Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 25

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.

June 25

Am I legally required to send my public facebook posts, and indeed this very thread, to the British Library?

According to Legal deposit#United_Kingdom

"The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003[32] restates Section 15 of the Copyright Act 1911,[33] that one copy of every book (which includes pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, sheet music and maps) published there must be sent to the British Library. The 2003 Act set out provisions for the deposit of non-print works. This legislation was updated with the introduction of secondary legislation, The Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013,[34] which make provision for the legal deposit of works published online or offline in formats other than print, such as websites, blogs, e-journals and CD-ROMs. Social media content is included in the legislation, but not private message sent via social media platforms."

This would seem to suggest that I am supposed to be sending pretty much everything I type online to the British Library. Is that true? Boopsos45356 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the top of the page where it states "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe people have to send a copy of their non-print publications. It seems that the purpose of the new regulation is to let the British Library copy web-pages without asking for permission every time they wanted to archive some content for posterity. It was rather a change in copyright law.--Yppieyei (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely correct. Copyright comes in to it but it isn't the only thing. This is obviously not legal advice but it sounds like for website and similar online material you don't have to provide copies directly. However instead as outlined below, they will crawl your website. And I don't think you could restrict their crawling bots from accessing your website if you're covered by the legislation unless you come to an agreement to provide material in another way. In fact if your website requires a login for material covered, you have to provide it (or come to an agreement to provide materials in another way). Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The snark in me says not to worry about it. Through Tempora, should they want it I'd imagine the British Library could get a copy from GCHQ of pretty much anything to happen on the internet in at least the last three days (rolling.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The text of the citation given for the law states "Each deposit library is entitled to delivery under section 1 of the Act of a copy of any work published on line which it requests." Chris H 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah bearing in mind this obviously isn't legal advice, reading the legislation [1] combined with it seems [2] [3] [4], it seems for website stuff, you don't have to do anything other than allow the web crawler to access your site, and provide login details if it's needed to access the material. They will contact you to ask for the login details although you do only have 1 month to provide the login details if it's requested. Note also it sounds like material that isn't public, for example Facebook wall posts or Twitter responses or whatever that are for your friends only aren't covered. Also if you don't want them accessing your website or for some other reason will prefer to provide material in another way, you can come to an agreement to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the US Library of Congress has very similar rules: [5]. I'd be surprised if there weren't similar laws floating around in many countries. The Library of Congress rule applies to books published outside of the USA at the point when they are imported into the USA...I wonder how you know whether you're the first person to import a particular book from overseas? I could imagine someone buying an obscure manga book from Japan and end up being legally liable to buy three extra copies to sent to the LoC?!?! SteveBaker (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Campagne de circumnavigation de la frégate l'Artémise

Can someone help me find the Fifth Volume of Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace's Campagne de circumnavigation de la frégate l'Artémise and also in what year was it published? Google books and archive.org doesn't seem to have this particular volume. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: well I do see that GBooks has this record which gives the year as 1853 and has a preview available. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Is this the earliest edition of the fifth volume or are there earlier version of this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bibliothèque nationale de France catalog has only one entry for the book, with all six volumes listed under that entry [6]. There is just a general publication date (1841-1854), but the absence of a mention of any earlier edition leads to think the 1853 edition of volume 5 was the original (and only) one. --Xuxl (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, have you heard of WorldCat? Using it, I found several entries (example) for the whole collection, plus entries (1 and 2) for the fifth volume by itself. None of the entire-collection entries have any dates, except for the 1841-1854 range that reflects the different volumes; it's possible to add free-text comments when creating a WorldCat record, so a cataloger could have given publication dates for the different volumes independently, but nobody did. Looks like 1853 is the only option. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Existentialist views on changing society

Does existentialism imply some social commitment towards changing society? Or, is caring about what happens to others a matter of individual choice, since each individual is responsible for giving a meaning to his life? If others got unlucky and live under harsh conditions, that's not necessarily my problem in existentialism?

