During the past three decades, G.-C. has substantially contributed to the reconstruction of Cynic philosophy. Her extensive knowledge of ancient sources and her cautious analyses have led to great results that have been published in three monographs and in numerous articles dedicated to Cynicism. Out of these, sixteen appear in this book (one being a French translation of an article originally published in English), as well as two previously unpublished papers. This collection brings together in a single volume many articles that have now become standard points of reference in scholarly research on Cynicism. The papers are conveniently grouped in three sections according to their main perspective: methodological, historical or philosophical. G.-C. is also careful to include the original pagination of previously published articles and to harmonise all references, which are gathered in a general bibliography and a personal bibliography. Consultation of the book is facilitated by three indexes – locorum, nominum and rerum. In addition, the addenda et corrigenda offer very useful information, either referring to new editions of ancient texts or giving an account of scholarly literature subsequent to the initial publication. For the sake of brevity, I will sum up the content of the collection's three sections and discuss at length only the two papers that appear for the first time: ‘De la République de Diogène à la République de Zénon’ and ‘Les origines du mouvement cynique’.
The first part, ‘Questions de méthodologie’, addresses mainly methodological and philological issues pertaining to the study of Cynicism. The article ‘Le livre VI de Diogène Laërce’ provides a very detailed account of Diogenes Laertius’ Book 6 in terms of structure and sources. G.-C. argues that the main source of Book 6 is most probably Diocles of Magnesia, a biographer in favour of a line of succession from Socrates to Zeno (Socrates > Antisthenes > Diogenes > Crates > Zeno), who himself followed Apollodorus of Seleucia, a Stoic philosopher of the second century bc. Indeed, the latter wrote a handbook on ethics in which he described Cynicism as a ‘shortcut to virtue’ (Diog. Laert. 7.121), thus reconciling the two philosophical movements. According to G.-C., this Stoic perspective on Cynicism would explain why Diogenes Laertius’ Book 6 promotes such a filiation between Socratism, Cynicism and Stoicism and why it contains several passages with Stoic resonance.
In the second part, ‘De la Grèce hellénistique à l'empire romain: naissance et évolution du mouvement’, G.-C. presents Cynicism from a historical point of view. Her paper on Imperial Cynicism (‘Le cynisme à l’époque impériale’), one of the most important in the collection, shows how this movement evolved throughout the centuries. Whereas Cynicism was originally practised by a few individuals, it became a popular philosophy in Roman times, widespread among the masses. Regardless of this substantial change, many Cynics remained faithful to the basic principles of Diogenes’ philosophy. G.-C. also discusses the fascinating subject of links between Cynicism and Christianity, to which she subsequently devoted an entire monograph (Cynisme et christianisme dans l'Antiquité [2014]).
The third part, ‘La philosophie cynique’, brings together eight articles dedicated to different aspects of Cynic philosophy. The first paper establishes the legitimacy of Cynicism as a philosophy, which had been disputed in ancient times notably by Hippobotus. Other articles reconstruct Cynic positions on specific topics. G.-C. describes Cynicism as a philosophy pushing a radical critique of human behaviour, whether in the domain of religion, politics or sexuality.
The last paper of the third section, ‘De la République de Diogène à la République de Zénon’, discusses the influence of Diogenes’ Republic on Zeno's Republic. G.-C. reopens a subject she previously addressed in Les Kynika du stoïcisme (2003), in order to respond to a new interpretation of Zeno's Republic by R. Bees. In his work Zenons Politeia (2011) Bees holds the view that the Stoic Republic owes nothing to Cynicism. According to him, it is rather a work of Zeno's maturity describing a cosmo-biological life based on οἰκείωσις as a physical theory. Any trace of continuity between Cynicism and Stoicism would then be the result of a retrospective Stoicisation of Cynicism meant to fill the gap between Socrates and Zeno. Against Bees's thesis, G.-C. defends an ethical interpretation of Zeno's Republic and argues that the founder of Stoicism wrote his Republic under the influence of Cynicism, as the most obvious reading of Diog. Laert. 7.4 suggests, where it is stated that the Republic was written ‘on the dog's tail’. Not only did Diogenes’ and Zeno's Republics share many common themes, but also Zeno's theory of indifferents most likely stems from the Cynic reassessment of socially determined goods and evils. To explain why Zeno endorsed shocking behaviours such as incest, anthropophagy and parricide in his Republic, G.-C., in a very convincing analysis, refers to the Stoic doctrine of καθήκοντα περιστατικά. She thus renounces partly the thesis she developed in Les Kynika du stoïcisme (pp. 106–8) and no longer considers the theory of καθήκοντα περιστατικά as a later Stoic invention created to justify shocking aspects of Zeno's work, but as a genuine Zenonian theory. Incest, for example, is an indifferent action that must be avoided in normal circumstances, but if preservation of the human race depends on the union of a father with his daughter, then incest will be exceptionally appropriate (cf. Origenes, Cels. 4.45). Zeno thus agrees with Diogenes that actions of this kind are not shocking in themselves although, unlike the Cynics, he provides a conceptual framework that clearly restricts the circumstances in which these actions may be appropriate. On this account, the content of Zeno's Republic harmonises well with the Stoic ethical system.
The volume ends with an epilogue, ‘Les origines du mouvement cynique’, in which G.-C. summarises her position on two questions of major importance: ‘Is Antisthenes a Cynic philosopher?’ and ‘Is Cynicism a philosophical school or a way of life?’ To the first question, G.-C. answers that Antisthenes certainly influenced Cynicism through its behaviour but, even though he was called by the surname ‘dog’ and had a close relationship with Diogenes of Sinope, he was never a Cynic himself. Concerning the second question, G.-C. restates that it is Diocles of Magnesia, inspired by Apollodorus of Seleucia, who established Antisthenes as the founder of Cynicism and assigned dogmas to Cynics, in order to include Cynicism among the philosophical schools.
Despite some editing flaws, the overall quality of the book is very good. It includes articles that meet the highest standards of scholarship and will be a most useful reference for anyone interested in Cynicism.
Listed below are all the papers featured in the collection, in order of appearance and followed by initial publication date: ‘Un syllogisme stoïcien sur la loi dans la doxographie de Diogène le Cynique. À propos de D.L. VI 72’ (1982); ‘Une liste de disciples de Cratès le Cynique en D.L. VI 95’ (1986); ‘Le livre VI de Diogène Laërce: analyse de sa structure et réflexions méthodologiques’ (1992); ‘L’Ajax et l’Ulysse d'Antisthène’ (1992); ‘Cynisme’ (1996); ‘Le cynisme ancien et sa postérité’ (1996); ‘Qui fut le premier chien?’, French translation of ‘Who was the first Dog?’ (1996); ‘Le cynisme à l’époque impériale’ (1990); ‘Qui était le philosophe cynique anonyme attaqué par Julien dans son Discours IX?’ (2008); ‘Le cynisme est-il une philosophie?’ (1993); ‘Les premiers cyniques et la religion’ (1993); ‘De l'usage cynique de l'intolérable’ (1996); ‘Le cynisme ancien et la sexualité’ (2005); ‘La contestation de la loi dans le cynisme ancien’ (2008); ‘Les cyniques dans l'Antiquité, des intellectuels marginaux?’ (2010); ‘Michel Foucault et sa vision du cynisme dans le Courage de la vérité’ (2013); ‘De la République de Diogène à la République de Zénon’ (previously unpublished paper); ‘Les origines du mouvement cynique’ (previously unpublished paper).
