This article probes the consequences of basing post-World War I citizenship regimes on the Habsburg imperial network system for the control of mobility, a system known among specialists as Heimatrecht or pertinency. To date most of the historiography has focused on what this meant for national minorities in nationalizing states, with the most important studies thus far looking at the experience of Jews in Austria and Poland. We argue that though the national exclusionary tools of postwar pertinency are of undoubted importance, a larger, social trauma was experienced through post-Habsburg Europe, one that affected far more people and left many facing the consequences of potential statelessness. This article focuses on how postwar pertinency affected the worlds of work, welfare, and expulsion in the immigrant-rich industrial port town of Fiume, Europe's smallest postwar successor state.In November 1918, the Habsburg Monarchy dissolved and about 50 million people found themselves without a state. By early 1919, politicians, lawyers, diplomats, business elites, and activists at the Paris Peace conference were discussing plans for replacing the Habsburg imperial complex with future nation-states. 1 At the heart of these negotiations was a liberal vision of rights-oriented citizenship. No one in Paris wanted Bolshevik councils to serve as the basis for the new states: the dominant dream was to set up parliamentary, capitalist, free-market, secular democracies that would protect individual rights of citizens, hasten prosperity, and forestall ethnic violence. 2 When the first treaties creating the post-Habsburg successor states were signed, they outlined how citizenship in

On January 8, 1919, Lieutenant Colonel Giuseppe Pavone assumed the office of civil commissioner of the Volosca-Abbazia/Volosko-Opatija political district. On that day, Pavone sent a message to all district municipalities, demanding cooperation from all institutions so that "… my effort is facilitated, and our joint effort directed solely and efficiently to ensure normal administrative order in the quickest time possible, and for the greater comfort of the population." 1 Though aware of obstacles and difficulties, Pavone displayed a very strict view of state control over recently occupied territories: "Justice and honesty are the norms of behavior toward everyone inside the orbit of the concept of the sovereign power of the State which does not admit exceptions and does not tolerate weaknesses. Weakness is as guilty as abuse." 2 The main issue was not that an allegedly righteous state would not admit of any countervailing power, or allow exception to its sovereignty, or even that normal administrative order and the comfort of the population were goals to be achieved. Rather, the problem was which state, and with which forms of rule, was to perform these duties, and further what the notion of normalization meant. For Pavone, there were no doubts: "…our effort will quickly provide the result the Patria expects…" 3 In Pavone's vision, normalization was associated with the concept of undisputed Italian nation-state sovereignty enacted by a military officer.However, this concept was not shared among all parts of the population residing within the district formerly subsumed within the Austrian Littoral and which the Italian military had just occupied at the end of 1918.* This article was written under the auspices of the project NEPOSTRANS, "Negotiating post-imperial transitions: from remobilization to nation-state consolidation. A comparative study of local and regional transitions in post-Habsburg East and Central Europe" financed by the European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant agreement no. 772264. I would like to thank the NEPOSTRANS team members, in particular Gábor Egry and Cody J. Inglis, for comments on previous versions of the text, as well as Dominique Reill, Vanni D'Alessio, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks. 1 "(…) l'opera mia sia facilitata e la nostra opera comune sia unicamente ed efficacemente diretta a conseguire nel più breve tempo possibile un assetto normale per l'amministrazione ed il maggior benessere per la popolazione".

No abstract

Rad donosi podatke o Samueleu Mayländeru (1866. – 1925.), socijalističkom vođi kasnohabsburške Rijeke i njegovoj obitelji. Mayländeri su bili podrijetlom židovi iz jugozapadne Ugarske, doseljeni u Rijeku krajem 19. stoljeća. Doseljeni Mayländeri uspješno se integriraju i asimiliraju u riječko i sjevernojadransko građansko društvu, neki udajom za pripadnike građanskih obitelji i obraćenjem na katoličku vjeroispovijest, a drugi uspješnim poslovnim karijerama. Zbog pomanjkanja primarne građe teško je dati odgovor na jezične prakse među pripadnicima obitelji. Ipak, iz objavljenih nekrologa u riječkim novinama, dokumentacije iz gimnazijskih dana i bračnih veza može se zaključiti kako je obitelj bila višejezična. Istraživanje je biografije samoga Samuelea Mayländera problematično jer, također, ne posjedujemo građu iz koje možemo neposredno razabrati njegove političke, nacionalne ili vjerske preferencije. Svakako, Samuele Mayländer bio je socijalističkoga opredjeljenja, kasnije i prvi predsjednik Komunističke partije Rijeka, ali i ličnost koja je bila pod utjecajem dominante riječke talijanske kulturne paradigme. Studij medicine u Beču, javna angažiranost i politička aktivnost ukazuju na Mayländerova opredjeljenja, ali, kao i ugarsko židovsko obiteljsko podrijetlo, i na njegovu višejezičnost. Na kraju, rad prati biografske podatke o Pavlu Kirchenknopfu, metalurškom radniku rodom iz Ugarske, koji početkom 20. stoljeća doseljava u Pulu i kasnije s obitelji u Rijeku. U Rijeci je Pavle Kirchenknopf označen kao socijalistički, odnosno komunistički aktivist i takvim zapamćen od lokalne historiografije. Biografija Pavla Kirchenknopfa korisna je za propitkivanje spoznaja o osobama radničkoga podrijetla i pitanja njihovih jezičnih praksi. Po sporadičnoj građi, iz matičnih knjiga rođenih u Puli i migracijama Kirchenknopfa, može se pretpostaviti kako se obitelj služila s više jezika. Zaključno, rad ukazuje kako pored pitanja višejezičnosti, socijalne i ekonomske teškoće trebaju biti uzete u obzir u društvenim i kulturnim povijestima sjevernoga Jadrana u kasnohabsburškom razdoblju, teškoće koje ostaju u pozadini idealiziranjem višejezičnoga habsburškog svijeta.