This is probably not really helpful in the context of your question, but there is this story that, when Philip spent his time as a hostage with the Thebans , he had an affair with Pammenes. Now, as far as I can see this mainly rests on Lib. decl. 17.71, which is not only 4th c. AD, but also a rhetorical exercise, so I wouldn't put much emphasis on it. It may have something to do, as Lenschau has suggested in the RE article on Pammenes, with reforms instigated by Pammenes in the hieros lochos, something that can found for example in Plut. Amatorius 17.

On another note, I have considerable doubts about the story as presented by Diodorus - not the least so because Iustinus and P.Oxy 1798 offer more or less conflicting evidence. Perhaps the whole affair in the end comes down to a court conspiracy.

Thanks for your input, Jorit. Would have got back to you sooner, but for Christmas.

I take it that you are referring to No. 17 of Libanius' Declamations, which I don't have easy access to.

Would you be able to send me a copy of the text with citation details, together with full details of the Lenschau article you refer to, as well.

Following up on your note I am also bearing in mind the following comments of Mikael Johansson who is working of a commentary of this and other declamations:

"Declamations 17–23, the so-called “Philippic Declamations”. These declamations are based on themes from Athenian history in the age of Demosthenes (4th century B.C.), especially the wars between Athens and king Philip II of Macedonia. The texts are carefully elaborated fictitious orations of Demosthenes and other forceful speakers."

http://www.sprak.gu.se/english/research/research-projects/externally-funded/libanius-declamations-17-23/

Mikael's comments are consequently in line with your own view regarding the reliability of the text.

As it happens, I completed the first draft of my paper on Philip's assassination about two months ago, and was putting the final touches to it when I received your message. I will be submitting it to a journal recommended to me by R D Milns, my former supervisor, in the new year. Bob has already read the article and given it his stamp of approval. But for completeness, I'd like to include the Libanius reference, with comments, in a footnote, and I'd also acknowledge the fact that you brought it to my attention. From what you've said, the passage would make no difference to my overall conclusions.

I concur with you as well, regarding the Diodorus' story. About half my article is given over to an analysis of the sources, and, where possible their sources. So if that's of interest to you, please let me know by putting in a request for the paper.

I am not intending to publish it on line at this time, but may be able to release it to you at a later time. And I will send you full publication details, if I am successful in that, as soon as I know it.

As I understand it, the journal I will be submitting it to does not require to hold exclusive copyright to the papers they publish.

Again, thanks again for your answer.

Kathy

Hi, Jorit. Further to the above, it looking into the Libanius reference, I though you'd be interested to know that the Suda Karanos entry makes much the same claim, but with it's own note of caution.

“After a war with the Thebans, [Amyntas] gave them as a hostage Philip, who was still young, and a Theban named Pammenes became his lover, or so they say.” (My italics) http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&search_method=QUERY&login=guest&enlogin=guest&user_list=LIST&page_num=1&searchstr=karanos&field=any&num_per_page=100.

I strongly suspect that the Suda used Libanius as its source on this point.

Hammond and Griffith in Vol. 2 of their History of Macedonia, accept the story at face value as true, despite the note of caution in the text.

Hi Kathy.

Thanks for this interesting piece of reference; given Libanius' popularity in Constantinople you're surely right in suspecting that may be one of the sources for it.

Interestingly the entry clearly distinguishes between information that is to be taken at face value (like that he became a hostage) and information of a slightly less than rock-solid character, which is introduced with "phasi" or "hos phasi" ("they say, some say"): "Amyntas has these children - and some say they were spurious. Amyntas gave Philip as a hostage - and some say he became the lover of Pammenes." A nice parallel construction that is, too.

Hi Kathleen.

Though I know this answer is a bit off the mark, I would still like to share my views.

I myelf was interested in the "unsolved" case of Philip´s assasination case. I don´t remember much about what I concluded then, since it was many years ago.

Over time many suspects have been named, like Alexander´s mother, knowing that Philip might name his other son (by another mother) as heir to his throne. Then there is the "jealous or hurt lover" theory. I myself saw another possiblity... a theory not sustained by evidence, but maybe an interesting one.

Since Xenophon´s 10.000 men march through Persia it was shown that the Persian Empire was vulnerable to invasion, it might have been posible that some very rich and powerful greeks got plans made to plan a new invasion, to annex at least a part of Asia, and hellenize it, and owning the valueble trade routes.

Philip was useful for uniting Greece, and creating a strong military establishment (which gave Alexander the chance to conquer Asia without the assistance of allies) but they might have seen that he wasnt the best candidate for their new campaign. Thus, Alexander, educated by Aristotle, Lysimachus and Leonidas, was a better proponent: young, a military and diplomatic genius, ambitious and fearless, and well educated by one of greece´s best philosophers and scientists.

In those times, Tyre was the biggest trading city of that part of the world, and in hands of the clever phoenicians. Alexander might have had direct orders, or suggestions that one of the first things to do was to destroy that city, and build a new trading/scientific city, which became Alexandria.

Then he was supposed to conquer Asia, but not to be a tyrant, and subject the peoples; instead he should merge both cultures, hellenizing the asians, asianizing the macedonians, which he did, winning the respect from, at least the asians. This made trade a lot easier, apart from the comfort it meant in as maintaining this vast new Empire. He spread Greek thought, culture and language deep into Asia, and, offcourse, also Greek trade bussiness and "banking". He diplomatically won over the Egyptians too, and many other peoples.

Undoubtledly the big winners where the greek merchants. And in this case we might ask ourselves, in assassinating Philip, ¿Qui Bono?.

Then there is the case of the investigation itself: Aristotle as head detective, never found the conspirators. ¿What if he was in on the assasination? He send his greatnephew Callisthenes on the campaigns together with Alexander, as court historian (and, if I don´t remeber wrong, also as campaign treasurer), and ordered Callisthenes to keep him informed about the campaign and Alexander.  He might have been supposed to "control" Alexander in his campaigns, reminding Alexander of Aristotles teachings. But, Alexander, though acted like he was taught, was an incontrollable man, and ended executing Callisthenes.

In the end, Alexander was expected to reign his Empire from Babylon, and lead a life in his palace, letting trade and economic matters into the hands of the "experts", which would gain a lot of power, and in the long run become the actual emperors. Things went wrong when Alexander died prematurely, and his Empire got divided, and civil war started almost inmediately. Even so, the rich greek merchants will probably have gained a lot of power and money in the time it all held out.

Offcourse, all of this is mere speculation, but if you start looking at the assasination case with the eyes of a detective, instead of with the sole eyes of a historian, then you start finding more suspects than just the "hurt lover". The "hurt lover" might actually become a good excuse to take the suspicion away from other posiblities. Then the conspirators might hire the detective to cover it all up. ¿Why would Aristotle work along with these conspirators? The sole idea of hellenizing the barbarians with Greek thought (including his thoughts) and culture might have convinced him of this excelent enterprise for the greeks.

To me, it is as if Alexander was groomed from birth to be the man to undertake this enterprise, this enormous campaign. He allegedly interviewed visiting dignitaries about the boundaries and strengths of Persia when he was seven years old. Philip was used to unite Greece, and built a profesional army of invincible hoplites. Xenophon showed it was possible, Philip build the machine, and Alexander made it happen, but, ¿Qui Bono? Who profited?

Hope I gave you something to think about, since I cant proof anything at all, it´s all I can contribute.

Saludos!