The modern term "archive" resembles an etymological wolpertinger. Its definitions range from a more scientific approach, based on its historical background, to a widespread synonym for a repository of everything that is not immediately necessary. The archive and its secular understanding have undergone a metamorphosis through space and time. And yet: archives as memorial institutions still suffer from a trope of underlying, invincible secrecy, which consequently hinders the possibility of attracting a broad public. This trope probably relates to the pre-modern history of archives. Rooted in authoritarian collections to prove possessions, laws and claims, archival records were sealed or locked away close to the ruler or ruling institution. This practice has often been interpreted as a way of consolidating power through the concentration of knowledge. However, the relationship between archives, knowledge and secrecy was far more complex, as the two-day international workshop on archival secrecy in early modern monarchies and republics made clear.

Organised as part of the SNSF Eccellenza project "Republican Secrets: Silence, Memory, and Collective Rule in the Early Modern Period" at the University of Bern with funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the workshop aimed to discuss the different ways in which early modern governments regulated access to their archives and chanceries. In their opening remarks, organizers NADIR WEBER (Bern) and JAN HAUGNER (Bern) highlighted the importance of the concept of secrecy in early modern political discourse and practice. Based on the observation that this deep fascination with the hidden and obscure developed in a dialectical process with an emerging system of printed media and communication over distance, they proposed an analytical framework for the workshop that would delve deeper into the practices of secrecy and access in early modern archives. The workshop would focus on the tensions between keeping secrets and using archives in different institutional settings and discuss how archival elements played a role in political conflicts and in relation to emerging public spheres.

In his keynote lecture, FILIPPO DE VIVO (Oxford) placed the concept of secrecy in its historical perspective, arguing that archives should be seen as historical objects in constant evolution. Drawing on examples from early modern Italian principalities and republics, he described secrecy as a multidimensional phenomenon that should not be limited to its functions of locking away objects and hiding knowledge from observers but should also be seen as a means of political integration among insiders. In this way, secrecy also served as a catalyst of relations, with the aim of creating bonds between elites and reinforcing the facade of unanimity. Therefore, the language of secrecy surrounding archives does not necessarily mean that all documents were actually inaccessible. Comparing republican and princely archives, De Vivo noted that, despite many similarities in record keeping practices, some significant differences, such as the location of the archives or chanceries (palace versus town hall), point to differences in the political culture of early modern monarchies and republics.

Following these introductory talks, seven papers explored various aspects of archival secrecy based on case studies. Following these introductory contributions, seven papers explored various aspects of archival secrecy through case studies. In her paper, REGULA SCHMID KEELING (Bern) used the "Wappenbuch", an illustrated chronicle and armorial by Konrad Schnitt in sixteenth-century Basel, to illustrate the ambivalent relationship between historiography and city governments. History was told as a mimetic narrative, transmitted not only through written documents but also through statues, illustrations and other objects such as bells or stained-glass windows. On the one hand, such narratives served the interests of the ruling councils, which often funded the material vehicles to enhance the city's fame. On the other hand, historiographers' access to the archives could also bring to light hidden truths or potential sources of conflict. In the case of Schnitt's armorial, the councilors feared that the new coats of arms might cause tension between the city's families, and so decided to regulate the conflict through secrecy.

When talking about access to archives throughout the centuries, the administrators of the archives have been the heart and the brain behind the stored records. JAN HAUGNER (Bern) added a new aspect to the discussion on archival secrecy by proposing his thesis of cognitive access as a systematic feature. He referred to the organization and structure in Lucerne at the end of the 17th century and during the 18th century to point out that early modern chancery archives did not only depend on locks, doors and boxes as security mechanisms. Secrecy, Haugner argued, was also closely linked to cognitive processes that developed individually in each archivist. His analysis of this "memoriam localem" showed how the inaccessibility of the human mind complemented the physical dimension of archival secrecy and often determined the accessibility or inaccessibility of documents and their contents.

ANN-SOPHIE HELLMICH-SCHWAN (Hamburg) focused on the physical aspects of archival secrecy in her paper on the importance and use of material and spatial measures in early modern noble and princely archives. These included the swearing in of archivists, the placing of documents in boxes and behind seals, and the placing of the archive in cabinets and behind locked doors. The repertoire of physical methods also included spatial subdivisions through separate storage, either through different types of furniture or completely different rooms in case of fire or attempted theft. However, Hellmich-Schwan made it clear that rules and reality were not always congruent: locks were broken, and keys were often lost or given away. Especially for moments of crisis, so-called "Fluchtkisten" (escape boxes) were developed and used on a large scale from the 18th century onwards, which were marked with the names and titles of the archive owners to protect the valuable documents from being lost.

OLIVER KRUK (Bamberg) presented another way of understanding secrecy and the relationship between archives, power and access in the late 16th century prince-bishopric of Bamberg. The ecclesiastical prince had only limited access to the state archives since the cathedral chapter was responsible for their organization and administration. The observation that the sovereign had to ask permission to access the archives gave an unexpected twist to the question of the use of archives and their significance for governance. In the case of Bamberg, the notion that 'knowledge is power' can only be applied in part: as Kruk made clear, the cathedral chapter could not prevent the prince-bishop from imposing new laws, but it could withdraw or reinterpret laws in the interregna periods - which shows that archived knowledge alone does not constitute power, but the ability to use selected parts of this stored information at the right moment.

