part ix

. (1876); Sclater and Salvin, "Characters of New Species collected by Dr Habel in the Galapagos Islands," _Proc. Zool. Soc. London_, 1870, pp. 322-327; A.R. Wallace, _Geographical Distribution of Animals_ (New York, 1876); Theodor Wolf, _Ein Besuch der Galapagos Inseln_ (Heidelberg, 1879); and paper in _Geographical Journal_, vi. 560 (1895); W.L. and P.L. Sclater, _The Geography of Mammals_ (London, 1899); Ridgway, "Birds of the Galapagos Archipelago," _Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus._ vol. xix. pp. 459-670 (1897); Baur, "New Observations on the Origin of the Galapagos Islands," _Amer. Nat._ (1897), pp. 661-680, 864-896; A. Agassiz, "The Galapagos Islands," _Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool._ vol. xxiii. pp. 56-75; A. Gunther, _Proc. Linn. Soc._ (London (President's Address), October 1898), pp. 14-29 (with bibliography from 1875 to 1898 on gigantic land-tortoises); Rothschild and Hartert, "Review of the Ornithology of the Galapagos Islands," _Novitates zoologicae_, vi. pp. 85-205; B.L. Robinson, "Flora of the Galapagos Islands," _Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences_, xxxviii. (1902).

GALASHIELS, a municipal and police burgh of Selkirkshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891) 17,367; (1901) 13,615. It is situated on Gala Water, within a short distance of its junction with the Tweed, 33-1/2 m. S.S.E. of Edinburgh by the North British railway. The town stretches for more than 2 m. along both banks of the river, the mills and factories occupying the valley by the stream, the villas and better-class houses the high-lying ground on either side. The principal structures include the municipal buildings, corn exchange, library, public hall, and the market cross. The town is under the control of a provost, bailies and council, and, along with Hawick and Selkirk, forms the Hawick (or Border) group of parliamentary burghs. The woollen manufactures, dating from the close of the 16th century, are the most important in Scotland, though now mainly confined to the weaving of tweeds. Other leading industries are hosiery, tanning (with the largest yards in Scotland), dyeing, iron and brass founding, engineering and boot-making. Originally a village built for the accommodation of pilgrims to Melrose Abbey (4 m. E. by S.), it became, early in the 15th century, an occasional residence of the Douglases, who were then keepers of Ettrick Forest, and whose peel-tower was not demolished till 1814. Galashiels was created into a burgh of barony in 1599. The Catrail or Picts' Work begins near the town and passes immediately to the west. Clovenfords, 3-1/2 m. W., is noted for the Tweed vineries, which are heated by 5 m. of water-pipes, and supply the London market throughout the winter. Two miles farther W. by S. is Ashestiel, where Sir Walter Scott resided from 1804 to 1812, where he wrote his most famous poems and began _Waverley_, and which he left for Abbotsford.

GALATIA. I. In the strict sense (Galatia Proper, Roman _Gallograecia_) this is the name applied by Greek-speaking peoples to a large inland district of Asia Minor since its occupation by Gaulish tribes in the 3rd century B.C. Bounded on the N. by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, W. by Phrygia, S. by Lycaonia and Cappadocia, E. by Pontus, it included the greater part of the modern vilayet of Angora, stretching from Pessinus eastwards to Tavium and from the Paphlagonian hills N. of Ancyra southwards to the N. end of the salt lake Tatta (but probably including the plains W. of the lake during the greater part of its history),--a rough oblong about 200 m. long and 100 (to 130) broad.

Galatia is part of the great central plateau of Asia Minor, here ranging from 2000 to 3000 ft. above sea-level, and falls geographically into two parts separated by the Halys (Kizil Irmak),--a small eastern district lying chiefly in the basin of the Delije Irmak, the principal affluent of the Halys, and a large western region drained almost entirely by the Sangarius (Sakaria) and its tributaries. On the N. side Galatia consists of a series of plains with fairly fertile soil, lying between bare hills. But the greater part is a dreary stretch of barren, undulating uplands, intersected by tiny streams and passing gradually into the vast level waste of treeless (anc. _Axylon_) plain that runs S. to Lycaonia; these uplands are little cultivated and only afford extensive pasturage for large flocks of sheep and goats. Cities are few and far apart, and the climate is one of extremes of heat and cold. The general condition and aspect of the country was much the same in ancient as in modern times.

