Humanities desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28

A periodical digest of Soviet Union events

Dear volunteers of the Reference desk, in short, I am looking for a periodical academic publication with a major focus on the Soviet Union that chronicled the events of the USSR (at least from 1960 to 1991).
The longer explanation is that I am in the process of gathering information towards drafting articles that cover some aspects on the history of China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. I am looking for at least one good source of information that periodically chronicled the events of each country.

I have already found that for China: the journal China Quarterly, with its "Quarterly Chronicle and Documentation" articles (example), providing a contemporaneous quarterly chronicle of events since 1960.
I have also found a similar source covering North Korea: the journal Asian Survey published an annual summary of events of North Korea beginning in 1961 (example).

However, I have so far not been able to find an analogous source for the Soviet Union.
In addition, I will note that I have also found two other periodical sources that may help in my research endeavor:

The Yearbook on International Communist Affairs
The Annual Register: a yearly record of major events for each country (which incidentally I am struggling to gain digital access to, since it is my understanding that a paid subscription to ProQuest is required--Does the Wikipedia Library have access to it?).

So I have yet to find a journal or similar academic publication that had the Soviet Union as a primary or major focus, that periodically provided a digest of events of the USSR. I would appreciate any source suggestions. Thank you very much. (talk) user:Al83tito 04:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, user:Al83tito, it's time for a reference interview. Please describe your past searches: where have you searched, what terms have you used, etc.? Not familiar with the Annual Register; my institution doesn't subscribe to it (and yes, it is ProQuest), and WorldCat shows that it's only sparsely held in my region; if you're in a major metropolitan area, check WorldCat holdings for this title in case you live near a library that has print holdings. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Wikipedians that have access to ProQuest and other paid-access archives. See the list here; search the page for "proq" and you'll find six users offering some method of access. You can make specific requests here. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nyttend and Matt Deres for your responses. I briefly had access to ProQuest and did there a bit of a search, but not so much (I no longer have access to it and at the time I did, I was unaware of the Annual Register). I have also tried Project MUSE but I did not know so much how to navigate it and my first attempts didn't yield anything. I have mostly spent time searching in JSTOR, which I do have access to. I have used different combinations of these terms in my searches: Soviet, Soviet Union, Communism, Communist, chronicle, chronicle of events, events, timeline, news. In addition, instead of just directly looking for articles, I also used a two-step approach: search for journals that covered the USSR (by searching for publication names using some of the aforementioned keywords), and then look at the table of contents of a sample year's worth of issues. The wiki article Soviet and Communist studies also was a good resource in identifying potential sources.

BTW, as a point of clarification, I am specifically looking for chronicles that at least in part touch upon the international relations of the USSR, as that is what really I am after (the aforementioned chronicles I have already found include a digest of events both domestic and international).

Regarding the Annual Register, in my area there is one library with the physical items. I am keeping that option as a last resort, because of two reasons: this series of books are not on the shelves but rather in a storage area that requires submitting requests at the Page Desk to get a few items at a time, and, because doing word searches on digital OCR'd items allows for way faster and more precise research...À propos of what Nyttend was kindly suggesting, since I am interested in reviewing over 30 issues of the Annual Register, I don't dare ask for so much to any other individual user that is volunteering access to materials (I suspect they would want me to be more narrow in my request). Thank you both! (talk) user:Al83tito 18:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that ProQuest has tons of databases, not just one; my institution subscribes to a lot of them, but not all. So do you want a single work that provides a complete overview of Soviet foreign relations for the period? [You say a periodical: do you want only serials, or will monographs work as well?] Since you mentioned Project Muse, I've been searching it, and I found an interesting book review:

Parrott, Bruce [from Johns Hopkins]. "A failed empire : the Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev". Journal of Cold War Studies 11.1 (2009): 170-172.