CLAUDIA CURCURUTO (Mainz) added another context with her paper on the Apostolic Nunciature at the Imperial Court in Vienna under Pope Innocent XI Odescalchi (1676-1689). In the context of the ongoing negotiations, the importance of secrecy was immense: the internal politics of the Roman Curia included not only the relations between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but also the religious and political affairs of the Empire and the local Churches in various countries. Many of these matters were considered delicate and highly confidential. However, as Curcuruto points out, the nuncio's archives were in a precarious state at the end of the 17th century and the lack of a secure place to keep them was a constant problem. Poor storage conditions and wartime events only added to the lack of locks on the documents. Nevertheless, secrecy could be maintained through coded letters, the cipher of which was a purely numerical key, allowing a retrospective hierarchy of meaning between ciphered and unenciphered letters.

NATALIE KRENTZ (Frankfurt am Main) gave an insight into archives as spoils of war during the Thirty Years' War and the related practice of publishing confidential documents of the enemy in political pamphlets. To make use of the archives of conquered cities or courts, some troops carried a trained archivist or archivist in order to prevent damage to the originals and theft by soldiers. These documents later provided political pamphlets with insights into the "secrets" of the enemy - a term often used in titles to attract the interest of the audience. This practice led, as Krentz noted, to a pamphlet war, with publishers trying to outdo each other. The fascination with revealed information was closely linked to an ongoing crisis of confidence and the thrill of glimpsing political secrets. Parts of the Latin scriptures were translated into modern languages to make them easier for the public to understand, and rulers even began to publish documents from their own chanceries to counter false information from the enemy. Conquered archives thus contributed to the rise of a public political sphere.

In the final case study, ANDREAS WÜRGLER (Geneva) analyzed the role of archives in political conflicts between rulers and subjects from the late 15th to the 19th century. He showed how rebellious citizens and peasants sought access to archival records either by demanding to see certain documents or by using violence to physically enter or even destroy archives. The authorities in question often responded by criminalizing the rebels' demands or denying the existence or validity of the documents requested. Würgler pointed out that the behavior of rebellious citizens or rural subjects towards archival documents changed over the centuries. While many documents were burned during the First Peasants' War, the later rebels' respect for parchment and paper - which they saw as the ancient law granting their lost liberties - indicates a more legalistic approach. However, in the age of revolutions, paper burning once again took place, revealing a political culture that wanted to establish a new order and break away from the ancien régime and its archives.

In his closing comment, RANDOLPH C. HEAD (UC, Riverside) summarized the main findings of the papers and drew attention to the many nuances of secrecy that had been discussed during the workshop. Head argued that interpreting early modern secrecy in terms of our contemporary understanding of media and information can lead to shortcomings. The various dimensions of early modern archival secrecy, mainly related to the distinction of parties involved, materiality and storage options, were complemented by the paradoxical nature of secret documents, which had to be known in order to be kept secret. Head also drew up a list of facets, ranging from secrecy as a management of meaning, a potential to create a sense of priority, and a fabrication of fascination from an external position. The price of secrecy should also be mentioned. Boxes, doors, working hours and the training of archivists required considerable material resources and indicate the value placed on archives by early modern authorities.

In the final discussion, it was pointed out that the historical meanings of the concept of secrecy in relation to archives may differ from our modern understanding. The many facets of archival secrecy discussed in the workshop also revealed its many social and political preconditions and entanglements, thus pointing to key questions of power and its representation in the early modern period. The workshop demonstrated the complexity of archives and their responsibilities, ranging from authoritarian to civic standpoints. The differences between political systems illustrate how multidimensional archival secrecy was in the early modern period.

It would be interesting to explore the connections between the arcana discourse and the theories and practical regulations of archives more closely in the future. The different approaches and themes of the workshop opened up a horizon of academic and archival "still-to-bes" – in this way, the workshop succeeded in revealing a number of blind spots in our understanding of past and present archives, which call for more in-depth research to come.

Conference overview:

Jan Haugner (Bern) / Nadir Weber (Bern): Introduction

Keynote

Filippo De Vivo (Oxford): Arcana archivi? Comparative reflections

Section 1: Archives, their users, and historiography
Chair: André Holenstein

Regula Schmid Keeling (Bern): Controlling the past: historiography, the secrets of archive, and public memory in 15th to 18th century Switzerland

Jan Haugner (Bern): Mental access to past secrets. Archival secrecy in the Old Swiss Confederacy through the lens of cognitive history

Ann-Sophie Hellmich-Schwan (Hamburg): Behind lock and seal: secrecy in early modern noble and princely archives

Section 2: Accessing archives in clerical states
Chair: Christian Windler

Oliver Kruk (Bamberg): The prince-bishop as petitioner? The archive of Bamberg Cathedral Chapter, secret knowledge, and the bishopric in the 16th century

Claudia Curcuruto (Mainz): The government and secrecy practices of the Roman Curia under Pope Innocent XI Odescalchi in the mirror of the archives (1676-1689)

Section 3: Archival records and political conflicts
Chair: Jan Haugner

Natalie Krentz (Frankfurt am Main): Secret documents in political pamphlets of the Thirty Years‘ War

Andreas Würgler (Geneva): Burn or publish? Rebels and archives (late 15th to early 19th centuries)

Section 4: Comparative perspectives and final discussion
Chair: Nadir Weber

Randolph C. Head (UC, Riverside): Closing comment