pothos.org

I was reading Elizabeth CarneyGÇÖs GÇÿWomen and Monarchy in MacedoniaGÇÖ and she states Cleopatra GÇô ATGGÇÖs sister GÇô had two children, Neoptolemos and Cadmeia. She cites PlutarchGÇÖs Pyrrhus, 5.5 as the basis of this information, but I donGÇÖt quite understand how she arrives at this conclusion based on PlutarchGÇÖs passage. Are there any other references to CleopatraGÇÖs children else where that may support what she is saying? In appreciation to anyone that may respond.

Hi, yes, it seems Cleo did have 2 kids called
Neoptolemus and Cadmeia, deduced from Plut. Pyrr. 5.5
or so. John Whitehorne agrees in 'Cleopatras ' p.58 but
gives no sources. Hammond mentions Neop. II in Hist
Mac III, p.154 & 156; probably the best work to consult
would be Hammond's Epirus. There is an entry on Neop.
II in F. Sandberger's Prosopographie zur Geschichte des
Pyrrhos (Stuttgart 1970), no. 58, listing some literature on
p. 168, mainly in German, but of course Pierre Leveque's
book from1957, Pyyrhos (still extremely good!) is cited,
and Garoufalias' Pyrrhus is useful, esp the notes p.229-
30. velleius Paterculus 1.14.5 gives a chronological
pointer for Neop's death. A. Nederlof wrote a historical
commentary on Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus (in Dutch!) in
1940...
Not all that helpful, but the agreement among scholars
tends to be that Neop was the son of Alexander and
Cleopatra and it figures, as his grandfather was also
called Neop (I). My thought would be to check
Hammond's Epirus - I don't have it with me right now
you'll probably find a family tree
cheers Pat

Hi Pat,That's more detailed than I could have hoped to be, so thanks! :-)I have to say that I was reading the passage in Plutarch last night, and it did seem very ambiguous to me. It might be the translation (Penguin Classics), but it hinges on the fact that, as we know that Arrybas was Olympias' uncle, if his 'line' was sidelined and 'the other line' (the only other one mentioned) took over, then the Neoptolemus and Cadmaea that are mentioned *must* be the children of Cleopatra and Alexander I. It certainly makes sense - although my biggest problem with the whole thing is exactly what date they're talking about - otherwise Neoptolemus can only have been in his teens when he came to the throne, if he really were Cleopatra's son.All the bestMarcus

Hi Pat and Marcus Dr Pat from Otago I presume? In any event, welcome to the forum and thanks for the references and your input. :)I was hoping there would've been some historical reference to CleopatraGÇÖs descendants, perhaps a fragment that may have alluded to their existence - there may well be, just I'm not aware of it. But it sounds like it's a modern's interpretation of the sources and, well I've got to say, it doesnGÇÖt quite stack up in my mind, at this stage. Assuming a name (Neoptolemos) and period in time equates to sufficient evidence as proof of their existence, leaves a bit to be desired. I'm sure the arguments presented for this case are well structured, but if the basis for it is Plutarch's Pyrrhus 5.5 well, all IGÇÖve got to say is hmmm!cheers!

Hi Smitty,I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent. My only hesitation is that I'm not proficient enough in Greek to go back to the source (although I suspect it won't be much less ambiguous).Having said that, even from the Penguin translation, it seems reasonably clear that the Neoptolemus mentioned could *only* be a son of Cleopatra - what I find most surprising is that Plutarch didn't say so (in his potted genealogy he doesn't even mention Alexander I as being the lad's father).So I tend to be happy enough to bow to the academics who've spent more time and expertise working it out ... until I have any other 'proof' (which is a cop out, I know - but I haven't got the energy to quibble) :-)All the bestMarcus

Hi Marcus,
you may be right, a case of translation perhaps. I'm using the same text as yourself, and the way I read it, there were two very distinct persons/periods that Plutarch talks about as being Neoptolemus or descendants of Neoptolemus I.The first is whilst Pyrrhus is an infant probably C.319/18, and they way I see it the only descendants of Neoptolemos I available would have been Neoptolemus II (Cleopatra's son).Pyrrhus once again looses the throne C.302, and this time Plutarch states *another descendant of Neoptolemos* gains the throne. All a bit confusing to me.anyhow, onto some different reading now.cheers!

I have a geneology of the Molossian royalty and it lists Neoptolemus and Kadmeia as Cleopatra and Alexandros's children. Unfortunately this was copied out of a Greek text book some time ago and I don't have the book's title. I believe Neoptolemus was just a teen-ager when he took over the formal title of 'king'. Apparantly Olympias and another male relative were controlling things til then.

Hi Ruth,The original question boils down to what the evidence is for the two children - after all, they appear on genealogies in at least 4 of my books.So far, the only source that I've come across is that passage in Plutarch, which is unclear to say the least. There might be something in another source - say, Diodorus or Justin - but I haven't seen it yet if it's there.All the bestMarcus