The Gaulish invaders appeared in Asia Minor in 278-277 B.C. They numbered 20,000, of which only one-half were fighting men, the rest being doubtless women and children; and not long after their arrival we find them divided into three tribes, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Tectosages, each of which claimed a separate sphere of operations. They had split off from the army which invaded Greece under Brennus in 279 B.C., and, marching into Thrace under Leonnorius and Lutarius, crossed over to Asia at the invitation of Nicomedes I. of Bithynia, who required help in his struggle against his brother. For about 46 years they were the scourge of the western half of Asia Minor, ravaging the country, as allies of one or other of the warring princes, without any serious check, until Attalus I., king of Pergamum (241-197), inflicted several severe defeats upon them, and about 232 B.C. forced them to settle permanently in the region to which they gave their name. Probably they already occupied parts of Galatia, but definite limits were now fixed and their right to the district was formally recognized. The tribes were settled where they afterwards remained, the Tectosages round Ancyra, the Tolistobogii round Pessinus, and the Trocmi round Tavium. The constitution of the Galatian state is described by Strabo: conformably to Gaulish custom, each tribe was divided into four cantons (Gr. [Greek: tetrarchiai]), each governed by a chief ("tetrarch") of its own with a judge under him, whose powers were unlimited except in cases of murder, which were tried before a council of 300 drawn from the twelve cantons and meeting at a holy place called Drynemeton. But the power of the Gauls was not yet broken. They proved a formidable foe to the Romans in their wars with Antiochus, and after Attalus' death their raids into W. Asia Minor forced Rome in 189 B.C. to send an expedition against them under Cn. Manlius Vulso, who taught them a severe lesson. Henceforward their military power declined and they fell at times under Pontic ascendancy, from which they were finally freed by the Mithradatic wars, in which they heartily supported Rome. In the settlement of 64 B.C. Galatia became a client-state of the empire, the old constitution disappeared, and three chiefs (wrongly styled "tetrarchs") were appointed, one for each tribe. But this arrangement soon gave way before the ambition of one of these tetrarchs, Deiotarus, the contemporary of Cicero and Caesar, who made himself master of the other two tetrarchies and was finally recognized by the Romans as king of Galatia. On the death of the third king Amyntas in 25 B.C., Galatia was incorporated by Augustus in the Roman empire, and few of the provinces were more enthusiastically loyal.

The population of Galatia was not entirely Gallic. Before the arrival of the Gauls, western Galatia up to the Halys was inhabited by Phrygians, and eastern Galatia by Cappadocians and other native races. This native population remained, and constituted the majority of the inhabitants of the rural parts and almost the sole inhabitants of the towns. They were left in possession of two-thirds of the land (cf. Caesar, _B.G._ i. 31) on condition of paying part of the produce to their new lords, who took the other third, and agriculture and commerce with all the arts and crafts of peaceful life remained entirely in their hands. They were henceforth ranked as "Galatians" by the outside world equally with their overlords, and it was from their numbers that the "Galatian" slaves who figure in the markets of the ancient world were drawn. The conquerors, who were few in number, formed a small military aristocracy, living not in the towns, but in fortified villages, where the chiefs in their castles kept up a barbaric state, surrounded by their tribesmen. With the decline of their warlike vigour they began gradually to mix with the natives and to adopt at least their religion: the amalgamation was accelerated under Roman influence and ultimately became as complete as that of the Normans with the Saxons in England, but they gave to the mixed race a distinctive tone and spirit, and long retained their national characteristics and social customs, as well as their language (which continued in use, side by side with Greek, in the 4th century after Christ). In the 1st century, when St Paul made his missionary journeys, even the towns Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium (where Gauls were few) were not Hellenized, though Greek, the language of government and trade, was spoken there; while the rural population was unaffected by Greek civilization. Hellenic ways and modes of thought begin to appear in the towns only in the later 2nd century. In the rustic parts a knowledge of Greek begins to spread in the 3rd century; but only in the 4th and 5th centuries, after the transference of the centre of government first to Nicomedia and then to Constantinople placed Galatia on the highway of imperial communication, was Hellenism in its Christian form gradually diffused over the country. (See also ANCYRA; PESSINUS; GORDIUM.)

