The author studied History and English philology in Hamburg and Edinburgh. This book is an amended version of her doctoral dissertation led by a leading expert on early-medieval studies, Hans-Werner Goetz, who has focused on medieval perception and imagination within a comparative perspective ("Vorstellungsgeschichte") over the past few decades. Although the choice of topic was most probably influenced by Goetz, the author maintained her independence and presented a critical approach to the existing concepts of otherness and foreignness, formulated, among others, by her "Doktorvater".
The author attempts to decipher different layers/aspects of constructing foreignness in the Chronicle of the Czechs/Bohemians and in the Deeds of the Princes of Poles. These two chronicles, introduced to the reader by Aurast based on the latest research, were written in two neighboring principalities—Piast Poland and the Přemyslid Czech lands—and at the same time (1110s and 1120s); both authors divided their texts into three books. Whereas Cosmas of Prague was a native member of the high secular clergy who became head of the Prague cathedral chapter, the anonymous author (Gallus Anonymous) of the Polish chronicle, most probably a Benedictine monk, came to Poland via the kingdom of Hungary, and according to the latest linguistic analysis received his education somewhere in northern Italy. Gallus Anonymous was supported by influential Polish magnates, the palatine Skarbmir and former tutor of the ruling prince, and his brother, Chancellor Michael. The focus of his chronicle changes from book to book—the first book is a mixture of the history of the principality and the origo of the dynasty; in the latter two books the chronicle mainly praises the (military) deeds of Boleslaus III the Wry-mouthed (1102-1138). He not only intended to write an apology for the death of Boleslaus's half-brother Zbygniew, but aimed at contextualizing Polish history within the history of Christianity; his chronicle also presented the ideal of a prince and could be understood as a mirror of princes. Cosmas was probably born into a priestly family and received his education in Liège. However, he was not influenced by the Gregorian reform—he was married and was the father of a son, Henry. He wrote his chronicle on his own as the story of a nation with the origo gentis of the people and dynasty, which he defined geographically (the borders of Bohemia) and politically (Přemyslid leadership; patronage of St Wenceslas) and placed this within the context of the history of Christianity. However, the greatest attention was reserved for princes and bishops. Based on the similarity in genre and time when the texts were written, as well as their place of origin in the peripheral zones of twelfth-century Latin Christianity, this makes them good candidates for comparison, as Aurast, like many scholars before her, has convincingly demonstrated.
The introductory chapters provide readers with the basic methodological and terminological framework. Aurast critically discusses the latest research on foreignness in medieval studies and has been inspired in particular by Zygmunt Bauman and Bernd Waldenfels. She identifies four levels of foreignness (Fremdheit). From her perspective, foreign could be 1) someone who does not belong to my group, or 2) something which belongs to someone who does not belong to my group, or 3) someone or something we do not know/are not familiar with or 4) which we do not understand. There might also be partial reasons for foreignness, which might be caused by distance, or defined ethnically, politically, by religion/faith, culturally or by language and socially. All of these aspects can be combined. Aurast's definition of four levels of foreignness and her identification of its main sources offers a very nuanced approach to the topic.
This is followed by two chapters of similar length, where the author discusses separately the foreignness in both chronicles based on the detailed categorization introduced above. However, it has to be emphasized that most of the analysis is related to the first category (someone who does not belong to my group); most of the text here is dedicated to ethnically or politically foreign people. Therefore, the author starts her analysis of Gallus Anonymous with an attempt to recognize the groups that the anonymous chronicler identified with—these were the Polish elites and the Polish lands, the monastic community, the Catholic Church as an institution and Christianity as the group of faithful, but not the Polish clergy. The author demonstrates that Gallus Anonymous's foreignness was aimed primarily at evoking negative connotations. Discrediting foreigners, especially the hated Bohemians and partly also the Germans, was part of the author's strategy which helped Gallus Anonymous to defend his main character, Boleslaus III the Wry-Mouthed. Similarly, the Ruthenians ware portrayed as fools. In the case of the Pomeranians or Prussians, which is discussed twice by Aurast, the ethnical and political differences were strengthened by the difference in their faith and the fact that they were victims of the expansion of the main character of the chronicle—their negative image was in order to legitimize Polish expansion. The only foreigners who had a positive image were Hungarians, who had been allies of the Poles for most of the time. Aurast insists that language was not emphasized by the author as a source of foreignness. The traditional image of the prince as a protector of the weak, among them also foreigners, also resonates in the chronicle. As something unknown, foreignness might have played the role of something fascinating, but also dangerous. Foreignness as incomprehensible was used by the chronicle to examine the deeds the God and his intercessions in worldly affairs.
In the analysis of Cosmas's chronicle, the central part of the text is also dedicated to the first category (someone who does not belong to my group), although Aurast also examines those who were different politically, ethnically and by religion. Her analysis of Cosmas's positive identifications reveals that he considered it important that the Bohemian polity was defined by its language, the community of Prague canons, the community of the faithful, and mankind. Distance plays a more important role for Cosmas compared to the Polish chronicler, and Aurast is convinced that this was due to the mountains which clearly defined the borders of Bohemia, so strongly stressed by Cosmas himself as the natural borders of Bohemia. Interestingly, in Cosmas's chronicle, the Polish play the role of archenemies; Cosmas's image of the Germans is less harsh, where the negative comments are followed by more positive ones. As in the Polish chronicle, the image of the Hungarians is mostly positive. The Jews, to whom Cosmas pays a great deal of attention, constitute the primary religious group which constitutes a potential threat to the Christian community. Compared to the Polish chronicler, Cosmas is also more interested in the "pagans," especially the Bohemians of the past. According to Aurast, in Cosmas's narrative of the Bohemian past, the chronicler emphasized those pagan virtues which made them more akin to the Christians. Unlike the Polish chronicler, Cosmas understands language as an important sign of an ethnical group, and he wanted to distinguish the Bohemians from the Germans, but not from the Poles or even the Hungarians. Even for Cosmas, foreignness as something distant and unfamiliar might be the source of potential threat. Like the Polish chronicler, Cosmas sees the incomprehensible as the supernatural and God and his holy men and women. The image of foreignness was always part of a complex narrative strategy, it was the result of a specific situation and had a diverse function within the narrative.
The author explains the differences between the chronicles as the result of the different origin of the authors (the native Cosmas as opposed to Gallus Anonymous coming from outside), the different geographical position of Poland and the Czech lands, and by the different political situations (the Czech lands ripped apart due to the struggles among the Přemyslids). The Czech lands did not have pagan neighbors, therefore, the role of possible "religious foreignness" must have been played by the Jews; pagans, on the contrary, were primarily the ancestors of the Christian Bohemians, whose virtues Cosmas tried to define. Stress on foreignness through not belonging to the group which was shared both chroniclers was, according to her, caused by the need to define their own identity by distinguishing themselves from the neighbors.
In her book, Aurast reflects on the central scholarly literature not only in German or English, but also in Slavic languages, which has not always been the case, and helps her to contextualize her research within the regional scholarly discourse. All her conclusions are well documented and convincingly demonstrated. The mistakes are rare—e. g. the chronicles of Gerlachus and Vincentius have nothing in common with Cosmas of Prague (as Aurast states on pp. 175-176). Although most of the partial results of this book are not new, the systematic comparative approach to the issue and the well-defined methodology are among this book's positive contributions.