The topic of the paper is the image of the Great Wall of China in Polish and Serbian travel writing. This construction is recognized as a historical border of China proper, which made it also a border zone between sedentary, farming Chinese civilization and nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples from the steppes and forests. In the paper we will analyze how the Great Wall was presented by Polish and Serbian travelers, who wrote about China in the 18 th , 19 th and the first half of the 20 th century. We will concentrate not only on narratives a physical construction, but mostly on cultural and axiological aspects of descriptions of the famous edifice. The methodology of research is based on Vladimir Gvozden's concept of travel writing, imagology, Pratt's idea of a contact zone, Edwards Said's concept of creative geography and as well as on post-colonial theory.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
1
The Great Wall of China in Polish and Serbian Travel Writings (from the
18th to the mid- 20th century)
Tomasz Ewertowski, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
This is a draft version of a chapter in the book Borders and Beyond. Orient-Occident Crossings in
Literature edited by Adam Bednarczyk, Magdalena Kubarek, Maciej Szatkowski, published in 2018
by Vernon Press, link: https://vernonpress.com/book/436
The topic of the paper is the image of the Great Wall of China in Polish and Serbian travel
writing. This construction is recognized as a historical border of China proper, which made it also
a border zone between sedentary, farming Chinese civilization and nomadic or semi-nomadic
peoples from the steppes and forests. In the paper we will analyze how the Great Wall was
presented by Polish and Serbian travelers, who wrote about China in the 18th, 19th and the first half
of the 20th century. We will concentrate not only on narratives a physical construction, but mostly
on cultural and axiological aspects of descriptions of the famous edifice. The methodology of
research is based on Vladimir Gvozden's concept of travel writing, imagology, Pratt's idea of a
contact zone, Edwards Said's concept of creative geography and as well as on post-colonial theory.
Key words
The Great Wall, China, imagology, postcolonialism, travel writing, borders
Introduction
A typical narrative about the Great Wall of China, which can be found on the UNESCO World
Heritage List website for one, maintains that the Wall is the only man-made structure visible from
the Moon, a structure that "was continuously built from the 3rd century BC to the 17th century AD",
boasting a total length of more than 20,000 kilometres, and whose "purpose was to protect China
from outside aggression, but also to preserve its culture from the customs of foreign barbarians"
(The Great Wall of China 2017). Information given by UNESCO should be trustworthy, however,
This work was supported by the National Centre of Science grant no. 2014/15/D/HS2/00801, Decision Number DEC-
2014/15/D/HS2/00801).
2
the oft-quoted statements here above are part of a widespread myth. Not only is the claim of
visibility from the Moon rejected (Hvistendahl 2008; López-Gil 2008), based on works of Arthur
Waldron (Waldron 1990) and Julie Lovell (Lovell 2006)
, such popular statements can be
confronted with opposing views among historians. This imposing brick wall, parts of which are
often visited by tourists, were built during the Ming dynasty (1368 –1644). The history of
construction of fortifications in northern China started more than 2000 years ago; however, the
famous wall of Qin Shi Huangdi is not the same as the brick fortifications observed today.
According to Waldron, problems appear already at the level of terminology. A Chinese expression
chang cheng (长城), with a literal meaning of "a long wall" and nowadays translated as the Great
Wall, appeared in Chinese sources from the 1st century BC. Still, the term was used to designate
any long wall. In the Ming period, when many of barriers (currently described as "The Great Wall
of China") were constructed, frontier fortresses were called jiu bian zhen (九边镇 ), "the nine border
garrisons" (Waldron 1990)
.
In stereotypical views, the Great Wall became a border between agricultural civilization and
"barbarian " nomads of the steppes, and helped preserve peace-loving Chinese from attacks.
However, such a point of view is an oversimplification. Interactions between nomadic and settled
societies were complicated, while trade may have had as big a significance as military conflicts.
Some Chinese dynasties stemmed from nomads. Furthermore, some walls were built far away from
farming territories, and may seem "less land-protecting than land grabbing" (Lovell 2006: 21).
The myth of the Great Wall can acquire various nuances. The structure is considered a symbol
of China and a prestigious trade mark, so it comes as no surprise to find brands of cars or wine
called "The Great Wall". Besides constituting a border between civilization and barbarism, it has
also taken on many other meanings:
'The Great Wall,' another wall theorist has projected, 'is not only to be understood as a barrier, but also as a river
uniting people of various ethnic background and providing them with a common haven and meeting place.' Luo
Zhewen, vice-president of the Chinese Great Wall Society, has transformed the wall into the ultimate multipurpose
historical mascot, declaring that it is simultaneously a product of feudal society and an inspiration for 'the Chinese
people to forge ahead on the road of constructing socialism with Chinese characteristics'; that it created the first unified,
centralized Chinese nation and helped build a multinational China (Lovell 2006: 13– 4).
Both of these books tackle the problem of the myth of the Great Wall; however, it should be emphasized that Lovell's
book, newer than Waldron's, is less original and more biased.
A quotation taken from an e-book provided by Amazon.com in azw format, hence page numbers are not given.
3
The structure can also have a negative meaning. Its construction is also seen as a waste of resources
and lives. Futility of fortifications is also emphasized, because many at times, these barriers did not
actually save China from conquerors. The ancient wall of Qin Shi Huangdi served in Chinese
literature as a figure of tyranny and cruelty. For instance, a legendary widow by the name of
Mengjiang broke the wall up by her sobbing and revealed bones of her husband and other workmen
who died trying to realize the will of the emperor. This legend was in an interesting way
reinterpreted during the Cultural Revolution. The first emperor was described as a visionary who
wanted to unite a country, and a widow was presented as a pro- Confucian reactionary and "Great
Poisonous Weed" (Waldron 1990).
