Modern principles of morality are inadequate for solving the structural problems faced by contemporary societies. Early in the modern epoch the normative, social concept of nature that had supported Greek, Roman, and medieval ethical theories, became transformed into a purely empirical, private one. Thus for Hobbes, Locke, and most eighteenth-century political theorists, the “state of nature” referred to the opposite of a social state, ruled by lawful custom, it had meant before. The idea of “natural right” which gradually emerged as a substitute principle was denned in individualist terms. With the notion of “general will” Rousseau attempted to establish a more genuinely social basis for the State.

Thucydides is famous for the speeches in his work, so rich in arresting generalities. Yet his handling of these speeches has been often questioned and seldom understood. This article illuminates his procedures by considering them within the context, too often ignored, of Thucydides' equally famous “Archaeology,” or account of ancient times, which expresses his criticism of previous writers. It attempts to vindicate his own methods, and in particular his own contribution to the speeches that he presents in the mouths of his characters, with reference to the political character of the speeches as originally delivered as well as of Thucydides' purpose in reproducing them.

This article investigates an oft-alleged kinship between the political thought of Machiavelli and Thucydides concerning “virtue.” In the background is the current debate over whether or not Machiavelli initiates “modern” thought with (among other things) a radically new teaching on “virtue.” Machiavellian virtù is reprised; Thucydidean attributions of aretē, catalogued; observations proffered. Then Thucydides' assessment of the career of Nicias is discussed; this, to support the contention that when read in their proper contexts, contexts carefully crafted by Thucydides, Thucydidean attributions of aretē do not support the apparent kinship between Thucydides and Machiavelli: Thucydides is not a “Machiavellian.”

This study deals with the experiences of the Greens (Die Griinen) during the 1980's as a “new” party in West German state and federal parliaments and specifically with the Green parliamentary groups' relationships with the movement-party. The founders of the Greens sought to organize as a decentralized, participatory democracy. Accordingly, they developed rules to hinder the emergence of a professionalized leadership and to restrict the autonomy of parliamentary groups. Utilizing a comparative approach, the author investigates the extent to which the Greens have become “parliamentarized” by the normalizing forces of the established system at state and federal levels. This study relates the Greens' developmental experiences to the “classic” observations of Duverger, Michels, and others about modern party development. Finally, it reviews the recent perspectives of various intraparty groups about the future of the Greens.

Raphael Hythlodaeus, the philosopher of Thomas More's Utopia, is generally considered to be an uncompromising and inflexible political idealist. However, Raphael may be more subde and complex than he is usually thought to be. Raphael may be capable of practical, prudent political advice, and may even desire to give such advice in some way, as long as his active participation in politics is not required. If this is true, then his real fault or blindness could be his lack of awareness of how vulnerable he is to the accusation that he is avoiding his public duty and not political idealism.