The book in question, published by UNC Press in 2007, sounds like it would fit your needs pretty well, as long as you're interested in monographic material. There are two WorldCat records, 1 and 2 (#1 has a title error, and #2 has odd publication metadata); #2 is far more widely owned, with 1,192 holding institutions versus 21 for #1. If you can't get access to it easily, let me know and I can try to help; I've borrowed my institution's copy. Finally, if you must have a serial, try to find an English translation of one of the final editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (they exist; I had access to one in graduate school), which would be an academic serial publication, and which presumably would have a good deal of coverage of the subject. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait...you didn't say just foreign relations. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia still fits the description perfectly, but if you need a single source that covers all kinds of publick occurrences both forreign and domestick, my book won't help. Please let me know if you think it would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nyttend. Your mention of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is an intriguing revelation, that I look forward to looking into. Thank you! Indeed my interest is mostly with serial publications that quarter to quarter, or year to year, recount new developments in the USSR's foreign relations. My interest is now mostly focussed in contemporary chronicles. Newspapers and other daily news sources would be the most detailed and contemporary sources, but they are way too much to go through. Instead, as is the case with the Asian Survey and China Quarterly, a scholar went through all the news data to provide a quarterly or annual digest and analysis of new developments. While of course history books have their merits, so far I have not looked for them because those no longer have the contemporary quality I seek, and they are likely to provide less detail as they have to cover longer periods of time. Nevertheless thank you for your specific book recommendation, and I will keep it mind if my contemporary chronicle search does not yield direct results, and I decide to expand my research in the history book direction. Thank you! (talk) user:Al83tito 02:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish anarchists saving Jews

You said:

‘They worked especially to smuggle Jewish families into Spain, forging passes for them and helping them find safety, in order to protect them from Nazi oppression.’

I am extremely interested in seeing citations for this. Do you know of any? (They can be in English, Spanish, or some other language.) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 10:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, Romanophile!

Seriously, though, please don't assume, or talk as though, Wikipedia editors are a single body that is collectively responsible for the content. One editor added that material; and though there may be many others who have seen it since, there are far more who have never looked at the article.

Using the Revision History search, I find that that sentence was part of a large amount of material added by Tothebarricades.tk on 21 September 2004. Unfortunately, Tothebarricades did not include any references, but they have edited Wikipedia within the last three months, so it is likely that they are still active and you can ask them for sources. Normally I would suggest posting the question on their User Talk page; but in this case I have pinged them here, so they should see the question. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this claim intriguing so spent a bit of time looking for sources for it... without success so far. If it can't be sourced by Tothebarricades (or anyone else for that matter), it should be removed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] might be a jumping-off point for research. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea. To avoid WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, we'd need to find sources saying that any such people were working to save Jews as part of an anarchist campaign, rather than as individuals who happen to be anarchists. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. Yeah, most of the stuff I added for this article was from before in-line citation was a common practice on Wikipedia, unfortunately, and my notes for this have long since vanished; it may be in one of the books listed in the article's bibliography, but I'm not sure. I looked through my own library for a reference to it with no luck. I'm pretty sure the source I read this in was written in Spanish, so if you're searching in English sources you probably won't find it. ~~I'm going to send an e-mail to the reference desk at the Tamiment Library - I think it was something I read there ages ago. If they can't provide any leads, I think taking it out is probably prudent~~.(Update: I think this may have to wait a few weeks; I've taken out the claim for now, but I will make an effort to locate the source in early September). Tothebarricades (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On adoption in antiquity

Adoption in ancient Rome was different from now. I've got a Q that's a bit too squishy to be answered by the relevant WP pages. Say I were adopted by some Scipio or another. Would I be recognized as having full right to boast of my ancient lineage, despite it not being my literal blood? Would people respect my heritage one little bit less for not being born of that gens? Would anyone laugh if I inscribed my whole adoptive family tree on my tomb?

Bonus question: is there a term analogous to "turn of the century" but referring to the turn of BC(E) to AD? I know there is and I'm totally spacing it.

Temerarius (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Year 0. Seriously, "turn of the era"? Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not "year 0" unless you're an astronomer. See the article you linked. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I said "seriously" after giving that link :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the unbalanced punctuation it wasn't clear how to read it, but I thought "seriously" might have been meant to go with "Year 0". --76.69.47.228 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation would require a complete misunderstanding of what the full stop and the comma mean. Henry ^Flower 21:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're assuming that Nyttend got his punctuation correct. What if he hadn't? Akld guy (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)""[reply]

"Antiquity" is pretty broad, but focusing on the "Roman", the Emperor Tiberius was called "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus" (as our article explains). He was Augustus' adopted son. If you had a time machine and went back to Rome in his time, I wouldn't recommend laughing at him for it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good resource for digging into the issue. It delves into the legal rights and obligations, which should give you a sense of how fully the adoptee is considered a family member. On a quick skim, one example close to your scenario might be the case (page 80) of Titus Pomponius Atticus, who was adopted by his maternal uncle Quintus Caecilius Metellus (palace owner). Afterwards, Atticus called his freedmen Caecilii and his daughter a Caecilia, and was buried in his uncle's tomb. But the author also says there really isn't enough evidence to draw a more general conclusion. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On magic in antiquity

I'm curious about this bit in our entry on the gospel of Mark.