II. The Roman province of Galatia, constituted 25 B.C., included the greater part of the country ruled by Amyntas, viz. Galatia Proper, part of Phrygia towards Pisidia (Apollonia, Antioch and Iconium), Pisidia, part of Lycaonia (including Lystra and Derbe) and Isauria. For nearly 100 years it was the frontier province, and the changes in its boundaries are an epitome of the stages of Roman advance to the Euphrates, one client-state after another being annexed: Paphlagonia in 6-5 B.C.; Sebastopolis, 3-2 B.C.; Amasia, A.D. 1-2; Comana, A.D. 34-35,--together forming Pontus Galaticus,--the Pontic kingdom of Polemon, A.D. 64, under the name Pontus Polemoniacus. In A.D. 70 Cappadocia (a procuratorial province since A.D. 17) with Armenia Minor became the centre of the forward movement and Galatia lost its importance, being merged with Cappadocia in a vast double governorship until A.D. 114 (probably), when Trajan separated the two parts, making Galatia an inferior province of diminished size, while Cappadocia with Armenia Minor and Pontus became a great consular military province, charged with the defence of the frontier. Under Diocletian's reorganization Galatia was divided, about 295, into two parts and the name retained for the northern (now nearly identical with the Galatia of Deiotarus); and about 390 this province, amplified by the addition of a few towns in the west, was divided into Galatia Prima and Secunda or Salutaris, the division indicating the renewed importance of Galatia in the Byzantine empire. After suffering from Persian and Arabic raids, Galatia was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century and passed to the Ottoman Turks in the middle of the 14th.

The question whether the "Churches of Galatia," to which St Paul addressed his Epistle, were situated in the northern or southern part of the province has been much discussed, and in England Prof. Sir W.M. Ramsay has been the principal advocate of the adoption of the South-Galatian theory, which maintains that they were the churches planted in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (see GALATIANS). In the present writer's opinion this is supported by the study of the historical and geographical facts.[1]

AUTHORITIES.--Van Gelder, _De Gallis in Graecia et Asia_ (1888); Staehelin, _Gesch. d. kleinasiat. Galater_ (1897); Perrot, _De Galatia prov. Rom._ (1867); Sir W.M. Ramsay, _Histor. Geogr._ (1890), _St Paul_ (1898), and Introd. to _Histor. Commentary on Galatians_ (1899). For antiquities generally, Perrot, _Explor. archeol. de la Galatie_ (1862); K. Humann and O. Puchstein, _Reisen in Kleinasien_ (1890); Koerte, _Athen. Mitteilungen_ (1897); Anderson and Crowfoot, _Journ. of Hellenic Studies_ (1899); and Anderson, _Map of Asia Minor_ (London, Murray, 1903). (J. G. C. A.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] In the unsettled state of this controversy, weight naturally attaches to the opinion of experts on either side; and the above statement, while opposed to the view taken in the following article on the epistle, must be taken on its merits.--Ed. _E.B._

GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE, one of the books of the New Testament. This early Christian scripture is one of the books militant in the world's literature. Its usefulness to Luther in his propaganda was no accident in its history; it originated in a controversy, and the varying views of the momentous struggle depicted in Gal. ii. and Acts xv. have naturally determined, from time to time, the conception of the epistle's aim and date. Details of the long critical discussion of this problem cannot be given here. (See PAUL.) It must suffice to say that to the present writer the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 28 f. and not with Acts xv. appears quite untenable, while a fair exegesis of Acts xvi. 1-6 implies a distinction between such towns as Lystra, Derbe and Iconium on the one hand and the Galatian [Greek: chora] with Phrygia upon the other.[1] A further visit to the latter country is mentioned, upon this view, in Acts xviii. 23. The Christians to whom the epistle was addressed were thus inhabitants, for the most part (iv. 8) of pagan birth, belonging to the northern section of the province, perhaps mainly in its south-western district adjoining Bithynia and the province of Asia. The scanty allusions to this mission in Acts cannot be taken as any objection to the theory. Nor is there any valid geographical difficulty. The country was quite accessible from Antioch. Least of all does the historical evidence at our disposal justify the inference that the civilization of north Galatia, during the 1st century A.D., was Romano-Gallic rather than Hellenic; for, as the coins and inscriptions indicate, the Anatolian culture which predominated throughout the province did not exclude the infusion either of Greek religious conceptions or of the Greek language. The degree of elementary Greek culture needful for the understanding of Galatians cannot be shown to have been foreign to the inhabitants of north Galatia. So far as any trustworthy evidence is available, such Hellenic notions as are presupposed in this epistle might well have been intelligible to the Galatians of the northern provinces. Still less does the acquaintance with Roman jurisprudence in iii. 15-iv. 2 imply, as Halmel contends (_Uber rom. Recht im Galaterbrief_, 1895), not merely that Paul must have acquired such knowledge in Italy but that he wrote the epistle there. A popular acquaintance with the outstanding features of Roman law was widely diffused by this time in Asia Minor.

The epistle can hardly have been written therefore until after the period described in Acts xviii. 22, but the _terminus ad quem_ is more difficult to fix.[2] The composition may be placed (cf. the present writer's _Historical New Testament_, pp. 124 f. for details) either during the earlier part of Paul's residence at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1, 10, so most editors and scholars), or on his way from Ephesus to Corinth, or at Corinth itself (so Lightfoot, Bleek, Salmon).

The epistle was not written until Paul had visited Thessalonica, but the Galatian churches owed their origin to a mission of Paul undertaken some time before he crossed from Asia to Europe. When he composed this letter, he had visited the churches twice. On the former of these visits (iv. 13 [Greek: to proteron]), though broken down by illness (2 Cor. xii. 7-9?) he had been enthusiastically welcomed, and the immediate result of his mission was an outburst of religious fervour (iii. 1-5, iv. 14 f.). The local Christians made a most promising start (v. 7). But they failed to maintain their ardour. On his second visit (iv. 13, i. 7, v. 21) the apostle found in many of them a disheartening slackness, due to discord and incipient legalism. His plain-speaking gave offence in some quarters (iv. 16), though it was not wholly ineffective. Otherwise, this second visit is left in the shadow.[3] So far as it was accompanied by warnings, these were evidently general rather than elicited by any definite and imminent peril to the churches. Not long afterwards, however, some judaizing opponents of the apostle (note the contemptuous anonymity of the [Greek: tines] in i. 7, as in Col. ii. 4 f.), headed by one prominent and influential individual (v. 10), made their appearance among the Galatians, promulgating a "gospel" which meant fidelity to, not freedom from, the Law (i. 6-10). Arguing from the Old Testament, they represented Paul's gospel as an imperfect creed which required to be supplemented by legal exactitude,[4] including ritual observance (iv. 10) and even circumcision,[5] while at the same time they sought to undermine his authority[6] by pointing out that it was derived from the apostles at Jerusalem and therefore that his teaching must be open to the checks and tests of that orthodox primitive standard which they themselves claimed to embody. The sole valid charter to Messianic privileges was observance of the Mosaic law, which remained obligatory upon pagan converts (iii. 6-9, 16).

When the news of this relapse reached Paul, matters had evidently not yet gone too far. Only a few had been circumcised. It was not too late to arrest the Galatians on their downward plane, and the apostle, unable or unwilling to re-visit them, despatched this epistle. How or when the information came to him, we do not know. But the gravity of the situation renders it unlikely that he would delay for any length of time in writing to counteract the intrigues of his opponents; to judge from allusions like those in i. 6 ([Greek: tacheos] and [Greek: metatithesthe]--the lapse still in progress), we may conclude that the interval between the reception of the news and the composition of the letter must have been comparatively brief.

