Eurydice1, daughter of Antipater, regent of Macedon2, third wife of Ptolemy I who she married in 320/193. She was certainly the mother of Ptolemy Ceraunus4, an unknown son5, Ptolemais6 and Lysandra7, was probably the mother of Meleager8 and possibly of Argaeus9. Eurydice was possibly divorced before 28710 and may have accompanied her son Ptolemy Ceraunus to Macedon in 28011; her date of death is unknown.
 PP VI 14509. Gr: Eurudikh. Ý
 Pausanias 1.6.8 states that Antipater sent Eurydice to Egypt, hence the marriage occurred between Ptolemy I's arrival in Egypt in late 323 or early 322 and Antipater's death in 319/18 (Parian Marble 113 (archonship of Apollodorus) (FGrH 239 B.12, M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 39 (21.12)), more precisely in late summer or autumn 319, see K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte IV.2 238. It is usually dated to the aftermath of the division of Alexander's empire at the conference of Triparadeisos. Ptolemy was certainly negotiating with Antipater before that event (Diodorus 18.14.2) and Antipater was certainly using the prospect of marriages to his daughters Phila and Nicaea as bargaining chips in his concurrent negotiations with Craterus and Perdiccas. However, Triparadeisos appears to have created more settled conditions appropriate for a marriage to take place. It occurred between the death of Perdiccas c. June 320 and the arrival of Seleucus in Babylon to take up his satrapy 1 Nisan (April) 319 -- see the discussion in R. M. Errington, JHS 90 (1970) 49, esp. 75f. Ý
 It is generally assumed by older scholars, e.g. G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 103, that she was divorced in or around c. 316, the presumed date of Ptolemy I's marriage to Berenice I. This is largely based on an unjustified assumption that Macedonian kings were seriously monogamous, and moreover it is difficult to sustain such an early date since Eurydice had at least 4 children.
Plutarch, Demetrius 46.3, reports that she attended the wedding of her daughter Ptolemais to Demetrius in Miletus in c. 287. Since Plutarch stresses Eurydice's relationship to Demetrius' principal wife, her sister Phila, one might infer that the marriage took place at Eurydice's initiative, not Ptolemy's, and occurred after Ptolemy's selection of Ptolemy II as his heir. According to this interpretation, Eurydice had been repudiated as Ptolemy's principal wife by 287 at the latest, and the marriage reflects an attempt to recruit Demetrius' support for her son Ptolemy Ceraunus. However, the absence of Ptolemy Ceraunus himself from Plutarch's account suggests that at this time he was still in Egypt, and that Ptolemy I's final choice of successor had not yet been made.
More recent scholarship accepts, from statements such as Plutarch Pyrrhus 4.4, that Ptolemy I had more than one wife at face value. This allows, but does not require, Eurydice and Berenice I both to have been married to him at this time.
The most recent discussion specifically addressing Eurydice's status that I have found is M. Obradovic, Fs Papazoglou, 257. This article is concerned with identifying the date of the alliance between Ptolemy I and the city of Miletus mentioned in a letter of Ptolemy II to the city preserved in iMilet 3, 139C (translated here, no 21). He concludes that the alliance must have been concluded in the early 280s, and hence that the marriage of Ptolemais to Demetrius took place at a time when Ptolemy I was in control of the city. It follows that it was a diplomatic marriage sponsored by Ptolemy I, that Eurydice's presence had his approval and was as his representative, and therefore that she was most likely still married to him at the time.
The argument is plausible, but circumstantial and based primarily on elimination of the other known possible dates for the alliance. While Obradovic may well be right, his argument is not totally convincing. Even accepting his analysis of the other possible dates (and I have no reason not to), our documentation for the late 300s and the 290s is quite sketchy, so it could be that there was some other maneouvring we are not yet aware of, and that the alliance referred to occurred at some other time.
Miletus was under the control of Lysimachus in the stephanephorate of Telesias = 289/8, since SIG 368 (translation here, no 10), a decree preserved in both Miletus and Smyrna, records honours voted to his friend and strategos Hippostratos son of Hippodemus.
