Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy

University of California Press

Cynicism was arguably the most original and influential branch of the Socratic tradition in antiquity, but not until D.R. Dudley's A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century A.D. (London 1937) did the literary and philosophical significance of the Cynics begin to be acknowledged by modern scholars. Curiously, until about 1975, Cynicism still remained in the shadows, apparently condemned to marginalization outside the canonical philosophical schools. Since that time, however, there have been many studies of the subject,1 and today Cynicism is finally being taken seriously as a philosophical and cultural movement of lasting interest. Lonce Paquet's French translation of

The editors are thankful to Michael Chase for translating those sections of the introduction originally written by M.-O. Goulet-Caz in French.

We shall cite here, in chronological order, a few titles that may illustrate the breadth of the revival of Cynic studies in the last twenty years: Lonce Paquet, Les cyniques grecs: Fragments et tmoignages (Montreal 1975; 2d ed. 1988; abridged ed. in the collection Livre de Poche [Paris 1992]); J.F. Kindstrand, Bion of Borysthenes (Uppsala 1976); E.N. O'Neil, Teles the Cynic Teacher (Missoula 1976); Margarethe Billerbeck, Epiktet: Vom Kynismus (Leiden 1978) and Der Kyniker Demetrius (Leiden 1979); Heinrich Niehues-Prbsting, Der Kynismus des Diogenes und der Begriff des Zynismus (Munich 1979); Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik der zynischen Vernunft (Frankfurt 1983); G. Giannantoni, Socraticorum Reliquiae , 4 vols. (Naples 198385); T. Flynn, "Foucault as Parrhesiast: His Last Course at the Collge de France (1984)," in Final Foucault , ed. J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen (Cambridge, Mass., 1988); M.-O. Goulet-Caz, L'ascse cynique: Un commentaire de Diogne Larce VI 70 71 (Paris 1986); J. Hammerstaedt, Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaos (Frankfurt 1988); R. Bracht Branham, Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions (Cambridge, Mass., 1989); M. Onfray, Cynismes (Paris 1989); G. Giannontoni, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae , Elenchos 18 (Naples 1990); A. Brancacci, Oikeios logos: La filosofia del linguaggio di Antistene , Elenchos 20 (Naples 1990); M. Billerbeck, Die Kyniker in der modernen Forschung (Amsterdam 1992); P. Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London 1992); J. Relihan, Ancient Menippean Satire (Baltimore 1993).

the major fragmentsrecently reprinted in the popular collection Livre de Pocheand the comprehensive edition of the ancient texts by Gabriele Giannantoni (198385; 2d ed. 1990) have made all the relevant evidence available. The fact that an international colloquium entitled "Ancient Cynicism and Its Influence" could be held in Paris in July 1991 testifies to the increasing interest that Cynic philosophy has aroused in recent years.2 The present work also shares in this revival of interest for Diogenes and his followers and illustrates once again the fascination that the "Dogs" have continued to exert.

The title we have chosenThe Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy indicates the nature and breadth of our project. Our purpose is, on the one hand, to investigate ancient Cynic philosophy and literature in all its aspects, and, on the other, to sketch the main lines of its impact on Western culture from classical antiquity to the present, focusing on the domains of literary production and of ethical reflection. To be sure, the figure of Diogenes, with his staff, knapsack, and tattered cloak, may seem remote from us. Yet the Cynic movement not only lasted for almost a millennium in antiquity, but also generated a remarkable range of literary forms that would outlive classical culture. Menippean satire is probably the most familiar Cynic genre, but in antiquity Cynics were known for innovating forms of parody, satire, dialogue, diatribe, and aphorism. Yet, as Heinrich Niehues-Prbsting and Daniel Kinney demonstrate so persuasively in their contributions to this volume, Cynicism was also a central philosophical concern for thinkers as different as the Renaissance Humanists, Wieland, Rousseau, Diderot, and Nietzschealthough, as we shall see, the distinction between Cynicism's literary and philosophical significance is often difficult to maintain.

The nature of the "movement" and its longevity call for some explanation. Cynicism was not a "school": Cynic philosophers did not give classes in a specific place, nor do we find among them any scholars succeeding each other at the head of an institution. Their philosophy was less a matter of classes or lectures than of mimesisthe imitation in action of exemplary figures. In other words, what we have here is best understood not as a school, but as a philosophical and even a cultural movement that, albeit highly diversified, remained faithful to Diogenes' exampleto his way of life and philosophical principles as these were interpreted over the centuries. It is thus easy to understand that there are significant differences between Diogenes himself, whose target and audience was the highly cultured society of late classical Greece (in the fourth century B.C. ), and those bands of Cynics who roamed the streets of Alexandria or Constantinople in the time of the Roman empire claiming him as their pa-

Le cynisme ancien et ses prolongements: Actes du Colloque international du C.N.R.S. , ed. M.-O. Goulet-Caz and R. Goulet (Paris 1993). Several of the papers read at this conference have been turned into contributions to the present volume: namely those of Billerbeck, Branham, Goulet-Caz, Griffin, Moles, and Niehues-Prbsting. We thank the Presses Universitaires de France (Paris), which kindly granted permission to publish them.

tron and model. Modes of behavior and perceptions of problems necessarily evolved, as a function of differing contexts, in the six centuries separating the age of Diogenes from that of the emperor Julian (A.D. 33261).

One of the advantages of a collection is that, unlike a monograph, it canand shouldembrace divergent perspectives. The diversity of the contributions to this collection is a deliberate response to the variegated character of "Cynicism" as it has emerged over time. To approach such a motley set of traditions with a single point of view or methodology would be to deny its variety and thereby to impoverish it; while the collection is generally arranged chronologicallyGreek, Roman, Renaissance, modernwe open not with the question of origins, but with a salvo of synoptic examinations of the most influential figures and concepts of the movement; these serve in turn as leitmotifs for the entire collectionsuch as the significance of Diogenes and Crates for moral philosophy (Long), the radical Cynic critique of religion (Goulet-Caz), and the central Cynic concepts of freedom (Branham) and cosmopolitanism (Moles). Once the nature of the movement has been sketched, we turn to consider possible precedents for Cynic ideology in classical and archaic Greek culture with comparative studies of proto-Cynic forms of discourse (Romm) and of the legendary "Cynic sage,"...