53
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
original scientifi c article                  DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2017.05
received: 2016-01-20
THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS.
SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY)
Michał KOPCZYK
University of Bielsko-Biała, Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała, Poland
e-mail: mkopczyk@ath.bielsko.pl
ABSTRACT
The attention of the author of this paper is focused on the analysis of the account of a trip to Silesia, written 
in the last decade of the eighteenth century by an inhabitant of Prussia, referring to himself as “Cosmopolitan”. 
In his conclusions, the author of this paper remarks that the traveler applies the categories which were in use by 
the Prussian political discourse in the second half of the eighteenth century, therefore, he likens the borderline 
Prussia – Silesia (Germanness – Slavness) to the opposition civilization – barbaria. In this way, he creates a message, 
which – according to the categories drawn from postcolonial criticism – can be described as imperial narrative. It 
is characterized by the undermining of the value of what is different, and the rhetorical appropriation of otherness.
Keywords: Silesia, travel accounts, stereotypes, Slavs, colonial narrative
QUEI SLAVI PROBLEMATICI. LA SLESIA NEGLI OCCHI DI UN VIAGGIATORE 
TEDESCO (UNO STUDIO DI CASO)
 SINTESI
L’interesse dell’autore del presente articolo è rivolto all’analisi della relazione di un viaggio attraverso la Slesia, 
stilata durante l’ultimo decennio del XVIII secolo da un abitante della Prussia, sotto lo pseudonimo di Cosmopolita. 
L’autore nota nelle conclusioni che il viaggiatore fa ricorso alle strategie che venivano impiegate nel discorso politico 
prussiano della seconda metà del XVIII secolo; pertanto identifi ca il confi ne Prussia – Slesia (germanità – slavità) con 
la contrapposizione tra civiltà e barbarie. In questo modo il viaggiatore crea un messaggio che, conformemente alle 
strategie attinte dalla critica postcoloniale, è possibile descrivere come narrazione imperiale. Le sue caratteristiche 
sono: la confutazione del valore di ciò che è diverso nonché, grazie alle procedure retoriche, l’appropriarsi della 
diversità.
Parole chiave: Slesia, relazione di viaggio, stereotipi, Slavi, narrativa coloniale
54
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
Although there is a number of works elaborating 
on cultural aspects of Polish-German and the Silesian-
German relations, and the subject has always attracted 
the interest of researchers (including those outside of the 
two countries), it is diffi cult to assert that the problem 
has been described and studied exhaustively. Especially, 
the question of the multiculturalism of Silesia, which 
is an indirect consequence of the fact that the region 
belonged to the following countries: Great Moravia, 
Czechia, Poland, Austria, Prussia or Germany has 
missed a suffi cient analysis. Also, little do we know 
about the mechanism of the formation and preservation 
of mutual stereotypes (especially German-Polish ones) 
and its entanglement in a historical context (Orłowski, 
1998). 
For a reconstruction of the context, we need detailed 
knowledge, which often goes beyond what is normally 
associated with the term ‘historical’; what seems of 
particular value, for example, are sources providing 
knowledge about collective consciousness. For this 
reason, it is autobiography-like accounts that are a 
valuable research material. They are normally subjec-
tive and biased, but they surpass traditional historical 
sources by adopting “every day’s perspective” typical 
of them, which highlights categories such as: details, 
events, portraits, dialogue and an incident. The value of 
personal documents have been appreciated by modern 
social sciences and literature studies, taking interest in 
an artist’s biography and its relation to his/her artistic 
output, aware of the complexity of the relations that 
exist between them (Sztumski, 1995). 
It is also postcolonial criticism that has provided 
new tools for research on stereotypes in recent years. Its 
supporters seem to have convincingly substantiated the 
usefulness of conducting postcolonial research (or post-
dependence one, as some researchers prefer) related to 
Central European regions, uncovering many aspects of 
modernity (and the past), which formerly were beyond 
our cognitive capacities (Scheibner, 2009, 67; Moore, 
2011, 111–128).1 It was also Silesia that evoked the 
interest of the supporters of the postcolonial theory. 
This interest favored a new evaluation of the past of the 
region, especially the role the Prussian State played in it. 
(Nijakowski, 2014, 84).