Travelers on the Great Wall
In this paper, an analysis will be made of how Polish and Serbian travelogues in the period from
the 18th century until the middle of the 20th century interpreted the Wall and its myth
. Travel
writing can be seen as a textual trace of a journey, the outcome of a dialogue between the writer's
personality and intellectual judgement when faced with new experiences (Gvozden 2011).
Contemporary studies analyse links between travel writing and production of knowledge, imperial
rhetoric, and representation of other cultures (Said 1977; Pratt 2011; Spurr 1993; Huigen 2009)
.
The representation of China was analysed in general terms (Dawson 1967; Mackerras 1989; Spence
1998) or from the standpoint of a specific group in a particular period of time (Лукин 2007; Fogel
1996). By looking at writers from Poland and Serbia, it makes it possible to introduce an interesting
comparative perspective. Furthermore, Serbian and Polish authors are especially valuable for
analysis of the imperial dimension of travel writing and representation of China. In the period from
the 18th to the middle of the 20th century, Poland and Serbia did not participate in political, military
and economic exploitation of China; on the contrary, these countries themselves were subjected to
imperial manipulation. Nevertheless, Poles and Serbs often travelled to China while representing
foreign institutions. Hence, Polish and Serbian travelogues can allow for an interesting
ambivalence between imperialism and eurocentrism on the one hand, and sympathy towards
abused nation and aversion to great powers on the other.
For general information about Polish travelers in China, see Kajdański (2005) ; Kałuski (2001 ); Cyrzyk (1966). For
Serbian authors, see Pušić (1998; 2006).
It should be noted that the aforementioned works represent sometimes very different approaches, e.g. Huigen is very
critical of Pratt.
4
In the eyes of a diplomat
Probably, the first Serbian traveller who visited China was Sava Vladislavić (1668–1738). Ever
since he moved to Russia in 1708, he became involved in military affairs and achieved successes
in trade and diplomacy
. In 1725-1728, Vladislavić was a Russian envoy to China. This mission
ended with signing of the Treaty of Kyakhta, which is recognized as a very significant event
(Мясников 1990; Mancall 1971: 255). According to two secret points added to Vladislavić's
instructions, he was concerned with gathering intelligence (Бантыш- Каменский 1882: 434– 55) .
His findings are included in Секретная информация о силе и состоянии Китайского
государства ("The Secret Information on Strength and Situation of the Chinese State "), a secret
report, which has been called one of the most important pieces of writing on China (Мясников
2006: 442).
Vladislavić's text was an intelligence report, so more often than not he mentioned the Great
Wall within the context of possible military actions by the Russian army, as well as in the context
of Chinese history and the meaning of the Wall for Chinese politics, e.g. Chinese never sent an
army bigger than 50,000 beyond the Great Wall (Vladislavić 2011: 178–9). While writing on the
history of China, Vladislavić repeated , probably following his Jesuit sources, a widespread
assertion that the Wall was built during the reign of the Qin dynasty to save the country from Tatars.
Sava's remarks emphasized the enormity of the structure, its length and the number of people
involved in its construction (allegedly 60 million). The Serbian diplomat's intelligence report was
written in a dry manner, so adducing so many numbers can be seen as a sign of great interest in a
structure. As we will see, many travellers quoted numbers to express their admiration for the Great
Wall. It seems to be one of many examples of a common perception of China as a land of excess
(Kerr and Kuehn 2010: 1). The description of the structure was also a sign of respect, especially
when in other parts of his report Vladislavić was very Eurocentric, full of confidence in the power
of European armies and biased towards the "barbarian" Chinese
. Aleksandr Lukin does not
mention Sava in his analysis of Russian perception of China; however, the researcher's general
conclusion on Russian views of the Middle Kingdom in the 18th century can also be applied to that
of the Serbian diplomat: Russian Empire was perceived as part of a progressive European
civilization, to be contrasted with backward Asia (Лукин 2007: 46).
For biographical information about Sava Vladislavić, see Dučić (2004 ); Sindik (2012) ; Kosanović (2009) .
For a detailed analysis of Vladislavić's writings on China, see Ewertowski (2014).
5
Glorification of Chinese achievements
As a Serb serving on the Russian court, Vladislavić is an instance of accommodation to imperial
gaze. Another Serbian author, Milan Jovanović (1834‒1896), shows how a democratic and liberal
worldview can lead to a positive image of China
. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, Jovanović
travelled around the Mediterranean and Asia while working as a ship's doctor for the steamship
company Lloyd from Triest, hence his travels in Asia were conditioned by the steamship revolution
and European commercial expansion. The Serbian author represented liberal and humanistic ideas,
therefore he became very critical towards European imperialism
. His writings expressed a strong
sense of European identity, even though he was also willing to appreciate the achievements of
Asian civilizations, which led him to idealization of China and the Chinese. The Great Wall was
for Jovanović an example of the Middle Kingdom's greatness:
In his work, a Chinese does not ask how much time he will need: he works, and what he will not finish today, he will
continue tomorrow, and like that for many years, and if he dies while working, someone else will continue. This
continuity can be seen in any kind of work, and mainly in economy and literature, so these works have broad
fundaments. A book after a book like a canal after canal and its continuity there is a plan, which is executed by whole
generations. The Great Wall of China and Chinese literature have the same proportions (Jovanović 1895: 179)
.