It seems strange to me that an ideology developed mainly during the first half of the XX century won't be centered around how societies work and should work.--Yppieyei (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To your first question: I don't think so. But it's hard, because there are many existentialists, and some might feel that way, but it doesn't seem core to the movement. For example here's a blog post from an academic existentialist group about societal change and existentialism, titled "Don't change the world, change yourself" [7]. It comes out sort of saying that an existentialist can (and perhaps should) try to change society, but that the only real way to do that is through self involvement. But maybe Jean-Paul_Sartre would have been happy to stand by and "watch the world burn" [8].

To your last sentence, keep in mind Existentialism#Despair is a key concept of the philosophy, they weren't necessarily that interested in fixing things. If you'd like a better source on general existentialism than our article, check out the SEP article (written by real professional philosophers!) here [9]. There is a section there relating Satre's existentialism to Marxism, but I'll let you read that for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I'm no expert in this area, so please lean on the SEP and other links rather than my (possibly mistaken) summaries. SemanticMantis (talk)

It is also important to remember that philosophy doesn't develop in a vacuum; instead one needs to keep in mind that schools of philosophy are a reflection of the time and place where they develop. When one understands what life in Europe was like during the time when Existentialism developed, we see the Long Depression of the late 19th century, World War I, till that point the most devastating war in history, the Great Depression between the wars, and World War II, the sequel which was bigger than the first. Understandably, the European philosophers of that time period might feel a little, say, pessimistic about the nature of the human condition. --Jayron32 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(And all this has reminded me of one of my favorite jokes, and as it happens to touch upon existentialism as well as ontology, I will share it: Sartre is sitting in a café, revising a draft of Being and Nothingness. A server asks for his order, and Sartre replies "Coffee, no cream please. The server responds "I'm sorry sir, but we do not have any cream, only milk. Sartre quickly clarifies "In that case, I will have coffee with no milk.") SemanticMantis (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Then there was the philosopher who asked for half a glass of wine. After waiting for some time and not being served, he hailed a passing waiter and asked him to check what happened to his order. Shortly the original waiter turned up, flustered and dishevelled, and explained that he'd been having the most awful difficulty deciding whether to give him a glass that was half full or half empty. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

searching for images from British Empire

Using Google Images, I'm trying to find images from the 19th century and early 20th century of British men (not natives) in British-held lands in Africa, Asia and perhaps the Middle East. Looking for military men or businessmen, either posing for the camera or doing everyday things. I'm particularly interested in men with weapons, in different outfits (uniforms or civilian clothes), funny hats, etc. The problem is I don't really know what to search for. What are some good search terms that will lead to these types of images?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I found A P&O Passage to India, Beautiful photos of Imperial India, Jodhpurs Nr. 70 – Lord Curzon, History Chat, Old Indian Photographs and Anyone An Expert In Historical British Uniforms?. Some film footage at Colonial Film. Try a Google search for "colonial administrator" and then try adding the name of a colony. Also search "British Raj" and "British Colony" You might also want to look at Wikimedia Commons "Category:British Empire". Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Google images: British in South Africa 19th Century (Substitute South Africa with India, Australia, etc.) 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! These are very good pictures.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

America's powers to expel a U.N. ambassador

A few years ago, the FBI captured several Russian spies based in America, most memorably Anna Chapman. They were subsequently released as part of a prisoner exchange.

My question is as follows: Apparently, the spies passed their information back to Russia via Russia's ambassador to the United Nations (NOT the ambassador to the United States).

Now if it had been the Ambassador to the United States who was involved in spying on his hosts, clearly the U.S. government could declare him or her persona non grata and expel them. My question is, if U.N. ambassadors based in New York abuse their position, can the U.S. government unilaterally order them expelled? What are the U.S. government powers as host to the U.N, regarding ambassadors' behaviour in the U.S.? 101.160.164.9 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