After a short introduction[7] (i. 1-5), instead of giving his usual word of commendation, he plunges into a personal and historical vindication[8] of his apostolic independence, which, developed negatively and positively, forms the first of the three main sections in the epistle (i. 6-ii. 21). In the closing passage he drifts over from an account of this interview with Peter into a sort of monologue upon the incompatibility of the Mosaic law with the Christian gospel (ii. 15-21),[9] and this starts him afresh upon a trenchant expostulation and appeal (iii. 1-v. 12) regarding the alternatives of law and spirit. Faith dominates this section; faith in its historical career and as the vantage-ground of Christianity. The much-vaunted law is shown to be merely a provisional episode[10] culminating in the gospel (iii. 7-28) as a message of filial confidence and freedom (iii. 29-iv. 11). The genuine "sons of Abraham" are not legalistic Jewish Christians but those who simply possess faith in Jesus Christ. A passionate outburst then follows (iv. 12 f.), and, harping still on Abraham, the apostle essays, with fresh rabbinic dialectic, to establish Christianity over legalism as the free and final religion for men, applying this to the moral situation of the Galatians themselves (v. 1-12). This conception of freedom then leads him to define the moral responsibilities of the faith (v. 13-vi. 10), in order to prevent misconception and to enforce the claims of the gospel upon the individual and social life of the Galatians. The epilogue (vi. 11-21) reiterates, in a handful of abrupt, emphatic sentences, the main points of the epistle.

The allusion in vi. 11 [Greek: (idete pelikois hymin grammasin egrapsa te eme cheiri)] is to the large bold size[11] of the letters in Paul's handwriting, but the object and scope of the reference are matters of dispute. It is "a sensational heading" (Findlay), but it may either refer[12] to the whole epistle (so Augustine, Chrysostom, &c., followed by Zahn) or, as most hold (with Jerome) to the postscript (vi. 11-18). Paul commonly dictated his letters. His use of the autograph here may have been to prevent any suspicion of a forgery or to mark the personal emphasis of his message. In any case it is assumed that the Galatians knew his handwriting. It is unlikely that he inserted this postscript from a feeling of ironical playfulness, to make the Galatians realize that, after the sternness of the early chapters, he was now treating them like children, "playfully hinting that surely the large letters will touch their hearts" (so Deissmann, _Bible-Studies_ (1901), 346 f.).

The earliest allusion to the epistle[13] is the notice of its inclusion in Marcion's canon, but almost verbal echoes of iii. 10-13 are to be heard in Justin Martyr's _Dial._ xciv.-xcv.; it was certainly known to Polycarp, and as the 2nd century advances the evidence of its popularity multiplies on all sides, from Ptolemaeus and the Ophites to Irenaeus and the Muratorian canon (cf. Gregory's _Canon and Text of N.T._, 1907, pp. 201-203). It is no longer necessary for serious criticism to refute the objections to its authenticity raised during the 19th century in certain quarters;[14] as Macaulay said of the authenticity of Caesar's commentaries, "to doubt on that subject is the mere rage of scepticism." Even the problems of its integrity are quite secondary. Marcion (cf. Tert. _Adv. Marc._ 2-4) removed what he judged to be some interpolations, but van Manen's attempt to prove that Marcion's text is more original than the canonical (_Theolog. Tijdschrift_, 1887, 400 f. 451 f.) has won no support (cf. C. Clemen's refutation in _Die Einheitlichkeit der paulin_. _Briefe_, 1894, pp. 100 f. and Zahn's _Geschichte d. N. T. lichen Kanons_, ii. 409 f.), and little or no weight attaches to the attempts made (e.g. by J.A. Cramer) to disentangle a Pauline nucleus from later accretions. Even D. Volter, who applies this method to the other Pauline epistles, admits that Galatians, whether authentic or not, is substantially a literary unity (_Paulus und seine Briefe_, 1905, pp. 229-285). The frequent roughnesses of the traditional text suggest, however, that here and there marginal glosses may have crept in. Thus iv. 25a ([Greek: to gar Sina oros estin en te Arabia]) probably represents the explanatory and prosaic gloss of a later editor, as many scholars have seen from Bentley (_Opuscula philologica_, 1781, pp. 533 f.) to H.A. Schott, J.A. Cramer, J.M.S. Baljon and C. Holsten. The general style of the epistle is vigorous and unpremeditated, "one continuous rush, a veritable torrent of genuine and inimitable Paulinism, like a mountain stream in full flood, such as may often have been seen by his Galatians" (J. Macgregor). But there is a certain rhythmical balance, especially in the first chapter (cf. J. Weiss, _Beitrage zur paulin. Rhetorik_, 1897, 8 f.); here as elsewhere the rush and flow of feeling carry with them some care for rhetorical form, in the shape of antitheses, such as a pupil of the schools might more or less unconsciously retain.[15] All through, the letter shows the breaks and pauses of a mind in direct contact with some personal crisis. Hurried, unconnected sentences, rather than sustained argument, are its most characteristic features.[16] The trenchant remonstrances and fiery outbursts make it indeed "read like a dithyramb from beginning to end."

