II. Galatia Provincia is a complicated subject, and the mass of details is unintelligible, unless we observe the force which guided all the changes, viz. the Roman frontier policy, which sought to educate barbarous tribes up to the Roman standard by a L'radual process, first placing them under a dependent and allied king, who could control them
• On 15th April, martyrs in Taudia Galana probably belont; to GallsDcia. A iimrtyr. Dikasios of Tavium, of unknown date, is mentioned ; a Dikasios was bishop there in 3:i5.
t Loi^nia is addtnl by Le Quicn ; but Krechtius, the bishop In question, was more proliably of K^^laumana or Qlavama, a Lv<'aonian si-e on the Galatian frontier, as ap|x-ar« from the fonns I lanjanitanus, G.'idanitAnuB, Gatmanea.<4, iManathon, etc
I Orkistos in A. P. ;W1 claimed to be wholly Christian in a petition to Constantine, CtL ill. "tXX) : it was at that time subject to Nakoleia in Asia, and could not ttierefore bo a bishopria Amorion, Orkistos. and Troknadee were Joined to t;alat'a about 38S-896, Bitt. Geoyr. At. Jf in. p. 221.
86
GALATIA
GALATIA
by his presence and armies (Strab. p. 671), and then receiving them into the Enipive as they be- came civilized and orderly. During the 1st cent. A.D. the province G. embodied the Roman spirit in central Asia Minor, us opposed to the native kinj,'donis borilerin<; on it ; and the history of G. Froi-incia is the history of Roman policy in its advance towards the Euphrates frontier^a long slow j>rocess, in which the Roman genius un- doiibtedly was exerted to the utmost to influence and impress, to educate and discipline, the popu- lation of the various countries taken into the province Gahitia (see also Galatians).
The South - Galatian theory, then, takes the foundation of the Galatian Churches as an episode in the political and social lii.story of the province ; and inasmuch as several questions in Acts turn on the exact boundaries of the province, it is necessary to be minute and accurate as regards its growth (which is nowhere described fully).
Amyntas, formerly a secretary of Deiotarus, was matle king of Pisidia by Antony in 39, at the same time as Darius, grandson of Mitliridates, was granted the kingdom of Pontus, and Polemon (son of Zcnon, the rhetor of Laodiceia) that of a part of Cilicia (i.e. either Ketis, or more probably the whole of Cilicia Tracheiotis). All were de- pendent on Rome, and paid tribute (Appian, Bell. Civ. V. 75). Amyntas' kingdom included Apol- lonia and Antioch (a district which had been set free Ijy Rome in B.C. 190, Strab. pp. 569, 577).
In the interval between 39 and 36 Darius died or was disgraced. Polemon was his successor, and in 36, as king of Pontus, accompanied Antony to the Parthian war ; and as a reward for his services therein Armenia Minor was added to his kingdom in 35 (Dion Cass. xlLx. 33; cf. Plutarch, Ant. 38). Polemon lost his Cilician kingdom early in 36, and probably Pontus was given bim in compensation.* Antony, returning from Tarentum, gave all Tracheiotis except Seleukeia to Cleopatra (Strab. pp. 671, 669) as part of a great Asiatic kingdom ; t and a Cleopatrau era was instituted, of which the year 1 ended 31st Aug. B.C. 36 (Porphyrins, ap. Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Grcec. iii. 724).
In 36 AmjTitas received from Antony a large ac- cession of territory, viz. Galatia Proper with parts of Lycaonia and Pamphylia (Dion Cass. xlix. 32). His kingdom included most of the great plains between Lake Tatta and Taurus (Strab. p. 568). The gift of part of Lycaonia was evidently in- tended to make his territory continuous, so that the Galatian portion .should not be divided from the Pisidian portion by alien territory. Iconium, therefore, was necessarily included in it, as other- wise continuity could hardly be attained. J
Amjmtas and Polemon supported Antony at Actium, B.C. 31, but were confirmed in their king- doms by Augustus in 30. Amyntaa received
* It is bevond doubt (Kaillard, Numigtr^t. Zeitscnrifi, 1895, p. 23 9.) that Strabo, pp. 493, 495, 499, Blj«, 660, 668, 678, is always alluding to the aarae Polemon, the famous king of his own country Pontus, and the trusted ally of Koiue ; it is in- admissible to separate one of these allusions from the rest as denoting some otlierwise unknown Polemon. Strabo every^'here ftssuraes that his readers recof^nize the one famous Polemon. But, as Mommsen clearly shows (Kphein. Epu^raph, ii. p. 259 ff.), it is iinpossilile to suppose that this Greek king was the Roman SI. Antonius Polemon ; the coins with that name on them belong probably to the period ai)0ut A.D. 17-23. See below, note §.
f On the date, see Kromayer in Hermes, 1894, p. 874 t. ; Gardthausen, Augustus urui seine Zeit, i. pt. 1, p. 203. Plu- arch, Ant. 36 (cf. 64), and Dion Cass. xlix. 32. 3-5 (who omils Tracheiotis), are decisive as to the year, and Josephus (who gives o4. Ant. Jitd. XV. iii. 5-iv. 1) has made a mere error.
1 Moreover, Arayntas proceeded to conquer Derbe, implj-ing that he already had looniura to start from. Previously Polemon's Cilician kingdom had included Iconium (Strab. p. 668) ; and hence in the Acta Pauli et Thedce his descendant Tryphaina ha^i estates in the region of which Antioch was the governing centre (Ramsay, Church in Bom. Emp. p. 396), and which included Iconium