I agree with the arguments of the researchers who 
advocate the application of tools developed by postco-
lonial criticism for the research on Silesia. However, I 
am aware of the risk related to this approach – the use of 
terms such as: dependence, colonization, conquest and 
inculturation (when we refer them to the areas within 
Europe) needs special attention and precision since it 
entails the risk of a mechanical transfer of categories de-
veloped in the study of non-European cultures to native 
conditions. Furthermore, I do not think it is legitimate 
– as some researchers argue – to use the category “in-
ternal colony” understood as an immanent and timeless 
feature of this region (Skórczewski, 2007, 145–153).
This text is not a voice in the discussion on the status 
of Silesia from the post-colonial perspective; its objec-
tive is more modest: by offering the reading of the se-
lected account of the Prussian traveler visiting Silesia at 
the end of the eighteenth century, it tends to indicate the 
features of the imperial narrative in it. I believe that the 
essence of the narrative is the presence of the following 
factors: a sense of cultural superiority and a suggestion 
that the inclusion of that area under external tutelage 
will help improve its situation, even if that intention re-
mains concealed or is even one the traveler is not aware 
of2. The objective of my research is in conformity with 
the essential challenge of postcolonial criticism, which 
is – here I agree with Izabela Syrunt – “search through-
out texts for traces of violence towards diversity and its 
resistance to domination” as well as “the exposure of the 
rhetorical appropriation of cultural, ethnic, national or 
fi nally racial Otherness” (Syrunt, 2007, 27).
The text which I examine here inclines us to look 
at the political and cultural situation of Silesia in the 
second half of the eighteenth century. Since the death 
of Polish King Ludwik Jagiellończk (Louis II of Hungary) 
in 1526, Silesia was ruled by the Habsburgs. Afterwards, 
as a result of the so-called Silesian Wars (1740–1763), 
Friedrich II von Hohenzollern (Frederick the Great) an-
nexed both Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia, including 
Kłodzko (except for Cieszyn Silesia and Opava Silesia) 
to his state. The new rules, introduced by the Prussian 
ruler, meant the deterioration of the situation of the local 
population in many aspects, which makes one think of 
the essentially exploitative nature of the annexation.3 
The Prussian propaganda, which portrayed Silesia as 
a culturally and economically backward region, was 
1 Among the works published in recent years, I consider the following ones as valuable and somehow exemplary. Written by: David 
Moore, Ewa Thompson, Tamás Scheibner, Lary Wollf, Dariusz Skórczewski, Hanna Gosk, Clare Cavanagh, Aleksander Fiut and Maria 
Janion. This list of the names is far incomplete, though. ‘Post-colonial’ approach did also fi nd favor with researchers interested in the 
description of German-Polish relations (Cf. Surynt, 2006 and 2007; Hahn and Hahn, 2002).
2 Mary Louise Pratt applies in this context the suitable concept “appropriation” (passively), by identifying it with the rhetorical “imposing” 
his own cognitive categories on the reality, thus making the vision of the world by the indigenous people inferior. „(…) imperial eyes 
passively look out and posses (Pratt, 2008, 9). 
3 They meant, among others, a signifi cant reduction in privileges which, under the rule of the Habsburgs, guaranteed Silesia a broad self-
government, i.e. tax increase, obligation to keep a 35-thousand-army and (since 1744) the introduction of exclusive German language in 
courts of law (previously also Czech, Polish and often Polish were used). Nevertheless, the qualifi cation of Prussian domination in Silesia 
(“integration or exploitation?”) continues to be debatable among historians and depends largely on the criteria assumed (Wąs, 2002, 
197–228).
55
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
supposed to fulfi ll these objectives. This backwardness 
was mainly attributed to the inertia of the Habsburgs’ 
administration (Joachimsthaler, 2006, 204; Cegielski and 
Kądziela, 1990, 142–148) and it was argued that the only 
effective way to take control of the anarchic and poten-
tially dangerous element was the policy of paternalistic 
supervision (Joachimstahaler, 2006). This argumentation 
was generally supported by travelers’ accounts, present-
ing Silesia as a place whose original (by implication, 
German) uniformity was ‘contaminated’ by a foreign 
element, which, in turn, suppressed his natural potency. 
This diagnosis was mostly confi rmed by highlighting the 
dependencies between the degree of Germanness (the 
saturation of the region with ethnically German popula-
tion) and civilizational advancement. German-speaking, 
mainly Protestant Lower Silesia along with Wroclaw was 
contrasted with Catholic and mostly Polish-speaking Up-
per Silesia. It was only the former that would be termed 
‘progressive’ or ‘civilized’ (Joachimstahaler, 2006, 
204–205; Eberhardt, 2005, 463–483).
