from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- noun The area ruled by a tetrarch.
- noun Joint rule by four governors.
- noun The four governors so ruling.
from The Century Dictionary.
- noun Same as
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- noun (Rom. Antiq.) The district under a Roman tetrarch; the office or jurisdiction of a tetrarch; a tetrarchate.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun Historically, an empire that was ruled by four rulers.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
As Lysanias I was king over the whole region, one small portion of it could not be called his tetrarchy or kingdom, as is done by Josephus (Bel.
Lyanias, it was called the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, so, after the death of Zenodorus, or when the time for which he hired it was ended when another Lysanias, of the same name with the former, was possessed of the same country, it began to be called the Tetrarchy of Lysanias. "
Rome tried in the third century to control its increasingly unwieldy and threatened empire by instituting a dynarchy with Constantinople, then later formed a tetrarchy with four farflung capitals, all on the fringe of the barbaric hordes.
Where it is observable, that there is mention of the tetrarchy of Philip, distinct from Batanea and
Neither, indeed, doth St. Luke say any thing of Perea, even then when he mentions the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, under whose jurisdiction, Josephus tells us, were both Perea and Galilee.
The same Josephus tells us this of the tetrarchy of Philip: "Batanea, also, and Trachonitis, Auranitis, and some parts of Zeno's house, about Jamnia, yielding the profits of one hundred talents, were under Philip's government."
For however St. Luke, speaking of Herod, mentions Galilee only within his tetrarchy, Luke 3: 1, yet Josephus tells us, that "both Perea and Galilee were under his jurisdiction."
Evangelist mentions the whole tetrarchy of Herod, under the name of Galilee, when as Perea was a great part of it.
Had Philip any part of his tetrarchy within Cyrrhestica, or Chalcis of Syria?
Why Josephus should not mention Perea, when he is speaking of the father's kingdom, or why St. Luke should omit it, when he instances the tetrarchy of the son, that being so unquestionably within his jurisdiction, I confess is something strange to me; nor could I pass it without some remark.