In Jovanović's words, we can find an echo of stereotypes characteristic of Jesuit writings on China,
which emphasized rationality and efficiency, as well as the Middle Ages image of China as a land
of "richness and plent y " (Dawson 1967: 9–34).
A similar perspective can be found in the writings of a Polish author, Przecław Smolik (1877‒
1947). As an Austrian subject, he was taken prisoner by the Russians during the First World War,
lived in a POW camp in Siberia, and after the October Revolution was one of many Polish refugees
who came to China
. This author had a positive attitude towards East Asian peoples, and wrote
For Jovanović's life and work, see Tartalja (1984); Maksimović (2008) . On Jovanović's travel writing, see also
Kostadinović (2012) .
On Jovanović's attitude towards colonialism and the perception of China, see Ewertowski (2016).
All translations into English are our own, unless otherwise indicated. For the convenience of readers, all Serbian
Cyrillic texts have been transcribed into the Latin script. The original says: "U radu svom Hinez ne pita koliko će ga
ovaj stati vremena: on radi, pa što ne svrši danas, nastaviće sutra, pa tako kroza čitave godine, i ako ga u tome zateče
smrt – nastaviće neko drugi. Taj kontinuitet opaža se u svakoj vrsti rada a poglavito u ekonomnoj i književnoj, te su s
toga u njih ovi radovi na širokoj osnovici. Knjiga se ređa na knjigu, kao kanal na kanal, i u tome kontinuitetu ima plana
koji izvršuju čitave generacije. Hineski zid i hineska književnost jednake su proporcije".
Besides Smolik, a few other authors wrote travelogues based on their escape from revolutionary Russia to China,
e.g. Kamil Giżycki Przez Urianchaj i Mongolię. Wspomnienia z lat 1920- 21 and Ze Wschodu na Zachód. Listy z
podróży, Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski Przez kraj ludzi, zwierząt i bogów, Jerzy Bandrowski Przez jasne wrota .
General information on Polish migration in East Asia due to the war and revolution can be found in Cabanowski (1993:
42– 72) ; Kałuski (2001: 97– 104). A migration movement caused by the First World War and Russian revolution
included Serbs and other Yugoslavian nationals. E.g. Aleksandar Đurić, Ka pobedi, Jovan Milanković, Uspomene iz
6
books about Buryats and Mongols. Smolik observed fortifications in Mukden (nowadays
Shenyang), the old capitol of Manchu state, which today are not considered part of the Ming Great
Wall itself. Nevertheless, an observation of local ramparts prompted the Polish author to write a
discourse, linking it with the myth of the Great Wall. "What I saw, even today makes an imposing
impression, a structure built by giants, next to which remains of our Middle Ages fortifications (…)
look like children toys"
(Smolik 1921: 131). Similar to Jovanović's account, the Wall was
perceived as a symbol of great achievements of the Chinese civilization, which dwarfed European
buildings. It revealed that the Middle Kingdom's inhabitants, masters of crafts and manual skills,
were also able to construct huge barriers to defend themselves from "wild barbarians". Bas ed on
these assumptions, he formulated this generalization of the Chinese:
(…) gentle and cheerful as a child, and as a child honest; diligent over any European merits, attached to his family and
his land (…), bred as sand in a sea and populate still new virgin and barren lands of Asia, in front of which a white
man falls back, and where he [a Chinese] quietly brings his wonderful, eternal culture (…). Indeed this nation deserves
appreciation and imitation, in spite of bad smell of garlic and bean oil
.
Smolik glorified the Chinese, also dealing with aspects of everyday life, which often were criticized
(e.g. bad smell). Comparisons with Europe are also very important. In the previously quoted
fragment, the Great Wall was dwarfing European fortifications, now Chinese traits, which allowed
them to build the majestic structure, are presented as enabling them to colonize lands inhabitable
for Europeans. Being very favourable to the Chinese, the analysed account still remains in the
framework of European imperial discourse. As David Spurr points out, at the end of the classical
period, classification moved to assessment of "a character based on the internal principle" (Spurr
1993: 63). While observing a phenomena, a deep root is being looked for. "Such a system of
understanding— one that orders natural beings according to function and establishes a hierarchy
based on internal character—has consequences for the classification of human races in the Western
mind" (Spurr 1993: 63). Smolik is prompted by an observation of the Wall to classify its builders
and in the process prescribing some essential characteristics to them.
Sibira 1918‒1919 i put okeanom u domovinu 1920, Vlada Stanojević, Moje ratne beleške i slike, Ariton Mihailović,
Kroz plamen ruske revolucije.
„To, co zobaczyłem, czyni jeszcze dziś wrażenie imponujące, budowli, przez gigantów stawianej, przy której resztki
naszych średniowiecznych fortyfikacyj (…) wyglądają jak chłopięce igraszki!".
„Chińczyk (…) łagodny i wesoły, jak dziecię i jak tylko dziecię dziś u nas uczciwy; pracowity ponad wszelką naszą
europejską miarę, przywiązany gorąco do rodziny i do swej ziemi, (…) rozmnaża się niby piasek w morzu, i zaludnia
wciąż nowe dziewicze i jałowe przestrzenie Azji, przed któremi cofa się biały człowiek ze strachem, i w które wnosi
on cicho swą cudowną, odwieczną kulturę, (…). Zaiste — naród to godny, by go uwielbiać i naśladować, pomimo
niemiłego zapachu czosnku i oleju z bobów (…)".