The categories used by the Prussian propaganda 
were addressed to the state of awareness at that time, 
especially that of enlightened social classes. By the 
end of the eighteenth century under the infl uence of 
pre-romantic and, then, romantic trends, the revision 
process of Enlightenment episteme began and so did 
anthropological, social, political premises related to 
it. The qualities regarded by rationalism thus far as 
less important such as ‘naturalness’, ‘emotionalness’, 
primordial ‘savagery’ and ‘innocence’ (Neuger, 2005, 
68) became a focus of attention. The effect of these 
transformations – which took place at the earliest in 
German culture and were most prevalent in it – was also 
a proclivity for a redefi nition of established premises 
relative to the understanding of the concept of civiliza-
tion, i.e. which of its elements were constitutive for it, 
and who deserved to be called civilized. Although these 
processes also affected the way the Germans perceived 
their Slavic neighbors (it was them that were most 
frequently referred to as ‘natural’, ‘emotional’, ‘savage’ 
and ‘virgin’), their meaning remains an open question 
– especially open about the profundity of changes, i.e. 
how justifi able is the discussion about the change of a 
cognitive paradigm and the correction of stereotypes. 
The text under consideration does not provide any an-
swer to the questions thus posed (or provides partial and 
hypothetical ones). Yet it can be certainly considered as 
one of the documents whose examination will facilitate 
our comprehension of the nature of this phenomenon.
CHARACTER
The subject of this analysis is an account written 
by a Prussian traveler (who uses the pseudonym Cos-
mopolitan), on his journey to Silesia in the years 1792 
and 1793.4 Concealing his true identity, which did not 
deviate from the practices of that time, was used primar-
ily to free the author of any concerns about possible 
consequences that could likely result from his spreading 
opinions that were contrary to the politics of Prussia at 
that time. It also freed his pen of the rules defi ned by 
moral conventions – as an anonymous person he found 
it easier to assume the role of a judge of people and their 
customs. We should remark that as a judge he proved to 
be harsh, yet fair as he critically assessed both his fellow 
countrymen and their Slavic neighbors.
By declaring himself a cosmopolitan, the author of 
the account gave the reader grounds for specifi c expecta-
tions of himself. I shall embark on a journey, he seemed 
to say, to broaden the scope of what I call mine and treat 
as a space of domesticity. For this to happen, I ought 
to adopt an attitude of sincere yet rational openness – 
exactly in the spirit advocated by the philosophers of 
the Age of Enlightenment. The fact that the author of the 
account favored this understanding of cosmopolitanism 
is confi rmed not by his references to the must-read 
educational books in the spirit of classicism and critical 
rationalism as well as his opinions invariably hostile to 
what deviates from common sense. It was also his self-
presentations formulated outright, which consistently 
constructed a rationalist image of the narrator.
Another trait of mentality which defi nitely links the 
traveler with the ideals of the Enlightenment is the fact 
that his trust in reason is accompanied by the postulate 
of verifying a theory by means of experiments, which is 
manifested, inter alia, in an ironic distance towards phi-
losophy understood as a domain of sheer abstraction. 
The cosmopolitan differs from a ‘normal’ philosopher 
in – as he argues –
(…) he believes that it is sometimes more useful 
to spend some time in an inn than in the most 
famous library, that it is better to view nature as a 
whole with one’s both eyes than a plant under a 
microscope, that although he values statistics in so 
far as it reveals errors present in the constitutions 
of most countries,  he considers the enrichment 
of sciences unnecessary, because there is no need 
to collect more and more arguments to prove 
that most constitutions fi t our times like children’s 
shoes fi t a young man’s feet and that they always 
ignore heraldry because one day it will be exhibi-
ted in the gallery of the human mind’s monsters, 
that they bow down before medicine, and they 
wish the revision of the education system was 
immortal. So no one else but such a traveler can 
devote more time and calm to turn his attention 
to the things which in the descriptions of educati-
4 The text entitled Schilderungen oder Reisen eines Kosmopoliten, was published in Leipzig in 1795. I use the Polish edition entitled Opo-
wiadania albo podróże jednego Kosmopolity (Szymański, 2006).  Also, I use quotes from the book in accordance with this edition.  