See Headquarters_of_the_United_Nations#International_character. It has some information that may help answer your question. --Jayron32 07:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The United Nations Headquarters Agreement [10] touches on this in its article 15.4. Diplomats assigned to the UN have to be agreed by the UN, the sending state and the United States. In return, the US grants them the same diplomatic privileges and immunities as they would to diplomats accredited to the United States. This would seem to imply (I am not a lawyer) that the US can revoke these privileges and immunities in the same manner it can for diplomats accredited to the US, and therefore that a representative to the UN could be declared persona non grata if the circumstances are sufficiently serious. This document [11] issued by the United States State Department also mentions that these diplomats have similar privileges and immunities (p.8), and does not make a distinction between them and diplomats accredited to the United States when it comes to a possible expulsion (p.13). --Xuxl (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Labour and trade union responses to the Beveridge Report

Our article Beveridge Report says "While the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party quickly adopted Beveridge's proposals, the Labour Party was slow to follow. Labour leaders opposed Beveridge's idea of a National Health Service run through local health centres and regional hospital administrations, preferring a state-run body. Beveridge complained about the opposition of Labour leaders, including that of Ernest Bevin: "For Ernest Bevin, with his trade-union background of unskilled workers... social insurance was less important than bargaining about wages." Bevin derided the Beveridge Report as a "Social Ambulance Scheme" and followed the Coalition Government's view that it should not be implemented until the end of the war (he was furious in February 1943 when a large number of Labour back-benchers ignored their leaders and voted against delay in implementing Beveridge)." I am interested in finding out more about Labour's response, and that of the Trade Unions (both individually and collectively through the TUC). DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you had a look through the google newspaper archive? I put in "Beveridge" and "Labour" and got some hits back. For example, this Sydney Morning Herald article from June 16 1943 [12] reports on the Labour Party's annual conference and refers to "an executive resolution welcoming the Beveridge plan", as well as controversy about what it would say. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Numbering US presidents?

When US presidents serve consecutive terms they are only counted once. But when they serve non-consecutive terms they are counted as many times as there are non-consecutive terms (the only case being that of Grover Cleveland). This, at least to me, seems a bit illogical. Either you count presidencies, i.e. terms, or you count people. If you count people then Cleveland during his 2nd term should be described as the 22nd president serving a 2nd term. It seems odd that one person can be both the 22nd and the 24th president and that there are more "presidents of the US" than there were presidents of the US, that is people who have served as president of the US. It seems someone during Cleveland's 2nd term, which was the first (and last) time this occurred decided it would be done that way and we're stuck with that. Does anyone know who that was and what the logic behind it was? What's the sense of counting people when terms are consecutive but terms when they are not? Contact Basemetal here 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, but here is my guess. I think they (whoever "they" are) are not counting presidents (i.e., people). Rather, they are counting presidencies (i.e., presidential administrations). So, counting backwards in reverse chronological order, we have the United States as it was governed under the Obama administration; then we have the United States as it was governed under the Bush administration; and so on. It is the policies and the governance (i.e., the presidential administration) that are important, not the "man" himself. So, from that perspective, the "strange" numbering of Cleveland makes sense. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words: generally speaking, when a new president comes on board, the country swings or shifts in a new direction, into how that new administration wants the country to be governed. This change or shift occurs once a new man is in office. But, it is irrelevant as to how long that man stays in office (number of terms). When a new man steps in, a new administration steps in with a new philosophy of governance. (There is a saying about how "a new broom sweeps clean".) So, when Cleveland was in his first term (as a Democrat, no less), the country was being governed and administered according to his leadership style of governance. Then, when Harrison came in (a Republican, no less), the country "shifted" into his new leadership style of governance. Then when Harrison left, and we went back to Cleveland's second term, the country shifted yet again, back to Cleveland's administration and policies (i.e., his leadership style of governance). So, if a president serves many consecutive terms (let's say, five terms – even though that is impossible), his philosophy, his administration, his governance, his leadership, etc., don't change with each new term. They stay constant and consistent for the entire presidency (five terms, in that example). It's when a new person enters office when the country tends to "shift" and "change". That is why a consecutive term is very different than a non-consecutive term. Once again, "a new broom sweeps clean". Hope my explanation makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. What you're saying in essence is that the counter was incremented each time another person became president, each time there was a change of president, i.e. the administration changed. Under this counting method there's no point moving the counter if the same person only moves from one term to the next since there was no change of administration. That's how I understand your explanation. I guess that makes some kind of sense. See however Anonymous 184.147.138.101's contribution below that this apparently was not the logic used at first. Contact Basemetal here 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. They are counting the presidencies (i.e., the new administration on board to lead/govern the country). They are not counting the individual person (e.g., Barack Obama, Grover Cleveland, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

