Ζ Small Phrygia (Μικρὰ Φρυγία) occurs In a few 4th cent. authorities ; the name Great Phrygia in this new sense does not occur (our authorities say * amy eh and ‘Small Phrygia’), but seems necessarily to follow from the other term.
VOL. 111.—55
PHRYGIA 865
district of Cibyra, on the south-west, was given over to Caria, Apamea and Metropolis to Pisidia, and (between 386 and 395) Amorion, Orkistos, and other north-eastern cities to Galatia. In the 8th cent. ver of Paroreios was transferred to Galatia, and placed under Amorion as metropolis: it is, however, very doubtful whether this transference affected more than the ecclesiastical organization, for the civil division into provinces (though always retained in the ecclesiastical system) disappeared politically in the 8th cent., and was replaced by the military system of Themes. In the later Byzantine authors much confusion and ignorance is shown in regard to the divisions of Phrygia. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his treatise de Thematibus, defines the extent of Salutaris in a thoroughly erroneous way. Cinnamus (p. 198) speaks of Laodicea ad Lycum as on the border of Little Phrygia. Ducas gives the name Great Phrygia to part of the region of Hellespontus (from Assos to the Hellespont), calling it also Low Ehayeia: he does not speak of Little Phrygia or of High Phrygia, but apparently he must have treated those names as equivalent, and including both Pacatiana and Salutaris (as Cinnamus evi- dently does), which he sums up as ‘all Phrygia’ (see pp. 13, 72). Cedrenus (ii. p. 69), and Nicetas Chon. (p. 68) speak of High Phrygia as evidently including both Pacatiana and Salutaris. In those writers the names are prompted rather by inac- curate antiquarian memory than by real survival of the names in popular usage (see Ramsay, His- torical Geography of Asia Minor, pp. 150-153).
Il. PHRYGIA IN PAULINE GEOGRAPHY.—This long enumeration of vicissitudes and changes shows how slow one must be in making asser- tions as to the meaning of the name Phry ia in any ancient writer, and how carefully the situation and the context must be studied. Accordingly, when in a writer of the Ist cent. we find the statement that a traveller crossed Phrygia, we must not assume forthwith that a journey across Phrygia Asiana is meant. The term Phrygia is employed freely in inscriptions of that period, found in the country outside of it, in the sense of Phrygia Galatica; and a writer who follows as a rule local expression may have used this term Phrygia in the same way as local inscriptions do. In such a case we must examine the context to see which division of Phrygia is to be understood. Now in Ac 16° Paul is stated to have traversed the region of Phrygia.* What part of Phrygia did he traverse? The situation makes thisclear. Paul in his journey had reached Lystra.t He now went on rong Phrygia. Itis beyond doubt that the part of Phrygia through which he must go immediately on leaving Lystra was Galatic bgt a which began only a very few miles north of Lystra. Moreover, Paul had started on this journey with the deliberate inten- tion of visiting two cities of Galatic Phrygia, Iconium and Antioch ; and as we now see, geo- graphy makes it clear that he could not possibly proceed onwards from Lystra without going through Iconium and through part of Galatic Phrygia.t
* It is immaterial to the geogr. import whether Φρυγίαν in that passage is to be taken as a noun or (what we think right) as an adjective connected with the following χώραν.
Some say Iconium; but we cannot consider that Ac 167 implies that Paul has reached Iconium, for he is still in Lystra in 163. Ac 16! and 166 give the successive stages of travel. This, too, hardly touches the geogr. import.
1 This is even clearer on the North-Galatian than on the South-Galatian theory. If Paul were going from Lystra to North Galatia, he must proceed first to Iconium tn Galatic Phrygia ; and if he were in Iconium, he must go on through part of that country. It may, on that theory, be maintained that
Paul went on through Asian Phrygia afterwards; but it must be admitted that he went through Galatic Phrygia.
866 PHRYGIA
PHRYGIA
i a ἿἿἾ͵͵͵Ἂ ο΄ Γ0 6ΡῬΤἙ ΤΤὌὌΦΚΓ-π ΤΤὌὩ-΄ῦᾷὺστστοε πηεμσεοςςο.ςςςςςςςς--
Moreover, if a writer of that period desired to be thoronghly clear, he ought to add some ex- ression or epithet to show which part of Phrygia e meant. Bat this is exactly what Luke does in Ac 16%. He adds the adjective ‘Galatic’ to show that he means ‘Galatic ree It is unfortunate that both AV and RV confuse the expression, and render the Greek adjective by the noun ‘ Galatia.’ Luke never speaks of ‘Galatia’ ; because, like most Greeks, he disliked calling the province by that name, and preferred the expression ‘Galatic province or region’ (as used in C/G 3991). If Luke had used the noun Phrygia in this place, he would have simply appended the adjective and called the country traversed by Paul ‘Galatic Phrygia,’ the term quoted above. But he desired to be minutely and pragmatically accurate ; and (as is sometimes the case in ancient writers*) in his desire to exclude all possibility of mistake he employed a more cumbrous expression, which be- comes obscure to us through our ignorance of the nomenclature of that little known region. A custom existed of designating the various districts included in the vast province GALATIATt as χῶραι or regions; e.g. the Isaurican region (Strabo, p. 568 f.), the Antiochian region (at this time a kingdom governed By. Antiochus, but afterwards incorporated, see Ptolemy, v. 6. 17). Luke follows this custom: he thinks of ‘the Phrygian region,’ and adds the adjective ‘Galatic,’ calling it ‘the region (which is at once) Phrygian and Galatiec,’ t i.e. the country which ethnologically and accord- ing to native Greek expression is Phrygian, while politically and according to Roman provincial classification it is Galatic (τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν ὥραν). Lightfoot was the first to see and to state clearly the right and necessary construction of this expression, and subsequent discussion has failed to shake his decisive argument; but, while he correctly translated it, he failed (owing to the obscurity in which central Asia Minor was then enveloped) to see the right geographical applica- ion.