The Province of Galatia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The Province of Galatia S. Cheetham The Classical Review / Volume 8 / Issue 09 / November 1894, pp 396 - 396 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00188870, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00188870 How to cite this article: S. Cheetham (1894). The Province of Galatia. The Classical Review, 8, pp 396-396 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00188870 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 27 Apr 2015 396 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. THE PROVINCE OF GALATIA. IT has been generally supposed up to our governor of Galatia, Pontus, Paphlagonia, own time that St. Paul's Galatia is the Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, etc' There Keltic district in Asia Minor which is always could scarcely be clearer proof that at the known as Galatia. Lately however Professor date of these honorary inscriptions the name' Ramsay has found himself compelled ' to ' Galatia ' did not designate a province which understand Galatians as inhabitants of included Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. Roman Galatia.' I do not propose to discuss We cannot imagine that any desire to this hypothesis generally, but only to offer a ' accumulate titles ' would induce the people brief criticism of the Professor's view of (for instance) of a city in the Madras the name Galatia. Presidency to address their governor as In The Church and the Roman Empire (p. Lieutenant-governor of Madras, Trichi- 6 note) Professor Ramsay says—' I did not nopoly, and Madura, these districts being expect to be obliged to argue that this great included in the Presidency. But we can province [i.e. that which includes, besides very well suppose that the people of Delhi Galatia proper, Lycaonia, Isauria, and por- would address the official in whose jurisdic- tions of Phrygia and Pisidia] was called tion they are as ' Chief Commissioner of the Galatia; but even this simple fact, which Punjab and Delhi,' because, though Delhi is has been assumed by every writer since under his authority, it is never spoken of Tacitus, has recently been contested by Dr. as being in the Punjab. Schiirer : and I have appended a note on the But' inscriptions found in the extreme parts subject at the end of this chapter.' of Galatic Pisidia and Galatic Lycaonia men- As Emil Schiirer is a man who says tion the governor of the district as governor nothing lightly, it was certainly worth while of Galatia.' If this were the case, it would to attempt to refute him. I turn to the note afford (it seems to me) a slight presumption (p. 13). There I find Schiirer quoted as that Pisidia and Lycaonia were not included saying—' An official usage which embraced in a province called Galatia ; for if they had all three districts (Galatia, Pisidia, Lycaonia) been it would have been more natural to under the single conception Galatia has speak of the governor as governor ' of this never existed.' And again—' the name province ' or ' of our province.1 But in the Galatia is only a parte potiori, being taken inscriptions as given by Professor Ramsay from the biggest of the various districts (I know them only in his quotation) we do which were included in the province, and is not find ' Galatia,' but' the Galatic province.' not an official designation.' On the other Is this a synonym for ' Galatia ' ? If this side Professor Ramsay alleges (no doubt is really the case, it is difficult to imagine correctly, though without any quotation of why the simple word ' Galatia' was not used. authority) that ' the first governor appointed It is not—so far as my small observation is called "Governor of Galatia."' What goes—at all usual in the ' lapidary ' style to was the Latin or Greek title of this use needless amplification. But if Schurer's ' governor' does not appear; but at any rate supposition is correct, that there was no it is not disputed that there was a Roman Roman province called Galatia, the ' Galatic' official who took his designation from province is a natural designation for the Galatia, or that he had jurisdiction over a region governed from Galatia, but not considerable district outside Galatia proper; wholly included in Galatia. but it by no means follows that ' Galatia ' On the whole, I come to the conclusion was the name, the proper official designation, that Professor's Schurer's view has much in of his whole jurisdiction. Indeed, Professor its favour, and that Professor Ramsay's Ramsay very candidly supplies evidence that arguments against it are very far from con- this was not the case. ' Honorary inscrip- clusive. tions,' he says, ' in which it is an object to S. CHEETHAM. accumulate titles, speak of the official as.