More than 2 terms is unconstitutional now. But it was OK until after FDR's time. He was into his 4th term when he died. (Opinion: I must say I've never quite seen the point of limiting someone to 2 terms. If the people were happy to let them go on, and he/she were interested in continuing, why shouldn't the democratic choice prevail? It would get rid of the problem that all 2nd-term presidents (and that's most of them) face: the entire 4 years of the 2nd term are the "lame duck years". The whole world suffers, not just the USA.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the US constitution that "you can't trust the people" anyway? That's why it's so hard to change, that's why presidents are not elected by the people but by an indirect system, and why not all adult US citizens can even be president, even if most of the people want them to be. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the design is clearly focused on the belief that one can't trust governments: "Congress shall make no law . . . "DOR (HK) (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the deal with trusting the people to elect the same guy twice (you can do a lot of harm in 8 days or 8 weeks, let alone 8 years), but not trusting them to elect him a third time? Was FDR so terrible that the country never wanted a nightmare like that ever again? That's certainly not how he was viewed then (if my reading of US history is accurate), or, generally speaking, since. What was the problem that needed fixing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem that needed fixing was that there was an "unwritten rule" that no president would serve more than 2 full terms. No one before Roosevelt made a serious attempt (a few came close, like his cousin Theodore Roosevelt, who served a bit less than 2 full terms before running a third time and losing). The unwritten rule was established by George Washington who deliberately refused to run for a third term (despite the likelihood he would have easily won) noting that he didn't want the Presidency position to be for life, and that 8 years was quite enough, TYVM. Everyone pretty much stayed in line until FDR, who ruined the party for everyone by breaking the unwritten rule and thus forcing them to actually write it down. The history of how the Presidential term limits came to be are cited in the "History" section of the article Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Jayron32 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read that article now, and I have to say I find it hard to agree with just about anything you wrote. But I guess here's not the place to have that discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The push for the presidential term limit was promoted by Republicans who hated FDR for a long list of reasons, of which running for a third (and fourth) term was only one. Some payback came in the 1980s when Republicans talked about repealing that amendment so they could run Reagan a third time. Nothing came of it. Ironically, FDR's distant cousin Teddy could have been the first, had the Republicans had the good sense to nominate him in 1912 instead of sure-loser Taft. If that had happened, then we would have had another Grover Cleveland situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if Grover Cleveland isn't listed as the 22nd and 24th Presidents, you get the very strange result that the 24th President (William McKinley) does not immediately follow the 23rd (Benjamin Harrison). So, it's odd no matter what you do. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the 22nd president would follow both the 21st and the 23rd president (so you would get the sequence 21, 22, 23, 22, 24). But it's not odd if you understand "president number X" as the Xth person who became president of the US. Yes the current method of counting does make some sense (see Joe Spadaro's contribution above) but I wonder if that would be the logic followed in daily life. For example if someone's life had been divided between London and Paris, 10 years in Paris, 10 years in London, then 10 years again in Paris and finally 10 years in London, if you asked them "how many cities have you lived in" I doubt they would say "I've lived in 4 cities, Paris, London, Paris and London". Or if you told them "So London is the 2nd city you've lived in" I again doubt they would correct you and say "No London is the 2nd and the 4th city I've lived in". See also Annoymous 184.147.138.101's contribution which shows that at some point the logic was changed from what I would say is the more usual one to the current one. Contact Basemetal here 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but your London and Paris example is comparing apples and oranges. Example 1: If you asked how many cities they have lived in, that person would answer "two, London and Paris". Example 2: But, let's say that they are on some long-term work projects (10 years in London on Project A, followed by 10 years in Paris on Project B, followed by 10 years in London on Project C, followed by 10 years in Paris on Project D). If you asked them how many work projects they have been engaged in, they would answer "four: A, B, C, and D". So, Example 1 is analogous to asking "how many distinct individuals have been President?". Example 2 is analogous to asking "how many presidential administrations have there been in US history?" Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems the numbering used to not count Cleveland twice, and the changeover was made much later than 1897. Here's a 1950 article [13] about the Congressional Directory finally changing the official numbering that sites the switchover in Truman's time. Franklin Roosevelt was regularly referred to as the 31st [14]. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Anonymous 184.147.138.101 for this bit of detective work. Contact Basemetal here 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.184.147.138.101 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pergamea or Pergamus

