¹ On the term “population” in this context see Alexander Pinwinkler, Historische Bevölkerungsforschungen: Deutschland und Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2014), 28–32. In this article I speak of the “Habsburg Empire” or of “Austria-Hungary” when both halves of the state are regarded, and of “imperial Austria” when only the Austrian part is meant. As there is a vast range of secondary literature on the census in imperial Austria, I mention only some of the most recent and most cited titles, in order to illustrate the range and diversity of research on this issue: Klein, Kurt, “Österreichs Bevölkerung 1754–1869,” Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 113.1/2 (1971): 34–62 Google Scholar; Christel Durdik, “Bevölkerungs- und Sozialstatistik in Österreich im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert,” in Beiträge zur Bevölkerungs- und Sozialgeschichte Österreichs: Nebst einem Überblick über die Entwicklung der Bevölkerungs- und Sozialstatistik, ed. Heimold Helczmanovszki (Vienna, 1973), 225–66; Birgit Bolognese-Leuchtenmüller, Bevölkerungsentwicklung und Berufsstruktur: Gesundheits- und Fürsorgewesen in Österreich 1750–1918 (Vienna, 1978); Ehmer, Josef, “Volkszählungslisten als Quelle der Sozialgeschichte,” Wiener Geschichtsblätter 35.3 (1980): 106–23Google Scholar. However, Anton Tantner declares himself most unsatisfied with the positions brought forward in much of the existing research. See Tantner, Ordnung der Häuser, Beschreibung der Seelen: Hausnummerierung und Seelenkonskription in der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna, 2007), 17–20. In fact, the standards set by recent international research projects—such as Nico Randeraad, States and Statistics in the Nineteenth Century: Europe by Numbers (Manchester, 2010), and Tom Crook and Glen O'Hara, eds., Statistics and the Public Sphere: Numbers and the People in Modern Britain, c. 1800–2000 (New York, 2011), both on the history of statistics; and Stephen Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, 2010), and Daniel Courgeau, Probability and Social Science: Methodological Relationships between the Two Approaches (Dordrecht, 2012), both on theoretical aspects—are far beyond anything that has so far been carried out with regard to the Habsburg census.

² Citizens (Staatsbürger) were introduced with the Dezemberverfassung (December Constitution) in imperial Austria in late 1867, though citizenship and the legal rights of citizens had already been implemented earlier, e.g., with the AGBG in 1811. Most recent research on citizenship focuses on the period after 1867: see von Hirschhausen, Ulrike, “From Imperial Inclusion to National Exclusion: Citizenship in the Habsburg Monarchy and in Austria 1867–1923,” European Review of History / Revue européenne d'histoire 16.4 (2009): 551–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A most remarkable exception is Gary B. Cohen, “Citizenship and Nationality in Late Imperial Austria,” in Nation, Nationalitäten und Nationalismus im östlichen Europa: Festschrift für Arnold Suppan zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Marija Wakounig, Wolfgang Mueller, and Michael Portmann (Vienna, 2010), 201–24.

³ The latest debates around an “imperial turn” provide a good analytical framework and vocabulary for the analysis of the phenomena discussed in this article. See Ghosh, Durba, “Another Set of Imperial Turns?” American Historical Review 117.3 (2012): 772–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the use of the term “empire”: Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, 2010). On the Habsburg Empire: Judson, Pieter M., “L'Autriche-Hongrie était-elle un empire?” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 63.3 (2008): 563–96Google Scholar. See also Benno Gammerl, Untertanen, Staatsbürger und Andere: Der Umgang mit ethnischer Heterogenität im Britischen Weltreich und im Habsburgerreich 1867–1918 (Göttingen, 2010), 13–14.

⁴ See, e.g., a critical report in the renowned journal Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen in 1857, where the high cartographical standards of the Habsburg state are acknowledged. On the perspectives of a history of (administrative) knowledge: Achim Landwehr, “Wissensgeschichte,” in Handbuch Wissenssoziologie und Wissensforschung, ed. Rainer Schützeichel (Konstanz, 2007), 801–13.

