From the Shadow of Empire: Defining the Russian Nation through Cultural Mythology, 1855–1870

2. The Varangian Legend: Defining the Nation through the Foundation Myth

T hroughout the imperial period of Russian history, the tale of the summoning of the Varangian princes occupied center stage in the national mythology. Appearing in the Primary Chronicle (compiled in the twelfth century) under the title “Whence the Land of the Rus’ Came into Being,” the story tells how in the year 862 diverse native peoples in the vicinity of Novgorod, exhausted from mutual warfare, sent an envoy “over the sea”to invite foreign military leaders to serve as a neutral intermediary force, saying: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: come rule and govern us.” In response to this invitation, the story goes, Prince Riurik, his brothers, and their retinue—the Varangians, whom the chronicle also refers to as “Rus’”—came to Novgorod to bring peace to the people, confer their own name on their new home, and establish its first dynasty.1 Early in the eighteenth century, when systematic study of the ancient sources first began, scholars identified the Varangians with Scandinavian Vikings and credited them with the founding of the state, the 53 2 The Varangian Legend Defining the Nation through the Foundation Myth introduction of autocracy, and the imposition of other institutions that gave rise to Kievan Rus’.2 Known as the Norman theory of Russia’s origins, this interpretation of the tale became a magnet for controversy soon after it emerged. Initially propounded by eighteenth-century historians of Germanic descent (Th. S. Bayer, G. F. Müller, and A. L. Schlözer), it presented the life of the Russian people prior to the Varangians’ appearance on the scene as a period of savagery unworthy of study. This approach drew vigorous protests from scholars of Russian descent. The astronomer N. I. Popov and the renowned scientist and writer M. V. Lomonosov accused the “Normanists” of harboring a desire to humiliate the Russians by depicting them as intrinsically inferior to Scandinavians. The first salvos of the controversy over the tale were thus couched in the language of ethnic sentiment, revealing the insecurity and resentment that the Norman theory elicited in the patriotic mind.3 One would think such reservations would have compromised the Norman theory and hindered the legend from playing a significant role in Russian political discourse, let alone the quest for Russianness. Yet just the opposite occurred. For educated Russians, products of the Petrine cultural revolution, the tale of a ruler “from over the sea” made it possible to claim Russia’s kinship with the Western world while at the same time leaving room for constructing the country’s identity in contrast to it.4 V. N. Tatishchev, the prominent historian and intellectual supporter of the reforms of Peter the Great, embraced this theory, as did many others after him.5 At the end of the eighteenth century, court historiographer Mikhail Shcherbatov took the story of the summoning of the Varangians to mean that Russia’s authentic political order relied on harmonious relations between rulers and aristocracy.6 The opposition-minded writers of the Enlightenment also utilized the tale but viewed it from a different angle. Seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the regime, A. N. Radishchev employed it as evidence that Russia’s ancient political system was based on a social contract that Riurik subsequently broke, thus prefiguring the despotic character of Russian autocracy.7 In the nineteenth century the large group of intellectuals who subscribed to the Norman theory was increasingly challenged by a growing cohort of anti-Normanists, who, like Lomonosov before them, vehemently denied the Scandinavian origin of the ethnonym Rus’and of the Varangians themselves. Yet even the most vocal anti-Normanists tended to refashion the 54 The Varangian Legend tale rather than reject it outright.8 For all these thinkers, regardless of their views, the story of how the dynasty came into being and how the monarchy was founded served as an apt metaphor for the state-nation nexus. The legend was utilized by those who viewed the nation as centered on the state (typically, they identified the birth of the nation with the founding of the state) and by those who viewed the nation as centered on the people (they distinguishedbetweentheappearanceof thenationandthestate).Normanists and anti-Normanists were to be found among both camps of nationalists , and these overlapping allegiances resulted in an astonishing profusion of rival readings of the tale. Though the majority of intellectuals...