56
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
onal, botanical, artistic, medical and other travels 
are called insignifi cant or marginal, e.g. human 
faces of any features, short, elongated, distorted, 
straight, ugly, pretty, smooth, wrinkled, human 
fi gures and attire, shape of shoes, not excluding 
their age, differences in manners once an indi-
vidual appears in outdoor outfi t or in a state of 
undress at home and a thousand things of this 
kind, the naming of which I shall not upset any 
honest man about (Kosmopolita, 2006, 61).
The words above can be read as a manifestation of a 
spiritual aristocratic state, self-less interest in the world, 
and at the same time, distance towards existing views, 
scientifi c meticulousness and classism. The narrator re-
iterates his bourgeois genealogy, he considers his lack of 
complex resulting from his class origin apparently as yet 
another proof of its progressiveness. He also knows that 
the rhetorical vividness of his vision will be enhanced 
by placing it on a solid empirical foundation. It is this 
foundation rather than books that will become his main 
point of reference.
PLACE
The traveler’s itinerary includes Lower and Upper 
Silesian places, e.g. Wrocław (Breslau), Brzeg (Brieg), 
Opole (Oppeln), Tarnowskie Góry (Tarnowitz), Pszczyna 
(Pless), Góra Świętej Anny (Sankt Annaberg), Rybnik and 
Racibórz (Ratibor). In his narrative, he clearly highlights 
the differences between German-speaking and Polish-
language Silesian areas, and above all between the 
German-speaking and Polish-speaking inhabitants of 
the region.
His account combines two perspectives of evalua-
tion. The fi rst one is outlined by the author’s declara-
tive identifi cation with the ideas of the Enlightenment, 
including particularly the system of values  close to 
rationalism, the second one – the presentation of those 
elements of knowledge prevalent in the Prussian state of 
the time, regarding its easternmost areas, which was part 
of the offi cial policy of this country. 
First of all, the visitor’s sensitivity to the perceived 
symptoms of the people’s enslavement accords with 
the Enlightenment spirit, and so does his appreciation 
of any activities dictated by common sense. Also, the 
Cosmopolitan sees freedom largely as a derivative 
of suitable living conditions. His own observations 
convince him that the previous authorities were not 
able to create such conditions, as they were ineffective 
and weak in terms of modus operandi, administrative 
structures, as well as the social and economic system. At 
the same time, his favoring the Enlightenment thought 
which involves the positive evaluation of the role of 
authentic emotions makes him appreciate Silesians’ 
‘naturalness’, understood mainly as convention-free at-
titude, honesty, being open and direct in relations with 
strangers. The traveler instinctively sympathizes with the 
people whose behavior is dictated by an inner impera-
tive, straightforwardness, sincere feelings or affective 
refl exes. These qualities, however, have their dark face 
– the author is irritated by the locals’ inability to refl ect 
and self-analyze, making them continuous victims of 
those who tower over them because of their shrewdness 
and ruthlessness. Therefore, they simply-heartedly ac-
cept their situation. Although Polish-speaking Silesians 
tend to be kind in direct contact, endear one with their 
spiritual advantages, they are unable to rise above their 
own interests and evaluate reality (and their own place 
in it) even-handedly. It can be argued that they exist in a 
state of original naturalness and in this sense they have 
many features of “a noble savage”, whose image was 
markedly imprinted on the philosophical discussions of 
the Enlightenment held by the adherents of sentimental-
ism, in particular.5
A native is not capable of creating a credible self-
image, hence this task is taken over exclusively by the 
external observer. Although the narrator does not deprive 
The Oher of his voice (he often cites the statements of 
Polish indigenous people), he denies his words a status 
of objective knowledge, treating them invariably at a 
lofty (yet friendly and kind) distance. The travel’s mental 
portrayal of The Other is that of unassuming and plain, 
i.e. it is possible „to see him through” and to describe him 
exhaustively – even if his general portrayal is brief and 
perfunctory (Gawrycki, 2011). This clarity is reinforced 
by the fact that the traveler did not encounter ‘Creoles’ 
– inhabitants of mixed, ambiguous identity - on his way 
or the perspective he assumed did not let him notice 
them, since they did not fi t in with the dualistic Slavic-
German model. Also, no question about the relationship 
between Polish and Silesian culture is posed (nor it is 
asked about the identity of the local Polish-speaking or 
Czech-speaking population), thus non-German Silesians 
population is considered as culturally uniform.