7
Finally, the Polish traveller presented a sharp criticism of European imperialism that is also
analogical to Jovanović's views. He wrote that in vain "a white barbarian" was trying to teach the
Chinese how to kill, East Asians are a great nation without such instincts (Smolik 1921: 132). A
moral, social and state discipline made the Chinese human, while "white tigers from the West"
were not humanized by Christianity even after two thousand years (Smolik 1921: 133). By
describing Europeans as "barbarians", Smolik seemed to adopt a Chinese point of view; however,
it should be noted that he also projected Western ideas onto China. Colonizing new lands, civilizing
mission and humanism are seen as merits of value. Furthermore, his views on the Chinese can be
treated as a reinvention of a "noble savage". He appreciated the achievements of Chinese
civilization, but while writing on people he used a patronizing tone, calling "a Chinese" a child
who did not know the value of his deeds. As Spurr states, Western writers' idealization of extra-
European peoples in a "noble savage" style was often prompted by a crisis in their own culture, so
Smolik's apotheosis of the Chinese can be linked with experiencing the horrors of the First World
War. Criticism of the West and glorification of China were conducted from within a Western
worldview, which is not surprising, considering that his stay in East Asia was a relatively short
episode in Smolik's life.
Emphasizing Chinese troubles
An inversion of the thoughts of Jovanović and Symonolewicz can be found in a description of
a trip to the Great Wall written by the well-known Polish architect Stefan Bryła (1886‒1943) from
his book Daleki Wschód (" The Far East"). This author also used the Great Wall to formulate a
general conclusion on the Chinese culture, however, his assessment was totally different. Bryła
visited a section of the Great Wall near Beijing. His account began with the description of a
landscape and esteem for a fascinating setting. Yet a closer examination of the structure led to a
claim of its futility.
Its [the Wall's] cobbled surface is made out of big, mighty stones. They still hold, however mosses and weeds have
squeezed among them; and time started to bite them. It has made huge breaches already (…). Guards do not stand at
the gate. The wall is just a trace and a witness to a giant, not very productive work, but will not fulfil its role. It did not
fulfil it in days of yore, two and a half centuries ago!
(Bryła 1923: 178)
„Bruk jego z wielkich potężnych kamieni. Jeszcze trzymają się, ale już wcisnęły się pomiędzy nie mchy i chwasty;
a czas je gryźć poczyna. Wyrwy poczynił już wielkie (…). U bramy straż już nie stoi. Mur jest tylko śladem i
świadkiem ogromnej, niezbyt produkcyjnej pracy, ale roli swej spełnić już me zdoła. Nie zdołał jeszcze ongi przed
pół-trzecia wiekiem!".
8
During the trip, while observing Chinese workers and comparing them with his experience in
America, the architect-turned-writer claimed that the Chinese did not know how to work, because
their diligence was just a routine repetition. Where Smolik and Jovanović praised diligence and
perseverance, Bryła just saw a lack of innovation. Jovanović extolled a continuity in Chinese work,
Bryła despised it, saying that small toys started by a grandfather and finished by a grandson resulted
in disrespect for time and punctuality (Bryła 1923: 181). This is also reflected in thinking about the
Great Wall. Smolik saw it as a great structure which protected China from barbarians and
overshadowed European fortifications, whereas Bryła emphasized the fact that the Wall was in
ruins and had been ineffective. The architect's disquisition was crowned by his consideration of
the Wall as a symbol of Chinese backwardness and isolation. Between the Middle Kingdom and
the rest of the World, there was the Great Wall of China, stronger than a stone one, which had not
been crossed yet. The Chinese must demolish it themselves (Bryła 1923: 182). Using the Wall as
a symbol of barriers preventing communication between the Middle Kingdom and the world is also
found in the works of another Polish traveller, the well-known sinologist Witold Jabłoński (1901‒
1957);
however, this author wrote about "the wall of our prejudices": "Then thousands of our
prejudices and biases separated us from China as a wall more unreachable than the famous Great
Wall of China"
(Jabłoński 1958: 201).
A sublime experience
Works of Jovanović, Smolik, and Bryła used the Great Wall as a pretext to make general
statements about the Chinese civilization. This dimension is also present in an account by Milutin
Velimirović (1893‒1973), but a dominant feature in this author's is emotions. Velimirović stayed
in China in 1918 as a member of the Russian-Mongolian trade mission, and in this period he also
visited Mongolia and Japan (Pušić 2006: 129– 30) . Descriptions of the Great Wall can be found in
two Velimirović's travelogues – Kroz Kinu ("Through China") and Po Japanu i Mongoliji ("In
Japan and Mongolia")
. The most interesting is a fragment from the first book:
The Great Wall of China is one of the wonders of the world, created by human hand. It leaves extraordinary and heavy
impression; a thought is strange itself, that the Wall spreads for three thousand kilometres, winding on mountain slopes
and crossing streams and deserts, and was built 230 years BC.
On Jabłoński's biography and research, see Golik (2009).
„Wtedy tysiące naszych uprzedzeń i przesądów oddzielało nas od Chin murem bardziej niedostępnym niż słynny
Mur Chiński".
For more on the image of China in Velimirović's works, see Ewertowski (2015).
9
This Great Wall, which is above 11 meters high and on which a few carriages can pass each other, was to defend China
against invasions (…) (Velimirović 1930: 23)
.