⁵ Cf. Rabasa, José, “Dialogue as Conquest: Mapping Spaces for Counter-Discourse,” Cultural Critique 6 (1987): 131–59, at 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar; italics in the original.

⁶ See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London, 2006), 164–70.

⁷ Much emphasis is laid on these aspects in particular in American census research: see Starr, Paul, “Social Categories and Claims in the Liberal State,” Social Research 59.2 (1992): 263–95Google Scholar, at 266–67. Also see William Alonso and Paul Starr, eds., The Politics of Numbers (New York, 1987).

⁸ Literature on the census is extensive. See the overview provided by David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel, eds., Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses (Cambridge, 2002). Further major work on the role of the census in a broader administrative and sociologist perspective has been delivered by Starr, “Social Categories”; see also Alonso and Starr, Politics of Numbers. Still fundamental: Anderson, Imagined Communities.

⁹ See Waltraud Heindl, Josephinische Mandarine: Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich, vol. 2, 1848–1914 (Vienna, 2013), 35–43.

¹⁰ Cf. John Deak, “The Austrian Civil Service in an Age of Crisis: Power and the Politics of Reform, 1848–1925” (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 2009). I have to thank John Deak for the opportunity to read his unpublished thesis.

¹¹ For further details on the development of the bureaucratic apparatus between 1848 and 1867 see John Deak's outstanding Forging a Multinational State: State Making in Imperial Austria from the Enlightenment to the First World War (Stanford, CA, 2015), 65–174.

¹² On this process see Robin Okey, The Habsburg Monarchy c. 1765–1918: From Enlightenment to Eclipse (Basingstoke, 2001), 157–90.

¹³ Focus is put on Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiete der Statistik in this article, as it is among the very first broadly read and discussed journals in this field of expertise. Most other journals appeared later.

¹⁴ Cf. Ficker, Adolf, “Vorträge über die Vornahme der Volkszählung in Österreich: Gehalten in dem vierten und sechsten Turnus der statistisch-administrativen Vorlesungen,” Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiete der Statistik 17.2 (1870): 1–142 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See k.k. statistische Central-Commission, ed., Bevölkerung und Viehstand der im Reichsrathe vertretenen Königreiche und Länder dann der Militärgränze: Nach der Zählung vom 31. December 1869, book 5, Erläuterungen zu den Bevölkerungs-Ergebnissen (Vienna, 1872).

¹⁶ Anderson, Imagined Communities, 188. On the establishment of a public sphere in the Habsburg Empire, see Pieter M. Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience, and National Identity in the Austrian Empire, 1848–1914 (Ann Arbor, 1996).

¹⁷ Benedict Anderson, “Nationalism, Identity, and the Logic of Seriality,” in The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World (London and New York, 1998), 29–45, at 29; italics in the original.

¹⁸ Randeraad, States and Statistics; see also Randeraad, Nico, “The International Statistical Congress (1853–1876): Knowledge Transfers and Their Limits,” European History Quarterly 41.1 (2011): 50–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ On the “imperative to modernize”: Harm-Hinrich Brandt, “Verwaltung als Verfassung—Verwaltung und Verfassung? Zum historischen Ort des ‘Neoabsolutismus’ in der Geschichte Österreichs,” in Der österreichische Neoabsolutismus als Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsproblem: Diskussionen über einen strittigen Epochenbegriff, ed. Harm-Hinrich Brandt (Vienna, 2014), 11–34, at 11–12.

²⁰ See Waltraud Heindl, Gehorsame Rebellen: Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich, vol. 1, 1780–1848 (Vienna, 1990).