The difference between the Polish and German-
speaking population of Silesia is vividly illustrated by a 
collapse of a stable in a border town in Kujawy, which, 
as it were, opens the ‘Polish’ chapter of the journey. As a 
result of the collapse, a colt – owned by the local master 
– is killed and so is a cow owned by the female proprie-
tor of the inn. The fact that the woman morns only her 
loss makes the visitor refl ect on the irrationality of the 
economic system prevailing there. His conclusion will 
be confi rmed by a German commissioner who arrives 
on the scene of the accident. The offi cial matter-of-factly 
explains the rules governing the witnessed reality:
5 The Cosmopolitan’s attitude to Polish-speaking inhabitants of Silesia, though ambivalent, is still much more sympathetic and favorable 
than the one demonstrated by Johan Gottlieb Fichte in his account of his journey in 1791 (Neuger, 2005).
57
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
(...) Poland is not France, and the Poles are not 
the French and so they are not much better than 
this cow. (...) Admittedly, they could be ennobled, 
but if you have a landed estate, it is obvious that 
you would have to be a fool to do such a thing. 
A peasant needs to be made wise in so far as he 
does not consider himself better or worse than 
what his master wishes; in a word, in so far as he 
treats himself like a beast of burden created for 
the convenience of his master. Every one cares 
about himself, and if a peasant is as wise as his 
master, then the master has no choice but to tie 
himself to a plow, if he does not want to starve to 
death (Kosmopolita, 2006, 28).
Even reluctance to the cynical pragmatism of the one 
who utters the words does not undermine the authority 
and legitimacy of his conclusions in the reader’s eyes. As 
‘a local’ he witnesses things internally and his German-
ness makes him somebody close to both the traveler and 
the reader (who is assumed to be German-speaking). 
The knowledge of a state of affairs is also confi rmed by 
his rank giving his fi ndings an offi cial ring. The authority 
of the German witness does also result from the evident 
rationality of his attitude, i.e. the Cosmopolitan portrays 
him as a sober and knowledgeable individual, who cap-
tures the reality in simple and clear formulas, perfectly 
understandable for the visitor.
The image of German-speaking population is, in turn, 
far less unambiguous. He points at the often manifested 
criticism of the exaggerated presence of convention in 
behavior, highlighting particularly glaring examples of 
hypocrisy, concealed under the facade of politeness. 
Despite the insincerity which exasperates him so often 
during his encounters with fellow countrymen, the 
author is aware that those characteristics are the cause, 
and also the effect of their civilization success and it is 
this success that he tends to regard as a factor which 
clearly elevates them above the Slavic population.
This quality seems in as far vital as, as we fi nd out, 
the Polish-speaking inhabitants are deprived of it because 
their ‘logic’ is curtailed by their odd understanding of 
particularistic benefi ts. In other words, a Polish-speaking 
Silesian has adapted to the conditions he lives in so ef-
fectively that he has failed to develop an ability to assess 
this reality in the categories of commonly understood 
common sense and objectivity. His/her dominant features 
turn out to be: ability to adapt to the realities, no matter 
what they may be, and a complete lack of critical distance 
towards these realities. These features, in turn, go hand in 
hand with a sense of their own powerlessness towards the 
world whose principles are considered as both constant 
and obvious, since they are defi ned by means of forces 
indifferent to an individual’s desires or needs.
The traveler found out that “Poland is not France” on 
many occasions, and the exploring of Silesia provided 
him with a great number of opportunities to demonstrate 
not only his own progressiveness, but the praise of his 
own country, whose enlightened quality seemed to him 
the more obvious, the more he witnessed the civiliza-
tional backwardness of the perceived world.
He saw a sign of this backwardness in the position 
enjoyed by the Catholic Church in Silesia. By describing 
the manifestations of this position, he emphasizes his 
own skepticism towards religious fervor displayed by the 
locals and the omnipotence of the church institutions 
preying on the credulity of the unenlightened believers. 
He is not even prone to mitigate his criticism once a 
local merchant explains to him that the superstitious 
nature of the local religion was justifi ed by the neces-
sity to adapt it to the minds of primitive people. As a 
person aware of the mechanisms of social engineering, 
the merchant is perceived by the traveler as an advocate 
of the elites’ awareness (not only church-related ones), 
thus as yet another example of their hypocrisy.