Apparently this location was the second site where Aeneas tried to found a city in Virgil's Aeneid. The Pergamea and Pergamus articles both lay a claim to being this spot, anyone know which name is more accurate? There seems to be evidence that both have been used in translations (or perhaps they are referring to different places, Pergamos is also in the mix), but for the sake of Wikipedia one should have the info and the other redirect or disambiguate. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Adam Bishop: - a Latin expert who perhaps could tell you the spelling in the original (I don't know enough about Latin case endings to attempt it). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well, there are lots of Latinists around here that would know more about this than me, but Pergama was the citadel of Troy, and Pergamea was the new city that Aeneas founded, named after Pergama. What complicates this is that Pergama is actually a neuter plural, so a singular form Pergamum is also used in other Latin literature (but not in the Aeneid). On top of that, "Pergameus" is also an adjective used by Virgil, so "Pergamea" would be the singular feminine form of the adjective, which is used in the Aeneid (e.g. book 3.110). But the city founded by Aeneas is clearly named Pergamea (3.133), a noun, not an adjective. And to complicate it a bit more, this all comes from Greek, where the neuter singular "pergamon" means "citadel". The plural is also "pergama" in Greek. In the Iliad, the citadel of Troy is called both "Pergamos" (which is apparently feminine) and "Pergamon". Some translations seem to call it "Pergamus", like Dryden's version for example. Maybe Dryden got it from the Iliad, or maybe he was thinking of Pergamus in the KJV (which is actually the famous Pergamon and has nothing to do with Troy), and possibly any other translation using Pergamus is inspired by Dryden. I hope that's not too confusing...in short, the two places are definitely Pergama and Pergamea in the Aeneid. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening that out. I'll remove the info from Pergamus and leave a hat note there to send people to Pergamea in case anyone else runs into this confusion. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unitary USA

