Acad., 1848) gave him a wider fame; he became in 1849 consulting astronomer to the American Nautical Almanac, and for this work prepared new tables of the moon (1852). A discussion of the equilibrium of Saturn’s rings led him to conclude in 1855 that they must be of a fluid nature. From 1867 to 1874 he was superintendent of the Coast Survey. In 1857 he published his best known work, the System of Analytical Mechanics, which was, however, surpassed in brilliant originality by his Linear Associative Algebra (lithographed privately in a few copies, 1870; reprinted in the Amer. Journ. Math., 1882). He died at Cambridge, Mass., on the 6th of October 1880.
See New Amer. Cyclopaedia (Ripley and Dana), vol. xiii. (1861); T. J. J. See, Popular Astronomy, in. 49; Nature, xxii. 607; R. Grant, Hist. of Phys. Astronomy, pp 205, 292; J. C. Poggendorff, Biog. lit. Handworterbuch, Month. Notices Roy. Astr. Society, xli. 191.
PEISANDER, of Camirus in Rhodes, Greek epic poet, supposed
to have flourished about 640 B.C. He was the author
of a Heracleia, in which he introduced a new conception of the
hero, the lion’s skin and club taking the place of the older
Homeric equipment. He is also said to have fixed the number
of the “labours of Hercules” at twelve. The work, which according
to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, vi. ch. 2) was simply
a plagiarism from an unknown Pisinus of Lindus, enjoyed
so high a reputation that the Alexandrian critics admitted the
author to the epic canon. From an epigram (20) of Theocritus
we learn that a statue was erected in honour of Peisander by
his countrymen. He is to be distinguished from Peisander
of Laranda in Lycia, who lived during the reign of Alexander
Severus (A.D. 222–235), and wrote a poem on the mixed marriages
of gods and mortals, after the manner of the Eoiai of Hesiod.
See fragments in G. Kinkel, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta (1878); also F. G. Welcker, Kleine Schriften, vol. i. (1844), on the twelve labours of Hercules in Peisander.
PEISISTRATUS, (605?–527 B.C.), Athenian statesman, was the son of Hippocrates. He was named after Peisistratus, the youngest son of Nestor, the alleged ancestor of his family; he was second cousin on his mother’s side to Solon, and numbered among his ancestors Codrus the last great king of Athens. Thus
among those who became “tyrants” in the Greek world he
gained his position as one of the old nobility, like Phalaris of
Agrigentum, and Lygdamis of Naxos; but unlike Orthagoras of
Sicyon, who had previously been a cook. Peisistratus, though
Solon’s junior by thirty years, was his lifelong friend (though this
is denied), nor did their friendship suffer owing to their political
antagonism. From this widely accepted belief arose the almost
certainly false statement that Peisistratus took part in Solon’s
successful war against Megara, which necessarily took place
before Solon’s archonship (probably in 600 B.C.). Aristotle’s
Constitution of Athens (ch. 17) carefully distinguishes Solon’s
Megarian War from a second in which Peisistratus was no doubt
in command, undertaken between 570 and 565 to recapture
Nisaea (the port of Megara) which had apparently been recovered
by the Megarians since Solon’s victory (see Sandys on The
Constitution of Athens, ch. 14, 1, note, and E. Abbott, History
of Greece, vol. i. app. p. 544). Whatever be the true explanation
of this problem, it is certain (1) that Peisistratus was regarded
as a leading soldier, and (2) that his position was strengthened
by the prestige of his family. Furthermore (3) he was a man
of great ambition, persuasive eloquence and wide generosity;
qualities which especially appealed at that time to the classes
from whom he was to draw his support—hence the warning of
Solon (Frag. II. B): “Fools, you are treading in the footsteps
of the fox; can you not read the hidden meaning of these charming
words?” Lastly, (4) and most important, the times were ripe for
revolution. In the article on Solon (ad fin.) it is shown
that the Solonian reforms, though they made a great advance
in some directions, failed on the whole. They were too moderate
to please the people, too democratic for the nobles. It was
found that the government by Boulē and Ecclesia did not mean
popular control in the full sense, it meant government by the
leisured classes, inasmuch as the industrious farmer or herdsman
could not leave his work to give his vote at the Ecclesia, or do
