focus then is on exactly how much their influence?
How much influence? To me, still the focus is wrong. And this is what I seem to see from my reading. Acceptance of the theory should not put a slant toward a more Russian side of history. But it seems to.
But maybe this is just another tide in the long conflict of history and with perspective.
For now, I don't like what I read. I think too much rests on the theory, or at least on the conclusions some wish to draw after they accept it.
And somehow I don't think Hrushevsky himself would be so accepting of the "new" findings of his editors.
I hope for some discussion from Readers on this.
- Glen Willard
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
Danone Nations Cup
Ukraine and Property Rights
UKRAINE. Which Way to Go?
Capital’s Minibuses Need Shake-up
Ukrainian Woman in Power
Foggy Forms and Silly Signs: Why Ukraine Needs An 'English Brigade'
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