Even if Velimirović reproduced information that are analogical to others', still his emotional tone
made a difference. He admired the Wall, but simultaneously he was overwhelmed by its enormity.
This feeling can be described by the theory of the sublime. The sublime creates excitement and
may appear to contravene the limits of one's power of judgment, and thus called an outrage on the
imagination (Kant 2004: 132). The greatness of the Wall is such an outrage, so it left on Velimirović
quite a heavy and extraordinary impression. Later, he also claimed that the majesty of the Wall was
transformed into "incomprehensibility" (Velimirović 1930: 24).
Still, there was one aspect of the structure which gave Velimirović bad feelings. He mentioned
that not seldom workers rioted because of hunger. Unrests were brutally quashed and hundreds of
men were buried in the Wall.
Nevertheless, his final words on the ramparts are full of appreciation. He even stated that their
grandeur and boldness could be compared only with canals on the surface of Mars, thus elevating
the structure to an interplanetary level. Furthermore, contrary to Bryła's thought about the
destruction of a barrier, Velimirović claimed that even if ancient walls were not in good shape,
damage was caused by people, not by time. Thus, to Velimirović the Great Wall was a timeless
monument, and he remarked that only Chinese patience and workforce can accomplish such a
colossal work. In this way, he classified the essence of the Chinese national character on the basis
of observations of the Great Wall, as with other authors before him.
In terms of emotions, we can compare his account with the passionate words of a Polish
aristocrat, Paweł Sapieha (1860‒1934), who travelled through Asia in 1888‒1889. Sapieha made
a journey from China to Mongolia and observed various fortifications, all of which are treated as
Chinese walls. The most interesting is a fragment devoted to "the furthest, the oldest, great wall of
China": "Unheard, magnificent view. We are on a great altitude, I am sitting under a half-ruined,
completely black fort, under my foot [there is] this ancient wall, today only a heap of blacked stones
marks a place where the wall was"
(Sapieha 1899: 307). Then followed the description of a
„Veliki kineski zid ‒ to je jedno od zemaljskih čuda, koje je stvoreno čovečjom rukom! On ostavlja neobičan i težak
utisak; čudnovata je i sama pomisao da se taj zid prostire u dužinu od 3300 kilometara, vijugajući po planinskim
kosama i prolazeći preko strmeni i pustinje, a da je sagrađen 230 god. pre Hrista!/ Taj Veliki zid, koji je visok preko
11 metara i na komes e, na bedemu mogu nekoliko kola mimoići, trebao je da zaštiti Kinu od najezda (…)".
„Widok niesłychany, przepyszny. Jesteśmy na wysokości ogromnej; siedzę pod rozwalonym na poły, zupełnie
zczerniałym karaułem; u stóp moich ów prastary mur, dziś już kupa kamieni zczerniałych, znaczy zaledwie miejsce
gdzie stał mur".
10
scenery: "(…) further away there are mountains, rocks are pilling over terraces higher and higher,
up to the clouds, from which far away, (…) magnificent, sapphire peaks are protruding – they are
probably the Himalayas!"
(Sapieha 1899: 307). According to Grażyna Królikiewicz, within
romantic perception, ruins belonged simultaneously to culture and nature, and contemplation of
them showed a mechanism of memory and imagination (Królikiewicz 1993). We can see it in
Sapieha's account. His imagination, impressed by a crumbling wall and scenery, was able to take
in the Himalayas despite the fact that they were a few thousand kilometres away. This incomparable
experience is expressed once again at the end of the fragment which is devoted to the Wall:
I have never seen in my life anything equal to this view, anything so touching. After all I had a third of Asia at my feet,
in front of my eyes: these two colossuses, China and Mongolia. Behind Mongolia, one can feel also the third: "holy"
Russia (…) I admit that sitting there and watching and involuntarily looking, if somewhere in this expanse I will not
see the lord of these worlds, the Satan, I was trembling as a leaf – if because of cold, or because of emotions, let others
judge; but only they, who can look at such colossuses and expanses with an eye different from an ordinary tourist
.
Analogic to Velimirović, the Wall and the view from it gave Sapieha a feeling of the sublime,
which overwhelmed the subject, so he felt deeply moved and vulnerable, "trembling as a leaf".
Postcolonial analysis of writings concerning the observation of a landscape introduces a rhetoric
gesture: "monarch of all I survey" (Spurr 1993: 17–9; Pratt 2011: 283–92). In this kind of stylistic
manner, a writer proceeds with aesthetic or economic valorization of the landscape before turning
a foreign country into a painting, thus expressing the idea of domination. Some aspects of this
rhetoric can be seen in Sapieha's account, however his writing lacks a strong colonial subject.
Sapieha was not a Victorian explorer with the ideology of the British empire in his backpack, but
rather a romantic-minded traveller, concentrated even overwhelmed by a subjective experience of
the sublime. This kind of sensitivity is also expressed by a contrast between the elitist outlook of
the traveller and the ordinary gaze of the tourist. This dichotomy is typical for 19th century and 20th
century travel writing, and is often used to emphasize the distinction between a subject and "others"
in many fields, including class (Gvozden 2011: 187–207). As might well be expected, Sapieha, an
aristocrat, presented himself as a sensible traveller in opposition to the ordinary run-of -the- mill
„(…).dalej znowu góry, skały piętrzą się terasami coraz wyżej aż pod chmury, z których (…) sterczą szafirowe teraz,
przepyszne szczyty — to już chyba Himalaje!".