Why was the Union of South Africa a unitary state? Three of the five major former colonial states ruled by the UK (Canada, United States, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand) are composed of smaller colonies that united into federations, New Zealand was pretty much always a single colony and became a unitary state, but South Africa was the result of smaller colonies that united into a unitary state. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference between a unitary state and a federation is the difference between where the ultimate sovereignty lies in the constitution of a state, and not necessarily with the historic facts of how the state formed. While it is true that South Africa formed from the union of separate colonies, as the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. had, the difference is that according to the constitution of South Africa, specifically Chapter One of the Constitution of South Africa, defines it as a unitary state with full sovereignty lying with the National government, any powers of the individual Provinces of South Africa are granted as devolved powers and they exist at the whim of the national government. THAT is what makes it a unitary state and not a federation. In a federation, such as the U.S. or Canada, the smaller units (States, provinces, etc.) retain constitutionally enshrined sovereign powers which are inviolable and not subject to revocation by the national government. It has little to do with how a country formed (though, of course, that has influence) and more to do with how a country actually operates. After all, even the UK itself formed out of formerly independent states (Scotland, England, Wales and a rump of the Kingdom of Ireland) but in the UK, any powers allowed to the Home Nations are specifically granted by Parliament, and Parliament has the constitutional power to take such rights away at any time. --Jayron32 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. The point is, why did the creators of the original constitution decide to create a unitary state, rather than following the example of the Americans and the other dominions? The process of nation-building definitely has a lot to do with the result; we see the unitary country arising out of one country conquering another and another, and then getting merged following the dynastic Union of the Crowns under a family of absolutists. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that question is no more valid or needing an answer than asking "Why would the founders of the Union of South Africa have been under an obligation to follow the models set out by Canada, the USA, Australia, etc.?" A big part of it is probably tied up in the history of South Africa's formation; the domination of the Boer states and people by the English Cape Colony, as well as the role of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts in the formation and early years of the state; Smuts was a pretty deep thinker, as a political and social philosopher, one cannot help but wonder if his philosophy of Holism didn't play some part in his belief in a unitary state for South Africa. South African history, especially at this time, is rife with complexities which are difficult to resolve at superficial glance, not the least of which is how two generals who fought against Britain in the Boer Wars become major pro-Anglo politicians during the earliest years of the republic. But "why?" questions are fiendishly impossible to answer in the way you want them to; questions like the one you are asking presuppose a normative position which then requires explanation only for those situations that don't match the norm (in this case, the "expectation" you have that unions of previously independent territories be set up as federations). In some cases, the "whys" can be answered because the people who set the government up carefully weighed the various options, and wrote lengthy treatises on why they made their choices (for example, the Federalist Papers in the United States). However, the founders of South Africa (or any nation, for that matter) were under no obligation to explain themselves to anyone, especially where their choices were not necessarily so aberrant as to require justification. --Jayron32 04:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if having 4 national capitals (Cape Town=legislative, Pretoria=administrative, Bloemfontein=judicial, Pietermaritzburg=archival) was an attempt to distribute power geographically by other means. We'd still need to know why they thought that would be a better way to distribute power, though. (Maybe they thought it would be less likely to lead to regional rivalries ?) Sounds like we need to dig up some documents written by the founding fathers to determine their motivations. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Each of the national capitals was a deliberate recognition of the history of South Africa as a union of former independent colonies; each had been the capital of one of those states:

• Cape Town = Cape Colony
• Pretoria = the Transvaal Colony, previously the independent South African Republic
• Bloemfontein = Orange Free State, like Transvaal, a previously independent Boer Republic which became a British colony
• Pietermaritzburg = Colony of Natal, previously the independent Boer Natalia Republic.

Those are the four states that constituted the original Union, as laid out in the South Africa Act 1909, which granted independence and unity to the new state. The article Union of South Africa notes the reason for the four capitals. It also notes that, under the current Constitution of South Africa enacted in 1997, the nation actually has no official capital, noting only that the legislature is to meet in Cape Town; the other cities retain "capital" status only through tradition and the memory of history. Constitutionally, the modern state has no capital city, functions of the national government are today distributed in many cities, besides the four "traditional" capitals, Johannesburg also has organs of the national government based there. --Jayron32 03:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The negotiations leading up to Treaty of Vereeniging which ended the war influenced subsequent events and played a role in the constitutional structure of the Union. The book listed under External links in the treaty article (a free ebook edition by Project Guttenburg) contains a lot of detail about the ideas the political leadership had about the (then) future of South Africa. (BTW I have notified WikiProject South Africa of this topic, it's now morning there so hopefully a few knowlegable members will soon participate here) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A follow up question

The bit about South Africa having no offical capital is interesting. And gets me wondering... Are there any other nations that have no official capital? Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nauru doesn't have a capital at all, either official or de-facto. See also the lists at List of countries with multiple capitals and List of national capitals and largest cities by country. Nanonic (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Historically, wherever the King and his Court happened to be hanging out that week was the "Capital" of Medieval European states; some had clearly defined capitals from very early on (Paris had been the undisputed capital of France since time immemorial. In contrast, the Holy Roman Empire/Kingdom of Germany never had an official capital, lots of cities had capital-like functions, from Aachen where the Emperor was crowned, to Vienna which was the seat of the Austrian Hapsburgs who eventually came to control the nominally elective empire, to Prague which also served as home to the imperial family at times, to Regensburg which eventually became the permanent seat of the Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire). You even have odd situations like the Netherlands, where Amsterdam has been their official "capital" since they formed as an independent state, and yet has never served as the seat of government, it's always been a capital "in name only". --Jayron32 00:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean we should refer to it as nauru? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)