MINUTE VERBAL CRITICISMS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I HAVE noticed various communications in your pages on matters of verbal criticism. One correspondent is rather severe on the misuse of the words, avocation and individual; another is offended at what he considers a misapplication of the word character; a third wishes for a definition of the term, nature; and all of them seem to require, not only in writing, but in popular addresses, a degree of minute exactness in the use of expressions which requires a greater command of language than many speakers possess, and a greater degree of agreement on obscure questions of etymology and orthoepy than is altogether attainable. I concur, however, with some of your correspondents in deprecating all affectation in speaking, writing, and acting. But there is another evil to be guarded against; unnecessary fastidiousness, which, if indulged, must cripple all freedom of utterance, and impair the usefulness of public men by fixing their attention on minute points, unworthy of being made prominent objects of regard. At all events criticisms of this nature ought to be made on clear grounds, and not to be themselves liable to further criticism and exception.

When, however, the use of the word avocation, to signify any employment which may be pleaded by a speaker as a hindrance to his attention to the subject before him, is objected to on etymological grounds, it is plain by the answers of your other correspondents, that the etymology of the word is not yet perfectly settled. However, if we even assume the correctness of the first writer, and say, that it properly means that which calls us off, or diverts us from our work, there seems no impropriety in using a word for this purpose, the derivation

of which, according to his own notion, implies that the speaker has been called away from one occupation by the necessity of attending to another. In fact, a, in composition, generally implies ad, as, when in the annals of Tacitus, it is said to be better that Drusus should be given up to luxury and amusement, quam, solus et nullis voluptatibus avocatus, mastam vigilantiam et malas curas exerceret, we can understand, a rebus publicis agendis avocatus ad luxum et convivia, whereas another person might be avocatus a luxu et conviviis ad publicas res agendas.

Neither can I see the propriety of proscribing the word, individual, in every case except where it is used in direct contrast to corporate or collective. "There was not an individual present when I arrived." "Every individual in the room agreed with me." "I have not met with an individual in any part of my journey, who did not think." Person might be used for individual in each of these instances. But individual is the more forcible word, and conveys the notion that we speak deliberately, when we say no one or every one, and that we mean to include man, woman, and child.

In alluding to the remarks made upon the word avocation, I was reminded of another affectation connected with the preposition, a, in composition. Use should be allowed to determine the government of words. I therefore think the phrase, aversion from, an unwarranted departure from established construction in deference to a mere derivation; while, different to, on the contrary, is a vulgarism never met with in our best writers, and which ought, therefore, to be avoided by correct speakers. I presume all who object to the phrase, averse to, in English, would for a similar reason of analogy, change the dative case after participles in dus in Latin into an ablative.

Your correspondent would banish

Jews and the Gypsies, from lately meeting, in Dr. Walsh's interesting "Journey from Constantinople," an assertion respecting them of a similar character with that of Mr. Laurence, relative to the Negro. "The Gypsies," says Dr. Walsh, "are distinguished, like the Jews, by indelible personal marks, dark eyes, brown complexion, and black hair; and by unalterable moral qualities, an aversion to labour, and a propensity to petty theft." Theft, idleness, and the other vices which infect both Jews and Gypsies, are thus, it seems, as unalterable as dark eyes, brown complexion, and black hair; so that to attempt to introduce civilization, or practical Christianity, among either of those races, must be utterly visionary. When you can obliterate the "indelible personal marks," you may attempt to improve the "unalterable moral qualities;" but till then, "organization will be too strong for Christianity." I am perfectly sure that Dr. Walsh did not intend to utter a sceptical sentiment, or to convey all that his words naturally imply; but this only adds to my painful conviction, that, even when there is no intention whatever of setting up physiology against the word of God, opinions are widely afloat, which, traced to their foundation, can be grounded only on such views respecting the congenital varieties of the "moral" as well as physical character of mankind, as forbid the idea of their ever being brought, unless by a direct miracle operating upon the material organization, to the unity of the Christian faith, or the practice of Christian virtues. Dr. Walsh says that the Gypsies "are considered incapable of discipline or instruction:" but has the experiment ever been fairly tried, either as respects Gypsies, or several other outcast classes of our common nature? South-Sea islanders were a few years since" considered" as irreclaimable as Arabs are now; but see "what hath God wrought?" And

have not Negroes been civilized and Christianized; yes, and “wild Irishes" too? Is organization too strong for the arm of Omnipotence, exerted in the use of those "means of grace" which he himself has prescribed? The Jew children in the schools at Bethnal Green, and the Gipsey children under the care of the Southampton Society, retain their "indelible personal marks;" but apart from the effects of early neglect and bad education, the alleged "unalterable moral qualities" of idleness and theft are not more conspicuous among them than among the children of Saffron Alley or Baldwin's Gardens.