'"There was ... no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.'

That seems a strong statement to make about a period where magic was near-ubiquitous in all areas, among all classes. Wasn't calling something "magic" just giving a negative name to a (religious etc) practice one didn't approve of? If so, wouldn't it follow that saying "magic is bad" would have been a tautology?

It would be helpful to know which Latin (or Greek) terms were used to make these distinctions. I know we've got religio, superstitio, and magi are magicians, right? Anything else? Temerarius (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Skinner, in his Techniques of Graeco-Egyptian Magic, divides some of the rituals in the Papyri Graecae Magicae between:

-Religious: Devotions, praise, thanksgiving, and supplications that leave the matter in the deity's hands.

-Mystical: Personal introductions to a deity.

-Magical: Supernatural acts where the magician's (or their client's) desires are placed above that of the spirits called.

Other authors have some quibbles with Skinner's division, because:

-While some ancient peoples might have seen the division as reasonable, many would not

-How do you classify someone who engages in a mystical rite to "trick" a deity into wanting to carry out the would-be-magician's supplication? That's pretty much the root idea behind the Key of Solomon, which Skinner does a very convincing job of connecting to ancient practices.

-How do you classify a sincerely devout priest who performs an act of ritual power over a lesser spirit (putting his will above the spirits), on behalf of and to advance the goals of the religion and its deity? They'd certainly classify their activity as licit religion and not illicit sorcery, as would the followers of that religion and probably many non-followers who nonetheless accept the validity of the exorcism.

Issues like this are why Marvin Meyer and several other scholars have dropped the term "magic" and started using phrases like "ritual power" instead. The word "magic" as we understand it includes so much baggage that its value becomes questionable, especially since some of that baggage inconveniently overlaps with various terms that ancient people would have argued were or were not magic.

Still, there probably is something to classifying it according to intention if one also takes into account how that intention is perceived.

Roman era Goofus and Gallant were both been initiated into one mystery together, and they both remember it as a sacred experience. Goofus probably views Gallant's initiations into other mysteries as superstition.

Both probably have used curse tablets to win bets at the chariot races. Goofus doesn't care what spirits are invoked and asks for the rival charioteers' heads to die horribly. Gallant is very careful to invoke only licit spirits for more appropriate uses. Goofus probably views his use of curse tablets as a privilege from his initiation in the mysteries, while Gallant believes his initiation both requires and enables him to use them responsibly.

Upon seeing a Roman priest demand that Jupiter smite the everloving shit out of someone for stiffing him an uncia, Goofus is afraid because this seems to him a reasonable use of valid religio. Gallant is disappointed in the priest because it's blasphemy if it doesn't work, magia if it does, and impious either way. Gallant is also probably disappointed at his friend's superstitio.

Upon seeing a Persian fellow supplicating Mihr for good health, Gallant will be somewhat intrigued by this "unorthodox" use of the Mithraic mysteries, though concerned about the possibly profane invocation of Mithras. Goofus, meanwhile, has run off to give the priest of Jupiter five denarii to nuke "that maleficium-practicing Persian who just cursed this city with plague."

Meanwhile, a Christian author across the street dismiss all of it as both superstitio and magia before asking a saint to pray to God to have Sariel send an angel to protect him from their demons. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly interesting response, Thomson. Let's be friends. And if we bring those characters into the past, for what it's worth I will be calling them Goofus Maximus and Gallus Magnus, translation be damned. If you took it upon yourself to improve the Mark article I'm sure we'd all be grateful. Temerarius (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not willing to interfere but it's not obvious that our Wikipedia article on Magi is relevant to that interpretation. For anybody inside the Roman Empire duties included - at least - not infringing the public cult owed to the Emperor, which Skinner's Techniques enumeration, as indicated by Ian, point three not making a famous match with it. --Askedonty (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the article reads to me as a bit absurdly written. The context seems to be about the reaction of Jews to the charge of magic, so the attitude of the Romans seems irrelevant. The ancient / traditional Jewish attitude to magic is extremely negative - and it is assumed that it is real and works. This is easily sourced from primary sources (the Bible) and secondary. The story of Witch of Endor is instructive. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]