The date of the marriage is determined by the sequence of events in Demetrius' last campaign to be shortly after the Athenian revolt against him, which is to be dated to spring 287, from the evidence of SEG 28.60, the decree honouring Kallias of Sphettos. The revolt was actively supported by Ptolemy I. Since Lysimachus and Ptolemy I had subsequently allied to expel Demetrius from Macedon, Athens and the Aegean, his presence in Miletus in 287 seem to prove that Lysimachus lost control of the city shortly after, but according to Plutarch's account Demetrius sought to wrest Caria and Lydia from Lysimachus, which suggests -- though certainly does not prove -- that Miletus was lost to Demetrius, not Ptolemy I.
Obradovic's theory requires, as he recognises, that Ptolemy I had changed sides as soon as Demetrius' power in Macedon and the Aegean had been broken, and had taken control of Miletus from Lysimachus in time for the marriage to occur, just before Demetrius set out on his Lydian campaign. Circumstantially, this is quite possible. SEG 28.60 describes a peace treaty between Ptolemy I and Demetrius, which implies Ptolemy I's withdrawal from his previous alliance with Lysimachus and Pyrrhus. Moreover, Demetrius' transit across the Aegean, after control of that sea had been lost to the Ptolemaic fleet, could only have occurred with Ptolemy I's knowledge and permission. Thus, the circumstantial evidence allows, if it oes not require, Obradovic's conjecture that Miletus was under Ptolemaic control in 287.
On the other hand, iMilet 3, 138 (translated here, no 14), which concerns a loan obtained from Knidos used by the Milesians to pay the second installment of what appears to be a tribute to Lysimachus, seems to require that he was back in control of Miletus in the stephanephorate of Alexippos = 283/2. This is perfectly comprehensible if it was Demetrius who controlled Miletus in 287, since his power base had been largely destroyed following his capture by Seleucus in 285 and his subsequent death, but rather less so if it was Ptolemy I who controlled Miletus in 287, since it would imply that Lysimachus had recaptured the city from Ptolemy I, or that he had turned it over to him. Knidos was Ptolemaic territory in 283/2, so the loan implies that relations between Lysimachus and Ptolemaic Egypt were good in that year. This is also evidenced by the marriage of Ptolemy II to Arsinoe I at about this time or shortly before. Obradovic reasonably suggests that that marriage is an indication that the relationship needed mending.
H. Hauben, Anc. Soc. 34 (2004) 27 at 37 n. 63 notes that Plutarch, Demetrius 46.3, does not state that the marriage was contracted in Miletus but near (peri) Miletus, and suggests that it took place on a Ptolemaic dorea near the city. The implication appears to be that the dorea could have been granted to Eurydice when she left the Ptolemaic court, and that the city itself might still have been under Lysimachus' control. However, it seems to me that Ptolemy I could only have granted Eurydice a dorea if he actually controlled the general area, so I am unclear why Hauben thinks that the distinction weakens Obradovic's theory.
Even so, while Obradovic's theory is perfectly possible, even likely, it does not seem to me to be certain. If Miletus was Ptolemaic at the time then Eurydice was probably still married to Ptolemy I. However, if it was Antigonid, this is less certain, since Demetrius could well have entered into such a marriage with an eye to encouraging factional disputes that could have weakened Ptolemaic power after the death of Ptolemy I, an event which could not have been too many years in the future.
Eurydice's marital status at this time remains open. Ý
 Polyaenus 6.7.2 refers to the introduction of the Eurydicea, a feast celebrating the freedom of the city of Cassandreia, by the tyrant Apollodorus, who ruled it between 279 and 276. It is suggested (e.g. G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 103) that the feast was nominally in honour of this queen, and that she must therefore have had command of the city during the reign of Ptolemy Ceraunus and so must have died in 280 or later. Ý
8-9 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
17 Feb 2002: Split out into separate entry
22 Feb 2004: Added Xref to online Parian Marble
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription
17 Sep 2006: Added link to online Polyaenus
9 June 2007: Add discussion of Obradovic's analysis of iMilet 3, 139.
Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved