[16] Antigonus (conf. Athen. xiii. 603, e; Arrian, Diss. Epict. ii. 13, 14; Simpl. in Epict. Enchir. 283, c; Æl. V. H. ix. 26) was fond of his society, attended his lectures, and wished to have him at court—but Zeno declined the offer, sending two of his pupils instead. The Athenians, to whom, according to Ælian’s untrustworthy account V. H. vii. 14, he had rendered political services, honoured him with a public panegyric, a golden crown, a statue, and burial in the Ceramicus. That the keys of the city were left in his keeping is not probable. The offer of Athenian citizenship he declined (Plut. Sto. Rep. 4, 1, p. 1034). Nor did his countrymen in Citium fail to show their appreciation (Diog. 6; Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 19, 32) of him, and Zeno always insisted on being a Citian (Diog. 12; Plut. l.c.). [17] He himself (Diog. vii. 18) compares the λόγοι ἀπηρτισμένοι of the ἀσόλοικοι to the elegant Alexandrian coins, which, instead of being better, were often lighter than those of Athens. He is charged in particular with using words in a wrong sense, and with inventing new words, whence Cic. Tusc. v. 11, 34, calls him ‘ignobilis verborum opifex,’ and Chrysippus, in a treatise περὶ τοῦ κυρίως κεχρῆσθαι Ζήνωνα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, disparages this καινοτομεῖν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι (Galen. Diff. Puls. III. 1., vol. viii. 642, K.). He is also charged with maintaining that nothing ought to be concealed, but that even the most indelicate things should be called by their proper names. He is further charged with having propounded no new system, but with having appropriated the thoughts of his predecessors, and having concealed his plagiarism by the use of new terms. In Diog. vii. 25, Polemo says: κλέπτων τὰ δόγματα Φοινικῶς μεταμφιεννύς; and Cicero frequently repeats the charge (Fin. v. 25, 74; iii. 2, 5; iv. 2, 3; 3, 7; 26; 72; v. 8, 22; 29, 88. Acad. ii. 5, 15. Legg. 1, 13, 38; 20; 53. Tusc. ii. 12, 29). [18] Diog. 28, 1. The statement that he was ἄνοσος must be taken with some limitation, according to Diog. vii. 162; Stob. Floril. 17, 43. [19] Diog. 28; 31. Lucian, Macrob. 19. Lactant. Inst. iii. 18. Stob. Floril. 7, 45. Suid. [20] The list of them in Diog. 4, to which additions are made Diog. 34; 39; 134. The Διατριβαὶ (Diog. 34; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 205; 245; Math. xi. 90) may perhaps be identical with the Ἀπομνημονεύματα Κράτητος (Diog. 4), the Τέχνη ἐρωτικὴ (Diog. 34) with Τέχνη (Diog. 4). An exposition of Hesiod, which had been inferred to exist, from Cic. N. D. i. 14, 36, Krische, Forsch. 367, rightly identifies with the treatise περὶ τοῦ ὅλου, and this with the treatise περὶ τῆς φύσεως (Stob. Ecl. i. 178). Other authorities are given by Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 580. [21] This appears at least probable from Diog. 4: ἕως μὲν οὖν τινὸς ἤκουσε τοῦ Κράτητος· ὅτε καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτοῦ γράψαντος, τινὲς ἔλεγον παίζοντες ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ κυνὸς οὐρᾶς αὐτὴν γεγραφέναι.