During these days when the army was busy foraging, he called together the wives of the soldiers and their children; to the wives he undertook to give a monthly ration, to the children he distributed a service bonus in proportion to the military records of their fathers. C B Welles
This phrase epiphoras tagmatikas is unique; its component parts however, are not. In Book XVII itself Diodoros uses ‘epiphoran’, the singular accusative case, five times (19 vi; 57 vi: 58 ii: 60 ii: 99 ii). Unfortunately, all these are translated as ‘attack’, ‘onset’ and such would not be suitable here so we have to go back to the literal meaning of the word which is ‘a bringing towards’.En ais d’hemerais he dynamis peri ton pronomen escholeito, synagogon tas gynaikas ton stratioton kai tous ex auton gegontas paidas tautais men synestesato kata mena didonai siton, tois de paisin epiphoras tagmatikas apeneime kata tous ton pateron syllogismous. XVII 94 iv
‘Tagmatikas’ it is true is almost unique but it is clearly an adjectival form of ‘tagma’ which Diodoros uses four times in Book XVII (33 i: 57 ii: 80 iv: 88 v) all as a catch all word for a military unit, just as Arrian uses ‘taxis’.
‘A Battalion bringing towards’ is still nonsense, but in the context of a list of bribes the ‘bringing towards’ must mean something like a gift or payment and the qualification ‘tagmatikas’ must associate it with military units.
It is further qualified by the phrase ‘kata tous ton pateron syllogismous’ so it was computed according to their fathers’ deeds.
This last suggests Curtius’ description of the distribution of bonuses just before the proposed Gandarian campaign, i.e. the same juncture in the narrative.
…ceteris quoque pro portione aut gradus, quem in amicitia obtinebant, aut navatae operae honos habitus est. IX 1 vi
The rest of the men were also rewarded according to their degree of friendship with Alexander or the service they had rendered. (Yardley’s translation)
Here there is no mention of the wives and children and the ‘proportionate’ rewards are given to the common soldiery, but this event (which may be the occasion of the distribution of the famous ‘elephant medallions’) is reported at the correct juncture and does seem to conform to the second part of Diodoros’ statement.
We can gain some insight into what may be occurring by considering Justin XII 4 viii ff.
8 Igitur et alimenta pueris statuta et instrumenta armorum equorumque iuuenibus data, et patribus pro numero filiorum praemia statuta. 9 Si quorum patres occidissent, nihilo minus pupilli stipendia patrum trahebant,
Interestingly the ‘alimenta’ mentioned here can refer to an issue of rations, the ‘alimentum’ was the original corn-dole that the citizens of Rome received, although this cannot be pressed too far as by the mid-first Century AD it was frequently replaced by a monetary dole. The passage has many of the elements found in Diodoros, however; the (possible) corn element, the rewards based on the number of children (though this is only an implication of the Diodoros), and the receipt of monies based upon their fathers’ salary. Justin puts this earlier in his narrative though, just after the visit of Thalestris, which Curtius retails at VI 5 xxvff and Diodoros at 77 i. Now, the surrounding matter in all three sources is concerned with the Macedonians’ disapproval of Alexander’s adoption of Persian dress and mores (this is the very place where the Metz Epitome starts but it has none of the conciliation matter). This increases the chances that Trogus actually found the story in his source and that it is not a Roman graft as has been suggested. Diodoros 78 i says,Maintenance was provided for the boys, and arms and horses were given them when they grew up; and rewards were assigned to the fathers in proportion to the number of their children. If the fathers of any of them were killed, the orphans notwithstanding received their father’s pay; Rev John Selby Watson
‘Many it is true, did reproach him for these things but he silenced them with gifts.’
Homos de pollon autoi mempsimoirounton toutois men tais doreais etherapeuen…
And Curtius VI vi 11
Alexander was aware that the chief of his friends and the troops were grossly offended, so he attempted to regain their favour with generous gifts.
Ille non ignarus, et principes amicorum et exercitum graviter offendi, gratiam liberalitate donisque reparare temptabat
So in fact all three are telling the same story but supplying or omitting different details.
What has all this to do with the translation of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’? Well, we can now suggest how Diodoros has arrived at his passage. It is important to remember that he is epitomising a much longer work and that his method for so doing was probably similar to that employed by Diogenes Laertius when compiling his ‘Lives of Eminent Philosophers’, which has been discussed by Jorgen Meier in a Hermes Einzelschrift ‘Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background’. Therein he discovers clues in the mistakes that Diogenes makes in his citations and attributions that his method was to read a source and make abbreviated notes on the ancient equivalents of cards, these then serve to jog the memory (but if you abbreviate Plato, Phrynichos and Pollio all as P clearly there is scope for error!).
Now, Diogenes was combining a greater number of sources than Diodoros but I believe the methodology would have been similar; the resume is made from the notes and not the actual source book.
Finally we can suggest how Diodoros’ account reads as it does. I believe that coming to his notes he found the promise of monthly rations for the wives AND children, that juxtaposed was a note referring to the bonuses noted by Curtius for the soldiers and he has conflated the two; prompted, in no small part by the memory of the gifts detailed by Justin but glossed in his own work.
There is every reason to think that ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’ may be Kleitarchos’ own coining (or whichever source), as he loved making up words and cannot even call a ‘mountain bee’ a ‘mountain bee’ so thredon the normal word becomes ANthredon in his hands, and thus a Pythonesque ‘unmountain bee’! ‘Epiphoras’, all seem agreed, refers to some sort of donative, the ‘tagmatikas’ qualifies it and makes it unit specific. We have met such bonuses before Diod. 64 vi, and 74 iii which parallel Curtius V 1 xlv and VI 2 xvii where the size of the payments is conditioned by the unit the soldier is part of.
Since the term should, in all probability, apply not to the children’s but to the soldiers’ bonus it cannot mean a ‘bursary’. Further, Diodoros uses the standard words for ‘training’, teaching’ etc and it is hard to believe that had he understood the phrase in this way he would not have used a compound of such a word ( eg.gymnasias polemikas at 2 iii or the paideia and didaxontas of 110 iii).
It is hard to render this concept elegantly so, whilst bearing in mind the implication about its assessment, Welles’ ‘Service Bonus’ is probably as neat as one can get.
