blood, which with the multitude is always a claim, the strongest, and the most easily comprehended." "They are not the men in the nation the most difficult to be replaced."

RULE X.

One substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case: as, "My father's house;" "Man's happiness ;" "Virtue's reward."

When the annexed substantive signifies the same thing as the first, there is no variation of case: as, "George, king of Great Britain, elector of Hanover," &c.; "Pompey contended with Cæsar, the greatest general of his time;" Religion, the support of adversity, adorns prosperity." Nouns thus circumstanced are said to be in apposition to each other. The interposition of a relative and verb will sometimes break the construction: as, "Pompey, contended with Cæsar, who was the greatest general of his time." Here the word general is in the nominative case, governed by note 4, under RULE XI. The prepositon of joined to a substantive, is not always equivalent to the possessive case. It is only so, when the expression can be converted into the regular form of the possessive case. We can say, "The reward of virtue," and "Virtue's reward:" but though it is proper to say, "A crown of gold," we cannot convert the expression into the possessive case, and say, "Gold's crown."

Substantives govern pronouns as well as nouns, in the possessive case: as, "Every tree is known by its fruit;" "Goodness brings its reward" "That desk is mine."

The genitive its is often improperly used for 'tis or it is as, "Its my book :" instead of "It is my book."

The pronoun his, when detached from the noun to which it relates, is to be considered, not as a possessive pronoun, but as the genitive case of the personal pronoun: as, "This composition is his." "Whose book is that ?" "His." If we used the noun itself, we should say, "This composition is John's." "Whose book is that ?" "Eliza's." The position will be still more evident, when we consider that both the pronouns in the following sentences must have a similar construction: "Is it her or his honour that is tarnished ?" "It is not hers, but his."

Sometimes a substantive in the genitive or possessive case stands alone, the latter one by which it is governed being understood: as, "I called at the bookseller's,” that is, "at the bookseller's shop."

1. If several nouns come together in the genitive case, the

apostrophe with s is annexed to the last, and understood to the rest as, "John and Eliza's books :" "This was my father, mother, and uncle's advice." But when any words intervene, perhaps on account of the increased pause, the sign of the possessive should be annexed to each: as, "They are John's as well as Eliza's books;" "I had the physician's, the surgeon's, and the apothecary's assistance."

2. In poetry, the additional s is frequently omitted, but the apostrophe retained, in the same manner aj in substantives of the plural number ending in s: as, "The wrath of Peleus's son. This seems not so allowable in prose; which the following erroneous examples will demonstrate: "Moses' minister;" "Phinehas' wife;" "Festus came into Felix' room." "These answers were made to the witness' questions." But in cases which would give too much of the hissing sound, or increase the difficulty of pronunciation, the omission takes place even in prose: as," For righteousness' sake;” “For conscience' sake.”

S. Little explanatory circumstances are particularly awk · ward between a genitive case, and the word which usually follows it: as, "She began to extol the farmer's, as she cal led him, excellent understanding." It ought to be, "the ex cellent understanding of the farmer, as she called him."

4. When a sentence consists of terms signifying a name: and an office, or of any expressions by which one part is de scriptive or explanatory of the other, it may occasion some doubt to which of them the sign of the genitive case should be annexed; or whether it should be subjoined to them both Thus, some would say; "I left the parcel at Smith's th bookseller" others, "at Smith the bookseller's:" and per haps others, "at Smith's the bookseller's." The first of these forms is most agreeable to the English idiom; and if the addition consists of two or more words, the case seems to be less dubious: as, "I left the parcel at Smith's, the bookseller and stationer." But as this subject requires a little further explanation to make it intelligible to the learners, we shall add a few observations tending to unfold its principles.

A phrase in which the words are so connected and dependent, as to admit of no pause before the conclusion, necessarily requires the genitive sign at or near the end of the phrase: as, "Whose prerogative is it? It is the king of Great Britain's," "That is the duke of Bridgewater's canal;" "The bishop of Landaff's excellent book" "The lord mayor of London's authority;" "The captain of the guard's house."

When words in apposition follow each other in quick suc cession, it seems also most agreeable to our idiom, to give

the sign of the genitive a similar situation; especially if the noun which governs the genitive be expressed: as, "The emperor Leopold's;" "Dionysius the tyrant's;" "For David my servant's sake;" "Give me John the Baptist's head ;" "Paul the apostle's advice." But when a pause is proper, and the governing noun not expressed; and when the latter part of the sentence is extended; it appears to be requisite that the sign should be applied to the first genitive, and understood to the other; as, "I reside at lord Stormont's, my old patron and benefactor; "Whose glory did he emulate? He emulated Cæsar's, the greatest general of antiquity." In the following sentences, it would be very awkward to place the sign, either at the end of each of the clauses, or at the end of the latter one alone : "These psalms are David's, the king, priest, and prophet of the Jewish people;" "We staid a month at lord Lyttleton's, the_ornament of his country, and the friend of every virtue." The sign of the genitive case may very properly be understood at the end of these members, an ellipsis at the latter part of sentences being a common construction in our language; as the learner will see by one or two examples: "They wished to submit, but he did not; that is, "he did not wish to submit ;"" He said it was their concern, but not his;" that is, "not his concern."