²¹ See Helmut Rumpler, “Carl Josef Czoernig Freiherr von Czernhausen (1804–1889) als ‘Vater’ der österreichischen Verwaltungsstatistik,” in Mensch—Gruppe—Gesellschaft: Von bunten Wiesen und deren Gärtnerinnen bzw. Gärtnern. Festschrift für Manfred Prisching zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Christian Brünner (Graz, 2010), 833–47, at 834–42.

²² Cf. Emil Brix, Die Umgangssprachen in Altösterreich zwischen Agitation und Assimilation: Die Sprachenstatistik in den zisleithanischen Volkszählungen 1880 bis 1910 (Vienna, 1982), 71. Brix suspects that Czoernig became unpopular with the political leaders due to his liberal political convictions. These allegations do not appear comprehensible, particularly if we consider the recent literature by Heindl, Judson, Deak, Okey, and Jeremy King. Moreover, Rumpler repositions Czoernig rather on the conservative side of the officials, though he was regarded as a man with “constitutional tendencies.” See Rumpler, “Czoernig,” 843–44.

²³ Cf. Heindl, Josephinische Mandarine, 45–59.

²⁴ Ibid., 54–55.

²⁵ Heindl describes in detail the numerous obstacles that a more detailed research into officials’ careers faces. There is hardly any material evidence to support my argument, though some of the most remarkable products of early Austrian administrative statistics were produced precisely in this era of neoabsolutism (e.g., Czoernig's three-volume Ethnographie of the Habsburg monarchy). Cf. Randeraad, States and Statistics, 60–79.

²⁶ On the details of this process see Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, 1995). A more general overview is provided in idem, The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900 (Princeton, 1986).

²⁷ Surprisingly, the census in general played no major role in press discourse. However, the Neue Freie Presse (NFP) published a series of interesting articles covering various points of the census procedure and focusing particularly on those aspects that promised emancipation to its audience, namely, the bourgeois middle classes. Most other newspapers, including the Wiener Zeitung, published mainly the official press bulletins.

²⁸ The sources, however, speak neither of “reality” nor of “social reality”; I use these terms ahistorically and on a strictly analytical level. If we look for equivalents to these expressions in the body of source material, we come across the term Bevölkerungsverhältnisse (circumstances of population). In addition, the word “population” is not used in the sense of a product of the census; rather, the census delivers Kenntniss der Bevölkerungsverhältnisse (roughly: knowledge on the circumstances of population), or a Volksbeschreibung (description of the people).

²⁹ This applied in particular to the measurement of the category “nationality.”

³⁰ “The existence and definition of the object are regarded as conventions, which are themselves subject to discussion.” Quotation translated by the present author from Alain Desrosières, La Politique des grands nombres: Histoire de la raison statistique, new ed. (Paris, 2000), 7. (“[L]'existence et la définition de l'objet peuvent être perçues comme des conventions, qui peuvent être discutées.”)

³¹ Cf. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York, 2007), 18.

³² Unlike Czoernig, who was a fully trained statistician (according to the early nineteenth-century standards of statistics), Ficker held a PhD in history and a further degree in jurisprudence, which represented a standard configuration for high-ranking civil servants.

³³ The central records of the administration between the 1870s and the 1890s were heavily affected by the Justizpalastbrand (July Revolt) in 1927. Thus, much of the documentation of the 1869–90 census procedures is lost. We can reconstruct certain problems from other sources. The problems encountered in the course of the census of 1869 were basically reported in k.k. statistische Central-Commission, ed., Bevölkerung und Viehstand, 5:X–XIV. Anton Tantner describes the situation in the late eighteenth century, and there is good reason to assume that the fundamental mistrust toward authorities he depicts made its way through the nineteenth century: Tantner, Ordnung, 139–52.

³⁴ Fears of fiscal pressure as a central motive for resistance against the census are addressed by Schimmer, Gustav Adolph, “Gedanken über die Durchführung der nächsten Volkszählung in Oesterreich,” Statistische Monatsschrift 4 (1878): 153–78, at 155Google Scholar.

