Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/402

Vossius contested by Bircherod in his ‘Lumen Historiæ Sacræ Veteris’ (1687, fol.), and by John Milner (1628–1702) [q. v.] in his ‘Defence of Ussher against Cary and Vossius.’

He was evidently pleased by the controversial issue, for he returned to the subject in his ‘De Septuaginta Interpretibus eorum que Translatione et Chronologia Dissertationes’ (1661, 4to, appendix, 1663; new edition, London, 1665). Hulsius proceeded to vindicate the Hebrew text in his ‘Authentia S. textus Hebræi,’ while Schook (followed in 1663 by Schotanus, and much later by Patrick Cockburn [q. v.]) attacked his theory of a local and partial deluge in ‘Diatriba qua probatur Noachi diluvium toti terrarum orbi incubuisse’ (1662, 12mo). Vossius next displayed his versatility in directing against the predominant Cartesianism his ingenious ‘De Lucis natura et proprietate,’ Amsterdam, 1662, 4to (‘apud Ludovicum et Danielem Elsevirios,’ Willems, p. 329), which he defended against the attacks of Johannes de Bruyn and others in a ‘Responsum’ (1663), at the same time rounding off his theory with a ‘De motu marium et ventorum liber’ (The Hague, 1663, 4to), which was translated into English by A. Lovel in 1677. He seems to have held that light and heat are merely accidents; he attributes the tides to the influence of the sun, and describes a ‘baroscope’ by means of which navigators might with certainty foretell the approach of storms. Of more interest was his ‘De Nili et aliorum fluminum origine’ (The Hague, 1666, 4to), in which he attributes the flooding of the river to the heavy rainfall of Ethiopia. In 1666 and 1669 he saw through the press the amusing collection of table-talk called ‘Scaligerana,’ and the similar collection entitled ‘Perroniana, sive excerpta ex ore Cardinalis Perronii,’ and in the latter year he edited Pliny's ‘Natural History’ ‘cum commentariis et adnotationibus.’ In the early sixties Vossius seems to have visited Geneva, and spent a good deal of time at Paris, where he became intimate with Paul Colomiès [q. v.] Colomiès subsequently came over to England upon his invitation, probably in 1681.

In 1663 Vossius received through Colbert, together with a most flattering letter in allusion to his father's and his own services to the cause of learning, a handsome ‘gratification’ from the French king. His case was very similar to that of Casaubon, and the bait was as tempting. He solved the religious problem in the same way by embracing Anglicanism; not, however, like Casaubon, because it expressed his belief, but rather because it seemed to him more congenial to his philosophic doubt. Charles II is said to have welcomed him on his arrival in England in 1670, but his real sponsor seems to have been John Pearson, the profoundly learned master of Trinity (and afterwards bishop of Chester). Their common interest was the vindication of the authenticity of the ‘Eusebian’ epistles of Ignatius, in opposition to the views of Daillé, Saumaise, and Blondel, and when Pearson's ‘Vindiciæ’ appeared at Cambridge in 1672, 4to, ‘Isaaci Vossii Epistolæ Duæ’ formed an appendix, together with his ‘Responsio ad Blondellum’ (cf. Vindiciæ, Oxford, 1852, ii. 489, 620 seq.) What is perhaps the most original of the works of Vossius appeared anonymously at Oxford in 1673, under the title ‘De Poematum cantu et viribus rythmi,’ dedicated to Lord Arlington. The author retraces the ancient alliance between poetry and music, and insists upon a strict adherence to the rules of prosody as opposed to the intuitive method. He dwells much, too, upon the beauty of rhythmical movement (some criticisms upon this work by Roger North are in Addit. MS. 32531, f. 53).

Vossius had been created D.C.L. at Oxford on 16 Sept. 1670, and he was now presented by Charles II to a vacant prebend in the royal chapel of Windsor (he was installed on 12 May 1673, in place of Thomas Viner; see, History of Windsor, p. 413). He was now frequently to be seen about the court. Evelyn met him at the lord chamberlain's at supper with the bishop of Rochester, at the houses of other prelates, and at Monmouth House. But his favourite resort was the house of the Duchesse de Mazarin, where he constantly met Saint-Évremond. They observed of him that he knew all the languages of Europe, but did not speak one well, and that he was intimately acquainted with the manners and the personages of all ages but his own. His style was generally held to be too disputatious, and his epithets too erudite for the drawing-room. He shocked some of his colleagues by remarking of one of their number about whom inquiries were being made, ‘Est sacrificulus in pago et rusticos decipit.’ Other anecdotes of a like tendency (such as that he used habitually to read Ovid during service), even if we cannot accept them literally, seem to indicate that he was very near to being a complete sceptic. Yet he was by no means free from credulity, and Charles II remarked of him that he would believe anything if only it were not in the Bible. The remark was perhaps suggested by his next book of any importance, ‘I. Vossii de Sibyllinis aliisque quæ Christi