Peter Robins, his website

What?

"These pages describe walkable pilgrim routes to Santiago" - what's that mean?

walkable: off-road as far as possible
pilgrim routes: routes that link shrines and other places of interest to pilgrims, whilst following a more or less direct line.

So how does a pilgrim route differ from any other walking route?

pilgrims are assumed to be interested in shrines and other holy places, and are also looking for accommodation, perhaps in a monastery, that is pilgrim-oriented. Walking routes tend to have different objectives: an attractive walk which may well bypass the towns and other places where there are things of interest to pilgrims. Many walking routes don't go anywhere very much; the objective is the walk itself.

So pilgrims aren't interested in normal walking routes?

where these link holy places and pass pilgrim-oriented accommodation, they may be. Also, there may be no specifically pilgrim route available. So pilgrims may use other walking routes for some or all of their journey, but will probably prefer a specifically pilgrim-oriented route where this is available.

Do pilgrim routes have anything in common with other walking routes?

both will try and keep off major roads as much as possible

So what's a pilgrimage?

generally defined as a journey with a spiritual content or emphasis; the physical journey mirrors the spiritual one

Many people get a spiritual lift from walks in, for example, mountains. Are these people on pilgrimage too?

hmm

And what about those who participate in a pilgrimage but do not experience any spiritual aspect? who are for instance interested in cultural/artistic/historic aspects of a route? Are they not really pilgrims?

well, no, probably not

Does the journey have to have a destination to be a pilgrimage?

well, traditionally pilgrimages are to shrines and other holy places; I suppose, if you make a journey in both the physical and spiritual sense, it doesn't matter whether there's a destination or not

Who decides which places are holy?

Pilgrims do. A holy person lent sanctity to the place where they were, even after death. The holier someone was considered to be, the more people would go to that place.

So if lots of people visit the grave of Elvis Presley, that must mean it's holy?

I doubt whether a visit to Elvis's grave involves a spiritual journey

Are all holy places in Europe Christian?

no, many, such as wells, trees, or megaliths, predate Christianity. The early church appropriated some of those, but not all.

If a place is once holy, is it always holy, even if nothing remains of the ancient shrine?

I suppose, if people consider it is, then yes.

Does the spiritual journey cease when the physical one does?

for those who have found their lives or values changed by the experience, no. Arguably, pilgrimage never ceases, because life itself is a pilgrimage - to an uncertain destination.

When does the physical journey cease? When I get to Santiago? Shouldn't I walk back home again?

For the medieval pilgrim, this would have gone without saying. For some reason, in modern times, hardly anybody walks back home again. No, I don't know why this is.

Why?

Why go on pilgrimage?

the point of the spiritual journey is to reassess one's core values; other factors come into it: break with everyday life; camaraderie with others en route; interest in the historical or architectural features of the route

But won't I get that from any similar journey, for example, a walk in mountains or along some other historic trail?

er, well, yes, you might well do

And does everybody who completes a pilgrimage experience this?

people vary widely and have widely differing responses

So are people who don't experience this wasting their time going on a pilgrimage route?

I have often asked people afterwards if walking to Santiago was worth the effort. I have yet to find anyone who says: 'No, waste of time, should have stopped at home'

You said above that pilgrimage was to shrines. This is the 21st century. Surely nobody believes any of that stuff about relics these days?

Some do, though it's nowhere near as prevalent as it was

And if few people believe that Santiago really has the remains of James the Apostle, why go there?

Well, Santiago is a beautiful town, it was an important destination in medieval times and the Camino contains a wealth of monuments from then, and that's why the Council of Europe has declared it a European Cultural Route, and UNESCO has declared routes in Spain and France to be World Heritage Sites

yes, yes, I know all that, but that's heritage and tourism - what's that got to do with pilgrimage?

um

And in any case, why specifically Santiago, rather than some other shrine?

well, Santiago was the second most important shrine in medieval times after Rome. Actually, I think a major factor in Santiago's prominence is the large amount of media attention it has drawn.

And do the media concentrate on pilgrimage as opposed to tourism/heritage?

do they heck

So why not go to the most important shrine: Rome?

some do; it may be this will increase in popularity

What route?

Does it matter where I start?

the medieval pilgrim started from home, but the further away you live from the destination, the more difficult it becomes to find the time necessary for such a long journey. Most don't do this, but pick some arbitrary point to start. The modern idea that you fly or take a train to some distant place where you start your pilgrimage would have been baffling to the medieval mind.

Do I have to take one of the official routes?

of course not - they're just suggestions. Ideally, a recommended route will pass shrines and other places of interest to pilgrims, and will involve pilgrim-oriented accommodation

But aren't the official routes based on a historic line and therefore more authentic?

Authentic? What's that mean? If I follow a set of modern waymarks, I'm a real pilgrim, but if I go some other way, I'm not?
The idea that there were specific pilgrimage routes in medieval times is, by and large, a misunderstanding. Medieval pilgrims did not create routes to Santiago (or Rome or anywhere else). By and large, they simply used the existing road network to get from their home to their destination.

So waymarking is a bad idea?

if it helps people find an off-road route, no.

So why do the great majority of pilgrims to Santiago go on the Camino Francés?

well, it was by far the most important in medieval times because most pilgrims came from outside Spain. However, I suspect most people aren't aware that there are any other routes.

Does the Camino Francés have the most historic monuments?

that's debatable. Paradoxically, many of the most important places in the development of the Camino, such as Cluny, aren't in Spain. And if Romanesque monuments are what you're interested in, then Italy is the place to go.

Why are so many routes being developed?

primarily to enable more people to start from home, and to help those who pass through an area en route from their home

Are these routes always based on a historic line?

exactly following a historic line is often not possible, because of modern obstacles: urban areas, motorways, reservoirs, etc. But in the sense of visiting the places that were important historically, then, yes, they should be.

You don't live on any of these routes, so why are you maintaining this website?

because it interests me

Isn't it difficult keeping up to date with all the developments?

impossible; however, you can help by sending me information

How?

Should I go alone or in a group?

these are 2 entirely different journeys. Going alone is simpler, as you make all the rules; going in a group means fitting in with others - some people are better at this than others. As a rule of thumb, you will have more contact with local people on your own, but going in a group your contact will be more with the other members of the group. Do it twice and try both.

Does it matter what mode of transport I use?

The cathedral authorities only grant a compostela if you have walked, ridden or cycled a minimum distance

So if I walk the Camino Inglés from El Ferrol I'm a pilgrim, but if I walk it from La Coruña I'm not?

yes, that seems a little strange to me too

. . . and anyone who lives in or near Santiago and walks from home isn't a pilgrim?

ditto

Statistics show that by far the majority of those granted a compostela walk - does this mean walking is better?

in my view, yes. With riders, it's the horse that does all the work, so the horse should earn the compostela, not the rider. Cyclists may have to exert some effort, but they are still reliant on a metal machine to get along - not that much different from using a car; in any case, they miss out on much of the social aspects of the road.

There are large numbers of shrines to which Christian pilgrims go, such as Rome or Lourdes. Few go there on foot. Are these not proper pilgrims? Why is Santiago different?

um

And what about those who are unable to walk, through disability or whatever, and so have to use other forms of transport - are they not pilgrims?

that can't be right - it must be that pilgrimage is a state of mind rather than anything purely physical

So if pilgrimage isn't a physical journey, but a state of mind, can't we reach that by stopping at home and meditating?

well, yes, but that wouldn't be nearly so much fun

So, to sum up, it doesn't matter where you start, it doesn't matter where you go, it doesn't matter which route you take, it doesn't even matter whether you actually go somewhere or not?

erm . . .