³⁵ We find hints to citizens’ concerns, for instance, in Ficker, Adolf, “Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Organisirung der nächsten Volkszählung in Oesterreich,” Statistische Monatsschrift 4 (1878): 253–64, at 256Google Scholar.

³⁶ It is quite interesting to see that this situation was not at all new in the Austrian civil service: Heindl describes in detail the second occupations of top-level officials in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, and many among them turned out to be quite successful natural scientists and private scholars. Thus there is a line of continuity here that could be taken up. Cf. Heindl, Gehorsame Rebellen, 226–300.

³⁷ Modernization can be interpreted as serialization in the sense of Anderson: “Nationalism, Identity, and the Logic of Seriality,” 29–30.

³⁸ Cf. Randeraad, States and Statistics, 4–8.

³⁹ Ibid., 60–61.

⁴⁰ We can observe similar processes already in 1848.

⁴¹ For a rough outline see Brix, Umgangssprachen.

⁴² These issues are dealt with in my doctoral thesis: Wolfgang Göderle, Zensus und Ethnizität: Zur Herstellung von Wissen über soziale Wirklichkeiten im Habsburgerreich zwischen 1848 und 1910 (Göttingen 2016).

⁴³ Cf. Randeraad, “International Statistical Congress,” 60–61. Randeraad points out that smaller states in particular made use of the international stage to gain some recognition.

⁴⁴ On the debate of the nation-state as analytical norm see Burbank and Cooper, Empires in World History, 1–22.

⁴⁵ Gugerli and Speich state that “the land survey can be regarded as the nucleus of central administration.” This sentence describes the situation in the Habsburg monarchy as well. Quotation translated by the present author from David Gugerli and Daniel Speich, Topografien der Nation: Politik, kartografische Ordnung und Landschaft im 19. Jahrhundert (Zurich, 2002) 20. (“Das Vermessungsprojekt kann als Nukleus der zentralen Verwaltung gelten.”)

⁴⁶ When it comes to mapping and how it is done, Matthew Edney shows that there is no difference between the mapping practices of empires and modern states: Matthew H. Edney, “The Irony of Imperial Mapping,” in The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery of Empire, ed. James R. Akerman (Chicago, 2009), 11–45.

⁴⁷ Tantner, Ordnung, 138–39.

⁴⁸ Cf. James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, 1998). Of course, social realities had been legible before, though not for the same actors.

⁴⁹ See Reichsgesetzblatt für das Kaiserthum Oesterreich, Gesetz vom 29. März 1869, über die Volkszählung, §§15–20, 310–11.

⁵⁰ Ibid., §23, 311. Plentiful archival evidence documents the problem that the system of Zählungs-Commissäre posed to the administration. The subject further has to be seen in the context of Gemeindeselbstverwaltung (community self-government), probably the only major change effectuated directly by the 1848–49 revolutions. See the following excellent microhistorical study: Jeremy King, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics 1848–1948 (Princeton, 2002).

⁵¹ Peter Becker, “Formulare als ‘Fließband’ der Verwaltung? Rationalisierung und Standardisierung von Kommunikationsbeziehungen,” in Eine intelligente Maschine? Handlungsorientierungen moderner Verwaltung (19./20. Jh.), ed. Peter Collin and Klaus-Gert Lutterbeck (Baden-Baden, 2009), 281–98, at 282.

⁵² On tables cf. Jack Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge, 1977), at 52–73.

⁵³ Cf. Ficker, “Vorträge,” 38, 46.

⁵⁴ See Starr, “Social Categories.” Although Starr's observations are based on the liberal state, most of what he actually says and describes applies to the case of the Habsburg Empire as well.

⁵⁵ Cf. Ficker, “Vorträge,” 38.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 81–82.

⁵⁷ Cf. Anderson, “Nationalism, Identity, and the Logic of Seriality,” 36–37.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 40 ff.