„Nic równego jak ten widok, nic tak przejmującego w życiu nie widziałem. Wszak prawie trzecią część Azyi miałem
u stóp, przed oczami: te dwa kolosy, Chiny i Mongolię. Za Mongolią czuć mimowoli trzeciego: Rosyę «świętą»! (…)
Wyznaję, że siedząc tu i patrząc i mimowoli szukając, czy gdzie w tem przestworzu nie ujrzę unoszącego się pana tych
światów, szatana, dygotałem jak listek — czy z zimna, czy ze wzruszenia, niech osądzą inni; ale ci tylko, co umieją
na takie kolosy i przestworza innem jak zwykłem okiem turysty spoglądać".
11
tourist
. Another very interesting figure is the reference to Satan as "the lord of these worlds".
Such a formula adds sublimity to a described landscape in a way that can be associated with dark
romanticism's convention. It can also be read as the reflex of a tradition which has its roots in the
Middle Ages, in which distant Asian lands were presented as belonging to evil powers.
Imaginative history and geography
Another author who modified geography while standing on the Wall was Roman Fajans (1903–
1976), one of the most highly regarded Polish reporters of the 1930s (Szczygieł 2015: 261). This
journalist visited China in 1937–1938. In his book W Chinach znowu wojna ("A war in China once
again"), he described a trip to a section of the Great Wall next to Beijing. He was very impressed
by the landscape, but analogical to Bryła he wrote that the fortifications were empty. They were
regarded by him as an effect of the emperor's despotic whim (Fajans 1939: 312), a waste of
resources. But had it not been for the emperor's urge, "w e would not have had one of the greatest
and most picturesque panoramas in the world" (Fajans 1939: 313)
. The view is breath-taking:
"looking towards four sides of the world, we gaze towards the Mongolian steppe and towards Che-
li, towards Tibet and the fertile lowlands of Southern China" (Fajans 1939: 313)
.
Fajans had a double point of view. On the one hand, in terms of rational analysis he saw the
Wall as the emperor's useless extravagance and a place of suffering for his people. On the other
hand, he was deeply impressed by the aesthetic qualities of the structure, and in a way similar to
Sapieha he imagined a new geography, linking distant lands. To some extent, it can be seen as an
effect of a strong connection between the Wall and the idea of the border. Looking at the structure
with this idea in mind could have inspired such an imaginative geography, in which fortifications
became a boundary between faraway territories.
In the works of Fajans and Sapieha, we encountered examples of an imaginative geography, and
in the Serbian traveller Miodrag Rajčević's account we met an imaginative history. Of course, as
Hayden White shows, history is in general a narration, so inevitably it involves storytelling and
imagination. Most of the analysed authors reproduced popular myths about the structure, and they
could not be blamed for it, because they simply used knowledge that were available to them at the
time. However, if we agree that imaginative geography and history "help the mind to intensify its
For a different interpretation of this scene, see Mazan (2010).
„jednej z najpotężniejszych i najbardziej malowniczych panoram, jakie istnieją na świecie".
„Widok za to jest z góry niezrównany: patrząc w cztery strony świata, spoglądamy ku mongolskim stepom i ku Cze-
li, ku przedpolom Tybetu i ku żyznym nizinom Chin południowych".
12
own sense of itself by dramatizing the distance and difference between what is close to it and what
is far away" (Said 1977: 55), then Rajčević can be singled out because his travelogue contained the
best example of such a process of intensifying one's identity, even if his method is about linking,
rather than dramatizing, the difference. This Serbian author was a globetrotter who travelled around
the world in the first half of the 20th century for several years. While writing about the Great Wall,
Rajčević revived a famous myth that Rome fell because China built the Wall, thereby redirecting
the Huns to the West. Rajčević went even further, implicitly linking all historical invasions from
Asia to Europe with the building of the Wall, claiming that because of those Chinese fortifications,
the Serbs had been subjected to Turkish rule since the 1389 battle of Kosovo (Rajčević 1930: 113–
4). An imaginative history of the Wall even became a trigger for the expression of Serbian identity.
In the eyes of a reporter
The last author to be examined is another reporter, but also a poet and editor, Aleksander Janta-
Połczyński (1908‒1974), who wrote two books in the 1930s about his travels in Asia: Ziemia jest
okrągła ("The Earth is round") and Na kresach Azji ("On the frontiers of Asia")
. More attention
is paid to the Wall in Na kresach Azji. Janta recognized that the Wall could make a big impression,
but his attitude is to some extent different from the other authors in that he is more critical towards
stereotypes. He wrote that while seeing the Wall for the third time in his life, he laughed at some
news about fortifications from the European press, e.g. about the idea of building a highway on top
of the structure (Janta-Połczyński 1939: 173). And while giving information about its visibility
from Mars, he indicated his source for it, Hendrik van Loon's Geography. The writer was surprised
that there had been no expedition along the whole Wall, from Shanhaiguan onto the depths of
Mongolia, where the Wall allegedly ends. According to Janta, such an expedition could have
discovered how long and how full of tangles of fortifications the wall truly is. His research interest
and scepticism set him apart from the other authors. Nonetheless, we can still notice some
inaccuracies, e.g. the expedition described by Janta had already been conducted at the beginning
of the 20th century (Geil 1909).
Conclusion
The written accounts analysed above have a number of common features, especially the
repetition of historical myths or being impressed by the sheer size and length of the Wall, along
For more information on Janta-Połczyński, see Palowski (1990) .