The visitor continues expressing the same strong 
criticism towards social relations prevailing in Silesia, 
especially the ubiquitous, in his opinion, obsequious-
ness and servility with which the local population treats 
people of noble origin or even those of neat appearance 
(indicating a privileged social standing). His account 
includes the scene showing an old man prostrating in 
front of him in humble greeting; he will be similarly 
welcomed in the Rybnik home for war disabled people. 
A non-commissioned offi cer, who shows him around, 
proudly presents him with the advantages of the alms-
house, without suspecting that the visitor will respond to 
that with rather sad refl ections on the servility, which is 
– as he argues – “one of the main features of the national 
character” of the Silesians (Kosmopolita, 2006, 87).
CONCLUSIONS
Contrary to declaratively posed objectives and a 
skeptical attitude of criticism considered dogmatically, 
the author of the account ultimately refers to categories 
employed by the Prussian political discourse of that 
time, he identifi es the pair: Prussia – Silesia (German 
vs. Slavic) with the opposition: civilization – barbarism. 
Silesia as described by the Cosmopolitan constitutes an 
invariant of ‘the East’, construed as a ‘wild’ area of vague 
boundaries stretching between Russia and Germany,6 
whereas its salient features are: cultural, economic and 
civilizational backwardness. Placing freedom among 
major values  – at both individual and collective level 
– does not interfere with the traveler’s assertion that the 
subjection of the lands inhabited mostly by Slavic popu-
lation will bring more benefi ts than possible losses. Nor 
6 In the south, “the East” stretched up to the Balkans, the inhabitants of which did not really differ from their western and eastern Slavic 
kinsmen in the eyes of the German neighbors. This was presented convincingly by Božidar Jezernik (Jezernik, 1998).
58
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
does it interfere with his view that this objective can be 
achieved only via organized action of civilization. Ac-
cordingly, the text under consideration does obviously 
apply the system of rhetoric fi gures which (after Edward 
Said, 2005) might be referred to as „a technology of 
power over the East”or simply a colonial narrative. The 
archaic social relations that prevail on the visited area 
allow German readers to appreciate the freedom they 
enjoy in their own country and to strengthen their be-
liefs that the people inhabiting the lands have basically 
servile mentality. 
Undoubtedly, what is “to be partially blamed” for the 
traveler’s susceptibility to ready-made cognitive patterns 
and stereotypes is the lack of a deeper knowledge about 
the world perceived by him. The shortage of categories 
by which the perceived world could be ‘tamed’ and, to 
some extent at least, deprived of the ring of exoticism 
and irrationality, opened the traveler to ready-made 
cognitive patterns. However, the lack of knowledge 
does not explain everything in this case as we should 
remember that the military expansion-based policy of 
Frederick II met with the approval of a large part of intel-
lectual elites. Body-forming groups of the Enlightenment 
fascinated by absolutism noticed the perfect incarnation 
of an enlightened ruler in the Prussian king who was 
capable of forcibly imposing the world order based on 
rational principles. Not surprisingly, the choice between 
reason and order and disorder, impotence and obscu-
rantism was usually in favor of the former. Humanitar-
ian considerations were here of secondary importance, 
especially since it was not diffi cult to logically justify the 
existence of relationships between individual welfare 
and the rationality of external conditions and, conse-
quently, the boon for the citizens of the lands annexed 
to Prussia attributed to the tutelage of the ‘enlightened’ 
dictatorship. It helps one understand why the Germans’ 
perception of their Slavic neighbors proved to be not 
only persistent, but also peculiarly ambivalent. Klaus 
Ziemer aptly captured its essence:
On the one hand, Poland is seen as a civilizatio-
nally, economically and socially backward coun-
try. As a matter of fact, its citizens are attributed 
to qualities such as ‘courageous’, ‘brave’, ‘heroic’ 
but, at the same time, they are called ‘unruly, 
‘changeable’ and ‘unpredictable’. In fact, Poland 
is not able to organize itself politically and econo-
mically, which is a direct cause of the loss of its 
statehood (Ziemer, 1996, 16).
