¹ See above, p. 82, on (1. 2), for the possibility that an Attalid king, and not a Chian, might be at issue here. If this is the case, the king would be Eumenes II, who went to Rome early in the summer of 189, was ready to depart thence in the autumn of that year (assuming that he was travelling with the decem legati: cf. Pol. xxi. 42. 6), and who arrived with the decem legati at Ephesus round May of 188 (ibid.; see below, nn. 2, 6, 7 for these dates). On this analysis he and the Roman envoys (who would then be the of 1. 12) will have stopped at Chios on their way. For the possibility that the honorand is neither Chian nor Attalid, but Roman, see above. p. 82 commentary on 1. 1) and below, pp. 90–1.

² Pol. xxi. 18. 2: σχεδὸν γὰρ ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν εὐθέως μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὴν μάχην ἔπεμπον πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην, διὰ τὸ πᾶσιν τότε καὶ πάσας τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐλπίδας ἐν τῇ συγκλήτῳ κεȋσθαι. Eumenes and the envoys from Antiochus. Rhodes, and the rest arrived at Rome (xxi. 18. 1), round May 189, therefore (cf. Walbank, Commentary iii, ad loc: ‘perhaps May-June’).

³ On the way to what turned out to be the battle of Corycus (fought in Sept., perhaps even Oct. 191: cf. Livy xxxvi. 45. 8). C. Livius Salinator and the Roman fleet ‘ab Delo Phanas. portum Chiorum in Aegaeum mare versum, petunt; inde ad urbem circumegere naves commeatuque sumpto Phocaeam traiciunt’ (Livy xxxvi. 43. 11); after the battle they put in at Chios again for a few days ‘remige maxime reficiendo’ (45. 7). Prior to their first arrival they presumably knew that they could expect a friendly reception and support, information that could have been conveyed to Rome by a Chian envoy or, more likely, directly to the Roman command in Greece in the spring of 191.

⁴ By the summer of 190, shortly before the battle at Myonnesus (fought in Sept.: Walbank, Commentary iii, ad Pol. xxi. 13. 1), Livy could say of Chios ‘id erat horreum Romanis, eoque omnes ex Italia missae onerariae derigebant cursum’ (xxxvii. 27. 1; cf. 31. 5–6 for a brief period of refitting there after the battle). Again, the Chian offer of this service could have been transmitted directly to Rome, but it is at least as likely that the arrangements were worked out in Greece, or perhaps even with Livius Salinator at Chios in 191.

⁵ On τοὺς παραγινομένους Ῥωμαίων in 1. 12, Sarikakis says εἶναι οἱ διάφοροι ἐπίσημοι Ῥωμαȋοι οἱ ἐπισκεπτόμεινοι διὰ στρατιωτικοὺς κυρίως λόγους τὴν Χίον κατὰ τὴν διάρκειαν τοῦ Ἀντιοχικοῦ πολέμου (p. 23, cf. p. 16). He distinguishes them from the παρεπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαίων and remarks on 1. 20 ό στίχος οὗτος εἶναι καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὁ σημαντικώτερος τῆς ἐπιγραθῆς, καθ᾿ ὅσον ἀποτελεῖ τὴν παλαιοτέραν μαρτυρίαν ποὺ ἔχομεν περὶ τῆς παρουσίας τῶν Ῥωμαίων negotiations εἰς τὴν Χίον (p. 25, cf. p. 14 and n. 3).

⁶ See Pol. xxi. 24. 16–17: Ἤδη δὲ πρὸς ἀναζυγὴν τῶν δέκα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πρεσβευτῶν ὄντων, κατέπλευσαν τῆς Ἰταλίας εἰς Βρεντέσιον οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Σκιπίωνα καὶ Λεύκιον οἱ τῇ ναυμαχίᾳ νικήσαντες τὸν Ἀντίοχον· οἳ καὶ μετά τινας ἡμέρας εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἦγον θριάμβους. Aemilius triumphed on 17 Sept. 189 and Scipio on 6 Nov. (Walbank, Commentary iii, ad loc; give or take two days: cf. ibid, vi). A departure for the envoys in late Sept., or thereabouts, is indicated.

⁷ Pol. xxi. 42. 6: (i.e. May or early June 188: Walbank, Commentary iii, ad loc).

⁸ See above, commentary on 1. 14.

⁹ If this be the answer, one might return to the vvv of 1. 4 and to the view that it serves to indicate that the events of the first lines are separate from what follows and are earlier. By how much one does not know, but the only occasion at all nearby in time when the Chians are known to have been touched directly by a (1. 3) is when Philip V laid siege to the place in 201 (on this siege, see Walbank, Commentary ii, ad Pol. xvi. 2. 1). This is likely to be the reference here. It is not, in fact, known what went wrong for Philip at Chios; Pol. xvi. 2. 1 has only On Plutarch's account, Philip made a proclamation offering to the slaves freedom and their mistresses in marriage. This went amiss. Women and slaves alike recoiled from the idea and added their vigour to the defence of the walls (Mor. 245 B–c). On the basis of Plutarch one might think of something like (2) (in the sense of ‘fame, distinction’) but it still seems best to believe that there was an otherwise unattested divine intervention.

¹⁰ Akte 196.

¹¹ Honoured by the Amphictyons, (FD iii. 3. 223Google Scholar, in which honour is paid also to -goras, likely Hermocles' brother: see 11. 6, 11 and FD iii. 3, p. 192) and by the city of Delphi, (FD iii. 3. 224Google Scholar (Syll ³ 579), which is unique amongst surviving Delphian decrees honouring hieromnemones for its details and for the attention given to the dispatching city). The texts of both are given in the Appendix below.