VALUABLE ANCIENT VOLUME.

L.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I LATELY found on an upper shelf of an old library, enveloped in dust and cobwebs, a remarkable ancient volume, calculated as I thought to be of admirable service to mankind. It is full of important ancient histories, invaluable religious precepts, and many other matters which I shall not at present specify; and I could wish that it were better known, as it would supersede much of the trash which encumbers our libraries. I had indeed heard of its title before; and inquired of several friends whether they had ever seen it; but though they answered in the affirmative, they seemed to know so little of its contents, that I can scarcely credit their assertion. Happening to be in company one evening, soon after I had discovered my new treasure, I mentioned it to several of our circle, who all spoke in high terms of the interesting and valuable nature of its contents, and allowed that it would be well to circulate it for the public welfare; but they did not seem hearty in the cause, and perhaps not without reason, as the work certainly contains some strong remarks which

may be thought too personal. One of our party, a remarkably gay and giddy lady (though by no means too much so for good company), I could not very well ask to second my object, as the work says, "she that liveth in pleasure, is dead while she liveth," which she might think pointed at herself. The rector of the parish, who happened to be playing a rubber with her, a worthy good man in his way, but lazy withal, and not very zealous in his parish, was much displeased with some personal reflections about "dumb dogs who could not bark." The rich Mr. A., the ambitious Mr. B., the beautiful Miss C., the elegant Mr. D., the witty Mr. E., and that profound scholar Mr. F., very naturally took offence at some uncourteous remarks about not glorying in riches, or might, or strength, or wisdom. Mr. G. the West-Indian planter, was much hurt with some observations on slaves and slavery, which he thought were interpolated by the Anti-Slavery Society, par. ticularly where one of the writers in the work speaks of men-stealers and murderers in the same sentence, and where he calls a slave "his faithful and beloved brother." There are many other remarks in the book which our friends considered by no means in good taste; but we all agreed that if these were omitted, and those parts only published which relate to matters of history, and general good morals and manners, no offence could be taken by any person. Mrs. H. much liked the advice to husbands; and Mr. I. that to wives; and all of us agreed that the directions to servants in this age of insubordination are very excellent; though accompanied with some hints to their employers which most of us considered obsolete, if not dangerous in this revolutionary age, as they might fall into the hands of our domestics, and injure our character. These might be omitted.

Would you, under all the circumstances of the case, recommend

the re-publication of this remarkable volume; and with what limitations? Some of our friends thought it better to omit the publication altogether; others thought it better to give only select extracts: though two or three precise people, of rather peculiar opinions, considered it best to give the whole as it is; and thought that if we omitted all that might be considered personal, or uncharitable, or too strict, we should go far to cut up the whole book.

A LOVER OF ANTIQUITIES.

For the Christian Observer.

RELINQUISHED MISSIONS: THE
GAURES IN PERSIA.

(Concluded from page 681.)

THE following is the conclusion of the pious Inissionary's narrative. We retain as before the original spelling of names.

"Nov. 19th, a servant of the English resident brought us some Persian cloathing, two mattrasses and covering, and provided another lodging for us, where we staid till the 23d, when the resident sent two horses to bring us to the English house, which is a considerable building with a pretty large garden. He received us very cordially, and promised to assist us in every thing. This promise he most faithfully performed during our whole stay. He is a very honest and intelligent man, much respected both by Persians and Armenians. He had never heard of the church to which we belong; but when any visitors came to his house, especially Armenians, he always introduced us to them with the most obliging expressions. We spent most of our time in this house, learning the Persian language. Saturdays and Sundays, the resident being always absent at Tulfa, we were alone, and called to mind with unspeakable gratitude, our lot of grace to belong to a people of the Lord, with whom we have an indissoluble and ever