13
with its spectacular setting. However, the authors' views seem to be determined by their individual
predilections, personalities, as well as their social and intellectual background. The best example
is a comparison of Bryła's criticisms with either Smolik's or Jovanović's idealisation. Writers of
romantic sensibility are more emotional and can be carried away by the sublimity of any such
fortifications, e.g. Velimirović and Sapieha. Imaginative history and geography of the Wall can
enhance the subject's identity, the most telling example being the Serbian traveller, Rajčević. In
the field of imperial rhetoric, authors whose identities are strongly linked with the powers that be
at the time seem to be much more critical towards the Chinese and are full of self-confidence, e.g.
Vladislavić. This variety of approaches is not insignificant. Robert Dawson once titled his book on
the European perceptions of China as "The Chinese Chameleon"; as it turned out, the Great Wall
has also proven to be one such chameleon.
Bibliography
BRYŁA , Stefan (1923). Daleki Wschód. Lwów: Księgarnia Naukowa.
CABANOWSKI , Marek (1993). Tajemnice Mandżurii. Polacy w Harbinie. Warszawa: Muzeum Niepodległości.
CYRZYK , Leszek (1966). "Literatura podróżnicza o Chinach w Polsce XIX w.". Przegląd Orientalistyczny 3: 205 –16.
DAWSON , Raymond (1967). The Chinese Chameleon. An Analysis of European Conceptions of Chinese Civilisation .
New York: Oxford University Press.
DUČIĆ , Jo van (2004). Grof Sava Vladislavić: jedan Srbin diplomat na dvoru Petra Velikog i Katarine I. Valjevo: Glas
crkve.
EWERTOWSKI , Tomasz (2014). "Slika Kine u «Tajnoj informaciji o snazi i stanju kineskog carstva» Save Vladislavića".
Dositejev vrt 2: 71–93.
EWERTOWSKI , Tomasz (2015). "Cultural Exchange between China and the West from the Perspectve of Two Eastern
European Travelers – Travelogues of Milutin Velimirovic and Konstanty Symonolewicz". In: Disan jie "li ma dou
xie Zhongwen hua jiaoliu" guoji xueshu yan guo hui/kuai lunwen ji. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-Sen University Press.
EWERTOWSKI , Tomasz (2016). "The Image of the Chinese in the Southeast Asian Contact Zone. National Comparisons
in the Travelogues of Milan Jovanović and Władysław Michał Zaleski". Imagologiya i komparativistika 2: 40 –57.
FAJANS , Roman (1939). W Chinach znowu wojna... Warszawa: Rój.
FOGEL , Joshua (1996). The Literature of Travel in the Japanese Rediscovery of China. 1862-1945. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
GEIL , William Edgar (1909). The Great Wall of China. New York: Sturgis&Walton Company.
GOLIK , Katarzyna (2009). "Witold Jabłoński ‒ niesłusznie zapomniany polski sinolog". Azja-Pacyfik 12: 218‒229.
GVOZDEN , Vladimir (2011). Srpska putopisna kultura 1914–1940. Studija o hronotopičnosti susreta . Beograd:
Službeni glasnik.
HUIGEN , Siegfried (2009). Knowledge and Colonialism: Eighteenth-century Travellers in South Africa. Leiden; Boston.
HVISTENDAHL , Mary (2008). Is China's Great Wall Visible from Space? Scientific American. On line publication
14
available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is?chinas?great?wall?visible?from?space, accessed 8
April 2017.
JABŁOŃSKI , Witold (1958). "Przed ćwierćwieczem po niezmierzonych obszarach Chin (1932)", Ze wspomnień
podróżników. Ed. Bolesław O LSZEWSKI. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
JANTA -POŁCZYŃSKI , Aleksander (1939). Na kresach Azji. Warszawa: Rój.
JOVANOVIĆ , Milan (1895). Tamo amo po istoku. Sveska druga. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga.
KAJDAŃSKI , Edward (2005). Długi cień wielkiego muru: jak Polacy odkrywali Chiny . Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
KAŁUSKI , Marian (2001). Polacy w Chinach. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX.
KANT , Immanuel (2004). Krytyka władzy sądzenia. Trans. Jerzy GAŁECKI . Warszawa: PWN.
Kapija od žada. Putopisi Srba o Kini: 1725-1935 (1998). Ed. Radosav PUŠIĆ . Beograd: Biblioteka grada; Želnid.
KERR , Douglas , KUEHN Julia (2010). "Introduction". In: A Century of Travels in China. Critical Essays on Travel
Writing from the 1840s to the 1940s . Ed. Douglas KERR, Julia KUEHN. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
KOSANOVIĆ , Bogdan (2009). Sava Vladislavić-Raguzinski u svom i našem vremenu. Beograd: Svet knjige.
KOSTADINOVIĆ , Aleksandar (2012). "Putnička projekcija intime (putopisna priča Milana Jovanovića Morskog)". In:
Filologija i univerzitet. Tematski zbornik radova . Ed. Bojana DIMITRIJEVIĆ . Niš: Filozofski fakultet.
KRÓLIKIEWICZ , Grażyna (1993). Terytorium ruin. Ruina jako obraz i temat romantyczny . Kraków: Universitas.
LOVELL , Julia (2006). The Great Wall. China against the World 1000 BC - AD 2000. New York: Grove Press.
LÓPEZ-GIL , Norberto (2008). "Is it Really Possible to See the Great Wall of China from Space with a Naked Eye?".
Journal of Optometry 1: 3–4.