¹² For similar Delphian appreciation of help during this period, see the city's decree for the Apollodorus, Athenian (FD iii. 2. 89Google Scholar, 11. 3–4;

¹³ FD iii. 3, p. 195 (Daux quoting Homolle, and adding ‘Pomtow songe à 207 ou à 201; c'est être trop restrictif’).

¹⁴ See Livy xxvii. 30. 4; Pol. xi. 4. 1; App., Mac. 3; and Rönne, N. B. T. and Fraser, P. M., JEA 39 (1953) 84–94Google Scholar, esp. 86–94. Cf. Pol. v. 24. 11 and 100. 9 for Chian mediation during the Social War.

¹⁵ See esp. Pol. xi. 4–6; cf. (from a different point of view) ix. 32–9, esp. 37–9.

¹⁶ For the documents relating to Roman treatment of Delphi during these years, see Sherk, RDGE nos. 1, 37, 38, with discussions and bibliography. Along with no. 37 (Acilius' letter to the Delphians), see now the important publication of Michaud, J.-P., ‘Nouvelle inscription de la base de M'. Acilius’, Études delphiques (Paris 1977Google Scholar; BCH Suppl. iv) 125–36 (a text of 63 lines (including specific mention of Acilius) with full commentary and discussion of the dossier). A small point on the chronology of the events reflected in these documents. Acilius' dispositions are agreed to belong to 191 or early 190, the letters of Postumius and Livius to the last half of 188 (probably within Sept.-Nov.). Preferable to the assumption that the Delphians waited until summer 189 before seeking senatorial confirmation of Acilius' grant and arrangements would be the view that they applied to the Senate soon after his departure from Greece in spring 190 and were kept waiting until the surrender of, or even the final settlement with, the Aetolians in the late summer or autumn of 189.

¹⁷ For the grant, by the Aetolians, of an Amphictyonic vote to Chios, see FD iii. 3. 214 with Daux, G., BCH 83 (1959) 475–7Google Scholar no. 8 (re-edition of 11. 1–22 based upon a new fragment); cf. Robert, J. and Robert, L., Bull. 1961, 345Google Scholar and Nachtergael, G., Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôteria de Delphes (Brussels 1977) 279Google Scholar, 281 with n. 267. The history of Chios' connection with the Delphic Amphictyony during the third and early second century deserves and, it is hoped, will receive special study.

¹⁸ Cf. above, commentary on 1. 4 and see FD iii. 3. 212 and 213.

¹⁹ Cf. above, n. 11. The fact that —goras was there too (and was honoured) might be taken to suggest that more Chian activity than usual was going on at Delphi.

²⁰ The last Amphictyonic list from the period before the reorganization of the later 180s dates from the archonship of Ekephylos (193/2; from which session is unknown); Syll. ³ 603, cf. Flacelière, Aitoliens 413 (App. I. 46). Apollonius was the Chian hieromnemon then; Hermocles appears in none of the surviving lists. (The Chian hieromnemones acted at the two sessions of the same calendar, not Delphian, year: FD iii. 3, p. 179). Whatever was the fate of the Amphictyony during the later years of the war, it cannot be assumed that its members were not in attendance for the first part of 191 at any rate.

²¹ They were celebrated some time during the Delphian month Theoxenios (Mar./Apr., roughly, but without knowing the schedule of intercalation at Delphi one should be prepared to be even rougher).

²² On the date of Thermopylae, see Walbank, , Philip V, 329–32Google Scholar, where the early chronology is securely established, ‘late April, April 24th, if one accepts the statement [viz. Plut., Cato Major 13. 2] that it was at the time of the new moon’ (329). Some while earlier is possible on the same analysis, and Plutarch's account need not be taken as referring to the time of the new moon, he says, taken by itself would point to a time well advanced into the night (cf. the passages cited in LSJ, s.v. I. 5) and perhaps for that reason (and not because of the new moon) moonless: cf. Pol. Vii. 16. 3: There is room for some flexibility, even more if indicates fog.

²³ Cf. FD iii. 1. 481. 8–9, 482. 6, 483. 7; iii. 3. 214. 22, 215. 7; SGDI 2508. 6–7, 2509. 6–17, 2510 (Syll. ³ 444). 7–8, 2511. 5, 2512–5.

²⁴ See Pol. xxi. 4. 5 and, on this notion in general, JRS 69 (1979) 1–15.

²⁵ Pol. xxi. 46. 6.

²⁶ P.S.D. is more to blame for pp. 87–90, W.G.F. for pp. 86–7 90–1, but we are jointly responsible. Expressing thanks is a pleasure, and P.S.D. would like to express his to the Board ol the Faculty of Literae Humaniores for a grant that made it possible for him to study this stone in Apr. 1979; to the Institutt for Advanced Study in Princeton for having him again as a member of the School of Historical Studies for the autumn terrr of 1980 when most of his writing on this was done; and especially, for helping him over a long while to understand this text and see its problems, to Christian Habicht of the Institute and Lucy Grieve of Wadham College, Oxford. W.G.F. would like to record his thanks to the British School at Athens and particularly to the members of its Chios expedition of 1952–4. We are jointly grateful to all those who attended our seminars in Cambridge (Jan. 1980), Princeton (Oct. 1980), New York (Columbia) and London (Dec. 1980), and Toronto (Oct. 1981); to M. Louis Robert for helpful and encouraging correspondence and for sending a copy of Bull. 1980, 353 in advance of publication; to pupils who have struggled with the text over the past thirty years; and, above all, to Peter Fraser.