The idea behind this article came from a riddle. A 1907 guidebook to the Austro-Hungarian pilgrimage site of Mariazell carried the following enigmatic line: “The traveler who, while visiting Mariazell, wishes to combine the pleasant and the useful—for whom the pilgrimage should be at the same time an excursion into the mountains—will find a series of pretty promenades that lead him only a short way out of town and require absolutely no exertion.” The author most likely thought the meaning of this somewhat banal passage was completely clear. But the historian must wonder what exactly was “pleasant” and what was “useful” for the traveler to Mariazell. Was it pleasant to contemplate the majesty of God and the clemency of the Virgin Mary and useful to exercise one's body in the fresh, mountain air—even without exertion? Or was it useful to demonstrate one's piety and devotion via pilgrimage and dutiful time spent in mass, but pleasant to stroll through the temple of nature, admiring local flora and fauna along the way? Both of these interpretations are as truthful as they are possible, and their coexistence exemplifies a quintessential duality of religious tourism in the nineteenth century. Mariazell was both a “place of mercy” ( Gnadenort ), and an “alpine pearl”; its attraction stemmed from a hybrid of sanctity and sanctuary that was exploited by the citizens and residents of Mariazell whose livelihood depended on attracting a constant flow of outsiders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alison Frank (2009) studied this question.