Author: Jordan Girardin

Discussions over the past three days have mentioned a separation between horizontal and vertical networks. As Saunier argued, with so much emphasis on equal histories, it seems that horizontal networks are a better way to do transnational history: in the case of the Alps, travellers were connected to each other, socialising in particular hubs (Geneva, Chamonix, Interlaken…) and meeting key relations on their journey. This aspect is by all means crucial: it emphasises how structured travelling in the Alps could be at that time, and how the knowledge of what the Alps were and where they lay was spread.

However, our recent debates showed that we also need to consider vertical – or hierarchical – networks. These networks correspond to relationships that are not socially, economically, politically, or intellectually equal. Slavery networks, for instance, could not be complete without integrating slaves themselves in relationship to their owners.

This point could dramatically sharpen my analysis of travel networks in the Alps. Travellers, who were generally wealthy and educated, were in constant interaction with travel guides, innkeepers, hosts, priests, and locals in general. Those interactions were key, as they influenced the way travellers would describe their Alpine experience in their travelogues. For example, travel guides were very important in order to cross passes safely, know the surroundings, speak the local language and dialect. When those guides were helpful and knowledgeable, travellers often positively depicted those valleys and recommended these guides to their readers. If the guides turned out to be reluctant to help and to facilitate their experience, this negatively impacted the descriptions of the entire region. On the other hand, people and institutions above our travellers were as important: local elites sponsoring travellers were crucial to keep their tours flourishing and were gateways to new experiences.

There is an extent to which these singular connections are proper networks. They can be seen as individual experiences taken over time. Having said that, there are essential nodes which take this to a more structured dimension: travellers were connected through the travelogues they wrote, published, and read. Hotels, intellectual circles, journeys by coach, common travel guides were all opportunities for those individual journeys to become interconnected. Therefore, it is even more important to make sure that both the horizontal and vertical networks will be analysed in order to more fully portray the travelling phenomenon in the Alps.

By Ignacius Villar de Rohde and Jordan Girardin

Networks are often seen as quintessentially transnational mechanisms: they cross traditional boundaries – political, ethno-linguistic, cultural, religious – and challenge our mainstream understanding of social and spatial realities. For instance, the republic of letters is a great example of how the Enlightenment was spread throughout Europe despite the lack of political stability. This morning’s presentations underlined the decentralised nature of the spread of printed information throughout Europe, highly dismissing the political map of that period. It seemed ambiguous in which way these networks operated: were they physically visible? How actually significant was the connection between actors? Did it include an economic aspect beyond that? Ultimately, the ‘interconnected’ aspect of networks seems quite overwhelming and may sometimes be overrated, giving the impression of a very open world and society challenging all other forms of establishment. Having said that, as historians, we are aware of the impact of these exchanges and how they contribute both to multiple national historiographies and to wider phenomena on the continental scale.

However, these networks are not universal and therefore highlight different boundaries that are also strong and worth analysing and exploring. Even if national frames are transcended by the aforementioned exchange of ideas, their appeal remains limited to certain elites of society: Erasmus’ epistolary correspondence may indeed seem very widely spread geographically, but his own network embraces other frontiers that are of a social nature. This makes us wary of new issues; are social frontiers more engrained in our societies than national ones? How often were they crossed, how socially mobile are they? How do we map them? Should they be more depicted in our visualisations?

This is something we believe has been underrated as networks often seem to be seen as transgressive and positive, bringing together actors on a regional scale, but highlighting latent divisions on a local scale.