Renouncing custom, living wild among their urban peers, and boasting that they were wholly self-sufficient amid the ups and downs of life, the Cynics could often be a strong and disturbing presence in their societies. How should one assess this presence, and how should one understand them in relation to the political communities of which they were a part? There are several interconnected questions here. To what extent were the Cynics interested in politics? Were any of them political actors who joined in contemporary debates and struggles? Were any of them political theorists, and can various stray comments about the Athenian people, Hellenistic kings, Roman consuls, the city, law and the like add up to a recognizable political philosophy? More generally, what kind of political rhetoric did they favour? What political implications could the Cynic way of life have for their contemporaries? Once more, the issues involved are complex and can be approached from a variety of perspectives. As a result, there have been at least four main ways of judging the Cynics as political animals: they are at once anarchists, democrats, “kings” and cosmopolitans. We shall examine each in turn.

Anarchists

The most convenient label for the Cynics is that they were anarchists. The word “anarchy” is itself a Greek one: anarchy is a state without hierarchy or government. But the idea is really a modern one.