The above-mentioned vision was motivated primar-
ily by the specifi c understanding of the category of 
Realpolitik, allowing one to regard the area located in 
the east of their borders as one of economic exploita-
tion. However, the benefi ts, which were related to the 
conquest, were not limited to measurable categories. A 
„prize” was, after all, also the comforting sense of ac-
complishing a civilizing mission. Another one was the 
possession of an ‘anti-example’, ‘inferior’, ‘barbarian’ 
who by virtue of his existence justifi ed the validity of 
the aggressor’s civilizational and political solutions, 
and strengthened his sense of superiority. In this way, 
a process of the essentialization of the culture of the 
eastern neighbors in the eyes of the Germans gradually 
took place. Slavic neighbors assumed the role of Others 
necessary to build their own identity7. Such visions were 
supported by the vast majority of accounts on „travels to 
the East”, linking generally the Enlightenment’s system 
of values with „imperial perception”, which mostly 
consisted in creating sharp contrast between the values 
represented by “a seeing man” and the rules, which the 
perceived world was governed by (Pratt, 2008, 9). In this 
respect, the Cosmopolitan’s account can be regarded 
as one of the voices that contributed to constructing a 
stereotype about the Poles.
To what extent does the image affect today’s percep-
tion of Poland (and other Slavic communities) by the 
Germans? To what degree does the stereotype formed 
two centuries ago is productive to date; if/to what extent 
does it constitute an element of contemporary thinking 
about us and our culture? Although a thorough answer 
to both questions certainly requires solid research, there 
is no doubt that a comprehensive answer needs consid-
ering not only the stereotypes that have been cultivated 
by Germans and Slavs against each other but also the 
ideas about one another that particular groups of Slavs 
have constructed for centuries (Sowa, 2011, 472). Once 
the questions above are clarifi ed, the mechanism in all 
its aspects can be seen and all the traumas, dreams and 
interests underlying it can be identifi ed.
7 This fact was noted before by Wolff (1994) and Skórczewski (2009).
59
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
TI PROBLEMATIČNI SLOVANI. ŠLEZIJA V OČEH GERMANSKEGA POTNIKA 
(ANALIZA PRIMERA)
Michał KOPCZYK
Univerza v Bielsku-Biali, Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała, Pojska
e-mail: mkopczyk@ath.bielsko.pl
POVZETEK
Prispevek predstavlja analizo potopisa pruskega avtorja (njegov priimek ni naveden; popotnik sam sebe imenuje 
“Svetovljan”), ki je pri koncu 18. stoletja potoval po Šleziji. Način pripovedovanja je v članku na osnovi dveh dejav-
nikov opredeljen kot imperialna naracija. Prvi dejavnik je popotnikov občutek, da zastopa kulturo, ki je nadrejena 
v odnosu do opisovanega ljudstva. Drugi dejavnik predstavlja njegov namig, četudi ni izražen neposredno, da bi 
morala opisovana dežela priti pod germansko kuratelo, kar bi bistveno izboljšalo njen položal. Predstavljena analiza 
se uvršča med osnovne naloge postkolonialne kritike. Ugotovljeno je, da kljub skeptičnemu kriticizmu potopisec 
uporablja miselne kategorije, ki jih je uporabljal pruski politični diskurz v drugi polovici 18. stoletja. Gre za po-
istovetenje stika Prusja – Šlezija (oz. germanskost – slovanskost) z razmerjem civilizacija – barbarstvo. Opisana 
Šlezija se v potopisu predstavlja kot invariant “Vzhoda”, torej “divje”, kulturno, gospodarsko in civilizacijsko zaostalo 
območje brez natančnih meja, ki leži nekje med Rusijo in Nemčijo. V tem smislu analizirano besedilo uporablja 
sistem retoričnih sredstev, ki jih po Edvardu Saidu lahko opredelimo kot “tehnologija oblasti nad Vzhodom” ali kot 
imperialna naracija. 
Ključne besede: Šlezija, potopis, stereotipi, Slovani, kolonialna pripoved
60
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 27 · 2017 · 1
Michał KOPCZYK: THOSE PROBLEMATIC SLAVS. SILESIA IN THE EYES OF A GERMAN TRAVELER (CASE STUDY), 53–60
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cegielski, T. & Ł. Kądziela (1990): Rozbiory Polski 
1772–1793–1795. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogic-
zne, Warszawa, 142–148.
Eberhardt, P. (2005): Geneza niemieckiej koncepcji 
»Mitteleuropy«. Przegląd Geografi czny, 77, 4, 463–483.
Gawrycki, M. F. (2011): Podglądając Innego. 