his duty as a councillor. Partly owing to this, and partly to
ancient feuds whose origin we cannot trace, the Athenian people
was split up into three great factions known as the Plain (Pedieis)
led by Lycurgus and Miltiades, both of noble families, the Shore
(Parali) led by the Alcmaeonidae, represented at this time by
Megacles, who was strong in his wealth and by his recent marriage
with Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes of Sicyon; the Hill or
Upland (Diacreis, Diacrii) led by Peisistratus, who no doubt
owed his influence among these hillmen partly to the possession
of large estates at Marathon. In the two former divisions
the influence of wealth and birth predominated; the hillmen
were poorly housed, poorly clad and unable to make use of the
privileges which Solon had given them.[1] Hence their attachment
to Peisistratus, the “man of the people,” who called upon them
to sweep away the last barriers which separated rich and poor,
nobles and commoners, city and countryside. Lastly, there
was a class of men who were discontented with the Solonian
constitution: some had lost by his Seisachtheia, others had
vainly hoped for a general redistribution. These men saw their
only hope in a revolution. Such were the factors which enabled
him to found his tyranny.
To enter here into an exhaustive account of the various theories which even before, though especially after, the appearance of the Constitution of Athens have been propounded as to the chronology of the Peisistratean tyranny, is impossible. For a summary of these hypotheses see J. E. Sandys’s edition of the Constitution of Athens (p. 56, c. 14 note). The following is in brief the sequence of events: In 560 B.C. Peisistratus drove into the market-place, showed to an indignant assembly marks of violence on himself and his mules, and claimed to be the victim of assault at the hands of political enemies. The people unhesitatingly awarded their “champion” a bodyguard of fifty men (afterwards four hundred) armed with clubs. With this force he proceeded to make himself master of the Acropolis and tyrant of Athens. The Alcmaeonids fled and Peisistratus remained in power for about five years, during which Solon’s death occurred. In 555 or 554 B.C. a coalition of the Plain and the Coast succeeded in expelling him. His property was confiscated and sold by auction, but in his absence the strife between the Plain and the Coast was renewed, and Megacles, unable to hold his own, invited him to return. The condition was that their families should be allied by the marriage of Peisistratus to Megacles' daughter Coesyra. A second coup d’état was then effected. A beautiful woman, it is said, by name Phya, was disguised as Athena and drove into the Agora with Peisistratus at her side, while proclamations were made that the goddess herself was restoring Peisistratus to Athens. The ruse was successful, but Peisistratus soon quarrelled with Megacles over Coesyra. By a former marriage he already had two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, now growing up, and in his first tyranny or his first exile he married an Argive, Timonassa, by whom he had two other sons Iophon and Hegesistratus, the latter of whom is said to be identical with Thessalus (Ath. Pol. c. 17), though from Thucydides and Herodotus we gather that they were distinct—e.g. Herodotus describes Hegesistratus as a bastard, and Thucydides says that Thessalus was legitimate. Further it is suggested that Peisistratus was unwilling to have children by one on whom lay the curse of the Cylonian outrage. The result was that in the seventh year (or month, see Ath. Pol. c. 15. 1, Sandys’s note) Megacles accused him of neglecting his daughter, combined once more with the third faction, and drove the tyrant into an exile lasting apparently for ten or eleven years. During this period he lived first at Rhaecelus and later near Mt Pangaeus and on the Strymon collecting resources of men and money. He came finally to Eretria, and, with the help of the Thebans and Lygdamis of Naxos, whom he afterwards made ruler of that island, he passed over to Attica and defeated the Athenian forces at the battle of Pallenis or Pellene. From this time till his death he remained undisputed master of Athens. The Alcmaeonids were compelled to leave Athens, and from
- ↑ It is suggested with probability that the Diacrii were rather the miners of the Laurium district (P. M. Ure, Journ. Hell. Stud., 1906, pp. 131–142).