܂

If we annex the sign of the genitive to the end of the last clause only, we shall perceive that a resting place is wanted, and that the connecting circumstance is placed too remotely, to be either perspicuous or agreeable: as, "Whose glory did he emulate ?" "He emulated Cæsar, the greatest general of antiquity's " "These psalms are David, the king, priest, and prophet of the Jewish people's." It is much better to say, This is Paul's advice, the christian hero, and great apostle of the gentiles," than, "This is Paul the christian hero, and great apostle of the gentiles' advice." On the other hand, the application of the genitive sign to both or all of the nouns in apposition, would be generally harsh and displeasing,_and perhaps in some cases incorrect: as, "The emperor's Leopold's;" "King's George's;"" Charles' the second's;" "The parcel was left at Smith's the bookseller's and stationer's." The rules which we have endeavoured to elucidate, will prevent the inconvenience of both these modes of expression, and they appear to be simple, perspicuous, and consistent with the idiom of the language.

5. The English genitive has often an unpleasant sound; so that we daily make more use of the particle of to express the same relation. There is something awkward in the follow ing sentences, in which this method has not been taken.

"The

129 "The general, in the army's name, published a declaration." "The common's vote." "The lords' house." "Unless he is very ignorant of the kingdom's condition." It were certainly better to say, "In the name of the army;" "The vote of the commons ;" "The house of lords ;" "The condition of the kingdom." It is also rather harsh. to use two English genitives with the same substantive: as, "Whom he acquainted with the pope's and the king's pleasure." pleasure of the pope and the king," would have been better. We sometimes meet with three substantives dependent on one another, and connected by the preposition of applied to each of them as, "The severity of the distress of the son of the king, touched the nation ;" but this mode of expression is not to be recommended. It would be better to say, "The severe distress of the king's son, touched the nation." We have a striking instance of this laborious mode of expression, in the following sentence: Of some of the books of each of these classes of literature, a catalogue will be given at the end of the work."

ἐσ

6. In some cases, we use both the genitive termination and the preposition of: as, "It is a discovery of Sir Isaac Newton's." Sometimes indeed, unless we throw the sentence into another form, this method is absolutely necessary, in order to distinguish the sense, and to give the idea of property, strictly so called, which is the most important of the relations expressed by the genitive case for the expressions, "This picture of my friend," and "This picture of my friend's," suggest very different ideas. The latter only is that of property in the strictest sense. The idea would, doubtless, be conveyed in a better manner, by saying, “This picture belonging to my friend."

When this double genitive, as some grammarians term it, is not necessary to distinguish the sense, and especially in a grave style, it is generally omitted. Except to prevent ambiguity, it seems to be allowable only in cases which suppose the existence of a plurality of subjects of the same kind. In the expressions, "A subject of the emperor's ;" "A sentiment of my brother's ;” more than one subject, and one sentiment, are supposed to belong to the possessor. But when this plurality is neither intimated, nor necessarily supposed, the double genitive, except as before mentioned, should not be used: as, "This house of the governor is very commodious;" ;""The crown of the king was stolen ;" "That privilege of the scholar was never abused." (See page 40.) But after all that can be said for this double genitive, as it is termed, some grammarians think that it would be better to avoid the

use of it altogether, and to give the sentiment another form of expression.

7. When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, "What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?" that is, "What is the reason of this person in dismissing his servant so hastily ?" we may say, and perhaps ought to say, "What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily ?" Just as we say, "What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant?" So also, "I remember it being reckoned a great exploit ;" or more properly, "I remember its being reckoned," &c. The following sentence is correct and proper: "Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently." It would not be accurate to say, "Much will depend on the pupil composing," &c. We also properly say; "This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently;" instead of, Of the pupil composing frequently."

we say,

56

RULE XI.

Active verbs govern the objective case: as, "Truth en:obles her;" "She comforts me;" .99 66 They support us "Virtue rewards her followers."

In English, the nominative case, denoting the subject, usually goes before the verb; and the objective case, denoting the object, follows the verb active; and it is the order that determines the case in nouns; as, "Alexander conquered the Persians." But the pronoun having a proper form for each of those cases, is sometimes, when it is in the objective case, placed before the verb; and, when it is in the nominative case, follows the object and verb; as, Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.”

This position of the pronoun sometimes occasions its proper case and government to be neglected: as in the following instances: "Who should I esteem more than the wise and good?" "By the character of those who you choose for your friends, your own is likely to be formed." "Those are the persons who he thought true to his interests." "Who should I see the other day but my old friend." "Whosoever the court favours." In all these places it ought to be whom, the relative being governed in the objective case by the verbs esteem, choose, thought," &c. "He who under all proper circumstances, has the boldness to speak truth, choose for thy friend;" It should be "him who," &c.