⁵⁹ Professions and occupations were described hierarchically, basically following a scheme that tried to separate these into four different sectors: A was agriculture, forestry, and fishing; B was industry and manufacturing; C was commerce and trade; and finally D represented a most heterogeneous group of all other activities one could imagine: civil servants, pensioners, persons of private means, poor and freelance professionals, such as physicians, all belonged to this category. For some most enlightened insights on occupational structures in general see Starr, “Social Categories,” 283 ff.

⁶⁰ Cf. Goody, Domestication, 52–73.

⁶¹ On the objectifying effect of quantification see Porter, Trust in Numbers.

⁶² Cf. Scott, Seeing Like a State, 11–24.

⁶³ Cf. Starr, “Social Categories,” 263–65, 271.

⁶⁴ A major conflict characterizing more than just the Habsburg monarchy in the late nineteenth century is reflected in these two positions as well: administrative statistics served as another stage for the ongoing dispute between liberal supporters of the central state and its conservative opponents. For the background of this process see Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries. On the civil servants’ attitudes and self-conceptions see Heindl, Josephinische Mandarine. Her first volume on civil servants in the Habsburg Empire is useful too for the questions under scrutiny here: Waltraud Heindl, Gehorsame Rebellen: Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich, vol. 1, 1780–1848 (Vienna, 1990). Though this issue is not dealt with extensively, it is made an object of analysis in my book: see 152–89.

⁶⁵ That is the expression used in the sources: Ficker, “Vorträge,” 32.

⁶⁶ Cf. Becker, “Formulare,” 282–84.

⁶⁷ Mapping also plays a key role in Bruno Latour, “Circulating Reference: Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest,” in Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science (Cambridge, MA, 1999), 24–79, at 36, 47.

⁶⁸ Cf. Ficker, “Vorträge,” 2–4.

⁶⁹ See Peter Becker, “Beschreiben, Klassifizieren, Verarbeiten: Zur Bevölkerungsbeschreibung aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht,” in Information in der Frühen Neuzeit: Status, Bestände, Strategien, ed. Arndt Brendecke, Markus Friedrich, and Susanne Friedrich (Münster, 2008), 393–419, at 402.

⁷⁰ Cf. Latour, “Circulating Reference,” 36–40.

⁷¹ See Porter, Trust in Numbers, 5–13.

⁷² Cf. Starr, “Social Categories,” 285–95.

⁷³ This general problem persisted until the end of the monarchy. Even in 1910 (when the archival documentation for issues emerging during the census was much better) this was still a major subject of administrative concern.

⁷⁴ Jeremy King's impressive study delivers some excellent illustrations on the intertwined logics of what Anderson calls bound and unbound seriality: King, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans, 30 ff.

⁷⁵ On the administrative reality of a multilingual empire in the late nineteenth century see Michaela Wolf, The Habsburg Monarchy's Many-Languaged Soul: Translating and Interpreting, 1848–1918, trans. Kate Sturge (Amsterdam, 2015).

⁷⁶ See Deak, Forging a Multinational State; Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries, esp. chap. 3. See also Peter Haslinger, “How to Run a Multilingual Society: Statehood, Administration and Regional Dynamics in Austria-Hungary, 1867–1914,” in Region and State in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Nation-Building, Regional Identities and Separatism, ed. Joost Augusteijn and Eric Storm (Basingstoke, 2012), 111–28. On the dynamics among the different levels of the modern state: King, Jeremy, “The Municipal and the National in the Bohemian Lands, 1848–1914,” Austrian History Yearbook 42 (2011): 89–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ In reality, however, the threat of punishment proved pointless. The administration lacked the means to identify false declarations, as it soon had to concede: Cf. k.k. statistische Central-Commission, ed., Bevölkerung und Viehstand, 5:VI.

⁷⁸ Cf. Anderson, “Nationalism, Identity, and the Logic of Seriality,” 29.

⁷⁹ Burbank and Cooper, Empires in World History, 12.

