No fewer than three of the inscriptions in the second volume of Dr Tod's Greek Historical Inscriptions are directly concerned with Keos, and this encourages me to hope that he may find interest in this investigation. It arises from an inscription from Ioulis, published by Dunant and Thomopoulos, which is a close parallel to IG xii. 5 594 (Tod 141), the sympolity–treaty between Keos and Hestiaia. It is nearly certainly a treaty with Eretria. It raises several interesting problems, but I should principally like to draw attention to the remarkable federal constitution of Keos which the two inscriptions taken together reveal.

I repeat the new text for convenience with some slight alterations. It is stoichedon, uses o for ou, but the letter–forms can hardly fix it closer than 390–340.

[— Eάν δέ O ΚɛĩOς βόληται πO|λιΤɛÚɛσθα]-

[ι ν‘EρɛΤί]ηι, π[Oγ]ραψᾱ[αθω Τò oνoμα Τò αUΤ]-

[õ, oi ξέ σΤπ]αΤηγOί ϕΥλήν κ[αί χρoν α]-

[Τι ν] ι aμ μέλληι πoλιΤɛΎ[σ]θαι Eaν ξE O]

[‘EρɛΤρ]ιɛΎς [βóληΤαι Eπ ΚEωι πOλ[ιΤɛΎɛσθαι]

[aπoγ]ραψaσθω πρòς θɛσμoϕΎλακ[αςτò αU]-

[ΤÕo]νoμα,oi δE θɛσμoϕΎλακɛς δóνΤω[ν αUΤWι]

[ϕΥλή]ν καί ΤριΤΤΎν καί χWρoν v v v v v [? vacat]

[….]v Τnι πρoσάψαι πρ[….9….]

[….9…,]i

This confirms Hiller‘s view that thesmophylakes and not nomophylakes were mentioned in lines 4–5 of the old inscription and makes it necessary to restore there [Καi χwρoν]in line 6. Dunant and Thomopoulos give a revised text of lines 3–11, but the unevenness of their line-length and the three later places in the old text where omission of words has been assumed make me wonder whether the whole inscription should not be restored with a rather longer line.