MACKERRAS , Colin (1989). Western Images of China. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
MAKSIMOVIĆ , Goran (2008). "Putopisna proza Milana Jovanovića Morskog". Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i
jezik LVI: 623–38.
MANCALL , Mark (1971). Russia and China: their diplomatic relations to 1728 . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
MAZAN , Bogdan (2010). "„Opisać… niepodobna". Z notat podróżnych arystokraty galicyjskiego o Chinach końca
XIX wieku (Paweł Sapieha „Podróż na wschód Azji 1888‒1889")". In: Europejczyk w podróży 1850‒1939. Ed.
Ewa Ihnatowicz, Stefan Ciara. Warszawa: Neriton.
PALOWSKI , Franciszek (1990). Aleksander Janta-Połczyński. Ballada o wiecznym szukaniu . Warszawa: PWN.
Podnebesko carstvo. Srbi o Kini 1725-1940 (putopisi i članci) (2006). Ed. Radosav PUŠIĆ. Beograd: Čigoja štampa.
PRATT , Mary Louise (2011). Imperialne spojrzenie: pisarstwo podróżnicze a transkulturacja . Trans. Ewa Elżbieta
NOWAKOWSKA . Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
RAJČEVIĆ , Milorad (1930). Na Dalekom Istoku. Beograd: Štamparija 'Đura Jakšić'.
SAID , Edward (1977). Orientalism . London: Penguin.
SAPIEHA , Paweł (1899). Podróż na wschód Azyi. Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmidta.
SINDIK , Dušan (2012). "Zanimljivosti iz života grofa Save Vladislavića". Glas 420. Beograd: SANU, Odeljenje
istorijskih nauka: 197–208.
SMOLIK , Przecław (1921). Przez lądy i oceany. Sześć lat na Dalekim Wschodzie . Warszawa: Księgarnia J.
Czarneckiego.
15
SPENCE , Jonathan (1998). The Chan's Great Continent. China in Western Minds . London: W.W. Norton.
SPURR , David (1993). The Rhetoric of Empire. Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing, and Imperial
Administration.
TARTALJA , Ivo (1984). "Jedan zaboravljen majstor srpske proze iz perioda ranog realizma". Naučni sastanak slavista
u Vukove dane, Zbornik radova 13/2: 129–36.
The Great Wall of China (2017). On line publication available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/438, accessed April 8,
2017.
VELIMIROVIĆ , Milutin (1930). Kroz Kinu: putopis. Beograd: S. B. Cvijanović.
VLADISLAVIĆ , Sava (2011). Tajna informacija o snazi i stanju kineske države. Секретная информація о силě и
состояніи китайскаго государства. Ed. Vladimir DAVIDOVIĆ . Beograd: Radio-televizija Srbije.
WALDRON , Arthur (1990). The Great Wall of China. From History to Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
БАНТЫШ - КАМЕНСКИЙ , НИКОЛАЙ (1882). Дипломатическое собрание дел между российским и китайским
государствами с 1619 по 1792 гг. Казань: Типография Императорского Университета.
ЛУКИН , АЛЕКСАНДР В ЛАДИМИРОВИЧ (2007). Медведь наблюдает за драконом. Образ Китая в России в XVII-
XXI веках. Москва: Восток -Запад: АСТ.
МЯСНИКОВ , Владимир Степанович (1990). "Посольство С. Л. Владиславича-Рагузинского в Пекин". In: Русско-
китайские отношения в XVIII веку. Том II. 1725– 1727 . Ed. Владимир Степанович Мясников. Москва: Наука.
Русско- китайские отношения в XVIII веку. Том III . 1727‒1729 (2006). Ed . Владимир Степанович Мясников.
Москва: Российская Академия Наук, Институт Дальнего Востока. Министерство Иностранных Дел РФ,
Историко- документальный департамент. Федеральное Агентство Архивов РФ.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
-
![Tomasz Ewertowski]()
This work was supported by the National Centre of Science Project China in Polish and Serbian travel writing [from the beginning of the 18th century to the middle of the 20th century] no. 2014/15/D/HS2/00801, Decision Number DEC-2014/15/D/HS2/00801.
-
![Siegfried Huigen]()
The establishment of a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope in the seventeenth century and an expansion of the sphere of colonial influence in the eighteenth century made South Africa the only part of sub-Saharan Africa where Europeans could travel with relative ease deep into the interior. As a result individuals with scientific interests in Africa came to the Cape. This book examines writings and drawings of scientifically educated travellers, particularly in the field of ethnography, against the background of commercial and administrative discourses on the Cape. It is argued that the scientific travellers benefited more from their relationship with the colonial order than the other way around. Reviews: British Journal for the History of Science (Saul Dubow, History Dept., University of Sussex), Internationale Neerlandistiek (Samira Sassi, Dutch Dept., University of Oldenburg), Isis (Alette Fleischer, Department of History of Science & Technology, University of Twente), Centaurus: Journal for the European Society for the History of Science (James E. McClellan III, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey), Werkwinkel (Ryszard Bartnik, Dept. of English, University of Poznan), South African Historical Journal (Wayne Dooling, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London), Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Missiongeschichte (Ulrich van der Heyden), Humboldt Universität, Berichte für Wissenschaftsgeschichte (S. Müller-Wille, University of Exeter); Etudes littéraires africaines (Nicholas Brucker, Université de Lorraine).
Posted by: lamontlamontriggense0270329.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329056691_The_Great_Wall_of_China_in_Polish_and_Serbian_Travel_Writings_from_the_18_th_to_the_mid-20_th_century
0 Comments