⁸⁰ On some of the strategies put to use in multilingual contexts, see Wolf, Habsburg Monarchy's Many-Languaged Soul, 55–57.

⁸¹ Cf. Ficker, “Vorträge,” 33 (§20).

⁸² Ibid., 45.

⁸³ See Theodore Porter, “Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis,” in Allan Megill, ed., Rethinking Objectivity (Durham, NC, 1994), 197–237, at 201.

⁸⁴ Anderson, “Nationalism, Identity, and the Logic of Seriality,” 36–37.

⁸⁵ Cf. Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference, repr. ed. (Cambridge, 1978).

⁸⁶ The expression “seeing like a state,” introduced by James Scott, has been criticized recently, as “state” is deemed by his detractors to be insufficiently defined in his study. I refer to a conversation I had with Jakob Vogel in Vienna in late May 2014.

⁸⁷ See the insightful remarks in Edmund Bernatzik, Über nationale Matriken: Inaugurationsrede (Vienna, 1910), 65–67.

⁸⁸ Cf. Latour, “Circulating Reference,” 36–42.

⁸⁹ This shift from a summing up of individuals to the construction of a collective, which integrates its component citizens indissolubly, has been subject to considerable research in the past two decades. See, for instance: Alain Desrosières, “How to Make Things Which Hold Together: Social Science, Statistics, and the State,” in Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 15), ed. Peter Wagner, Björn Wittrock, and Richard Whitley (Dordrecht, 1991), 195–218. See also Ian Hacking, “Making Up People,” in The Science Studies Reader, ed. Mario Biagioli (New York, 1999), 161–71, at 161–62.

⁹⁰ On grouping see Rogers Brubaker, “Ethnicity without Groups,” in The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration, 2nd ed., ed. Montserrat Guibernau and John Rex (Cambridge, MA, 2010), 33–45. On groupism as a strategy in framing for instance conflicts: Albrecht Koschorke, “Wie werden aus Spannungen Differenzen? Feldtheoretische Überlegungen zur Konfliktsemantik” in Kulturen der Differenz: Transformationsprozesse in Zentraleuropa nach 1989, ed. Heinz Fassmann, Wolfgang Müller-Funk, Heidemarie Uhl (Göttingen, 2009), 271–85. On nationalist and ethnic framing in the late Habsburg monarchy: Pieter M. Judson, Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge, MA, 2006).

⁹¹ Cf. Scott, Seeing Like a State, 2–3, quote at 2.

⁹² I refer to the work of Morgane Labbé, who is dealing with similar issues in several articles recently published: Morgane Labbé, “Die Grenzen der deutschen Nation: Raum der Karte, Statistik, Erzählung,” in Die Grenze als Raum, Erfahrung und Konstruktion: Deutschland, Frankreich und Polen vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Étienne François, Jörg Siefarth, Bernhard Struck (Frankfurt, 2007), 293–319. Further, see idem, “Les Usages diplomatiques des cartes ethnographiques de l'Europe centrale et orientale au XIX^e siècle,” Genèses 68 (2007/3): 25–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹³ Rabasa, “Dialogue as Conquest,” 132.

⁹⁴ Deak, Forging a Multinational State, 202–14.

⁹⁵ Cf. in general de Certeau, Michel, “On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life,” trans. Jameson, Fredric and Lovitt, Carl, Social Text 3 (1980): 3–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁶ Cf. Edney, “Irony of Imperial Mapping,” 31.

⁹⁷ See, for instance, the reports concerning massive delays in counting the population of the Austrian Littoral: k.k. statistische Central-Commission, ed., Bevölkerung und Viehstand, 5:X–XI.

⁹⁸ Mitchell G. Ash, “Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen für einander,” in Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestandsaufnahmen zu Formationen, Brüchen und Kontinuitäten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Rüdiger vom Bruch and Brigitte Kaderas (Stuttgart, 2002), 32–51.

⁹⁹ Ficker, “Vorträge,” 27.