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Of more modern editions in English, the most competent are those of C.J. Ellicott (4th ed., 1867, strong in linguistic and grammatical material), Prof. Eadie (Edinburgh, 1869), J.B. Lightfoot (11th ed., 1892), Dean Alford (3rd ed., 1862) and F. Rendall (_Expositor's Greek Testament_, 1903) on the Greek text; Dr Sanday (in Ellicott's _Commentary_, 1879), Dr Jas. Macgregor (Edinburgh, 1879), B. Jowett (3rd ed., 1894), Huxtable (_Pulpit Comment._, 1885), Dr Agar Beet (London, 1885, &c.), Dr W.F. Adeney (_Century Bible_), Dr E.H. Perowne (_Cambridge Bible_, 1890) and Dr James Drummond (_Internat. Handbooks to N.T._, 1899) also comment on the English text. The editions of Lightfoot and Jowett are especially valuable for their subsidiary essays, and Sir W.M. Ramsay's _Historical Commentary on Galatians_ (1899) contains archaeological and historical material which is often illuminating. The French editions are few and minor, those by A. Sardinoux (Valence, 1837) and E. Reuss (1878) being adequate, however. In Germany the two most up-to-date editions are by F. Sieffert (in Meyer's _Comment._, 1899) and Th. Zahn (2nd ed., 1907); these supersede most of the earlier works, but H.A. Schott (1834), A. Wieseler (Gottingen, 1859), G.B. Winer (4th ed., 1859), J.C.K. von Hofmann (2nd ed., 1872), Philippi (1884), R.A. Lipsius (2nd ed., _Hand.-Commentar_, 1892), and Zockler (2nd ed., 1894) may still be consulted with advantage, while Hilgenfeld's commentary (1852) discusses acutely the historical problems of the epistle from the standpoint of Baur's criticism. The works of A. Schlatter (2nd ed., 1894) and W. Bousset (_in Die Schriften des N.T._, 2nd ed., 1907) are more popular in character. F. Windischmann (Mayence, 1843), F.X. Reithmayr (1865), A. Schafer (Munster, 1890) and F. Cornely (1892, also in _Cursus scripturae sacrae_, 1907) are the most satisfactory modern editors, from the Roman Catholic church, but it should not be forgotten that the 16th century produced the _Literalis expositio_ of Cajetan (Rome, 1529) and the similar work of Pierre Barahona (Salamanca, 1590), no less than the epoch-making edition of Luther (Latin, 1519, &c.; German, 1525 f.; English, 1575 f.). After Calvin and Grotius, H.E.G. Paulus (_Des Apostel P. Lehrbriefe an die Gal. u. Romer Christen_, 1831) was perhaps the most independent interpreter. For the patristic editions, see the introductory sections in Zahn and Lightfoot. The religious thought of the epistle is admirably expounded from different standpoints by C. Holsten (_Das Evangelium Paulus_,