Polscy trawelebryci w Ameryce Łacińskiej. Warszawa, 
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Hahn, H. H. & Hahn E. (2002): Nationale Ste-
reotypen. Plädoyer fü r eine historische Stereotypen-
forschung In: Hahn, H. H. & S. Scholz: Stereotyp, 
Identität und Geschichte. Die Funktion von Stereotypen 
in gesellschaftlichen Diskursen. Frankfurt/M., Berlin, 
Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien.
Jezernik, B. (1998): Dež ela, kjer je vse narobe: 
prispevki k etnologiji Balkana. Ljubljana, Znanstveno in 
publicistič no središ č e.
Joachimsthaler, J. (2006): Obraz Górnego Śląska w 
niemieckojęzycznej literaturze i publicystyce XVIII i XIX 
wieku. Transl. Szybkowski L. In: Trzy relacje z podróży 
po Śląsku w XVIII i XIX wieku. Gliwice–Katowice, Dom 
Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, Fundacja »Zamek 
Chudów«, 203–215.
Kosmopolita, (2006): Opowiadania albo podróże 
jednego Kosmopolity. Podróż po Polsce i Śląsku w latach 
1792 i 1793. In: Trzy relacje z podróży po Śląsku w XVIII 
i XIX wieku, Dom Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, Fun-
dacja „Zamek Chudów”, Gliwice–Katowice, 22–152.
Moore, D. C. (2011): Is the Post- in Postcolonial 
the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial 
Critique. Methis, Studia Humaniora Estonica, 111–128.
Neuger, L (2005): Europa Środkowa jako źródło 
cierpień. Zwoje (Scrolls), 42, 1, 66.  
Nijakowski, L. M. (2014): O przydatności studiów 
postkolonialnych w badaniach Śląska. Przegląd Human-
istyczny, 5, 83–95.
Orłowski, H. (1998): »Polnische Wirthschaft«. Now-
oczesny niemiecki dyskurs o Polsce. Transl. Sellm I. S.. 
Olsztyn , Wspólnota Kulturowa »Borussia«. 
Pratt, M. L. (2008): Imperial eyes: travel writing and 
transculturation. London, Routledge. 
Said, E. (2005): Orientalizm. (Transl.) Wyrwas-
Wiśniewska M.. Warszawa, Zysk i S-ka.
Scheibner, T. (2009): Okres postkolonialny czy 
postkolonialna Europa Wschodnia i Środkowa?. Porów-
nania, 6, 65–73.
Skórczewski, D. (2007): Dlaczego Polska pow-
inna się upomnieć o swoją postkolonialność. Znak, 9, 
145–153.
Skórczewski, D. (2009): Polska skolonizowana, 
Polska zorientalizowana. Teoria postkolonialna wobec 
»innej Europy«. Porównania, 6, 95–105.
Śląsk w XVIII i XIX wieku. Gliwice-Katowice, Dom 
Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, Fundacja »Zamek 
Chudów«, 203–215. 
Sowa, J. (2011): Fantomowe ciało króla. Peryferyjne 
zmagania z nowoczesną formą. Kraków Universitas, 
472. 
Surynt, I. (2006): Postęp, kultura i kolonializm. 
Polska a niemiecki projekt europejskiego »Wschodu« w 
dyskursach publicznych XIX wieku. Wrocław, Ofi cyna 
Wydawnicza »Atut«.
Syrynt, I. (2007): Badania postkolonialne a »Drugi 
Świat«. Niemieckie konstrukcje narodowo-kolonialne 
XIX wieku. Teksty Drugie, 4, 25–46.
Sztumski, J. (1995): Wstęp do metod i technik badań 
społecznych. Katowice, Wydawnictwo Śląsk.
Szymański, J. (2006): Wstęp. In: Śląsk w XVIII i XIX 
wieku. Gliwice-Katowice, Dom Współpracy Polsko-
Niemieckiej, Fundacja »Zamek Chudów«, 7–16. 
Wąs, G. (2002): Śląsk pod panowaniem pruskim. In: 
Czapliński, M. (ed.): Historia Śląska. Wrocław, Uniwer-
sytet Wrocławski.
Wolff, L. (1994): Inventing Eastern Europe: the map 
of civilization on the mind of the enlightenment. Stan-
ford, Calif, Stanford University Press. 
Ziemer, K. (1996): Dwa stereotypy. Polska w oczach 
Niemców – wczoraj i dziś. Transl. Dominiczak J., Więź 
No 5, http://laboratorium.wiez.pl/teksty.php?dwa_
stereotypy&p=1  (12. 10. 2015).