ghters."--_Luke_, i, 5. This ending was sometimes the same as that of
the plural; and both were changed to _is_ or _ys_, before they became what
we now find them. This termination added a syllable to the word; and Lowth
suggests, in the quotation above, that the apostrophe was introduced to
shorten it. But some contend, that the use of this mark originated in a
mistake. It appears from the testimony of Brightland, Johnson, Lowth,
Priestley, and others, who have noticed the error in order to correct it,
that an opinion was long entertained, that the termination _'s_ was a
contraction of the word _his_. It is certain that Addison thought so; for
he expressly says it, in the 135th number of the Spectator. Accordingly he
wrote, in lieu of the regular possessive, "My paper is _Ulysses his_
bow."--_Guardian_, No. 98. "Of _Socrates his_ rules of prayer."--_Spect._,
No. 207. So Lowth quotes Pope: "By _young Telemachus his_ blooming
years."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 17.[166] There is also one late author who
says, "The _'s_ is a contraction of _his_, and was formerly written in
full; as, William Russell _his_ book."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 32. This is
undoubtedly bad English; and always was so, however common may have been
the erroneous notion which gave rise to it. But the apostrophe, whatever
may have been its origin, is now the acknowledged distinctive mark of the
possessive case of English nouns. The application of the _'s_, frequently
to feminines, and sometimes to plurals, is proof positive that it is _not a
contraction_ of the pronoun _his_; as,

"Now Jove suspends his golden scales in air,
Weighs the _men's_ wits against the _Lady's_ hair."
--_Pope_, R. of L., C. v, l. 72.

OBS. 15.--Many of the old grammarians, and Guy, Pinneo, and Spencer, among
the moderns, represent the regular formation of the possessive case as
being the same in both numbers, supposing generally in the plural an
abbreviation of the word by the omission of the second or syllabic _s_.
That is, they suppose that such terms as _eagles' wings, angels' visits_,
were written for _eagles's wings, angels's visits_, &c. This odd view of
the matter accounts well enough for the fashion of such plurals as _men's,
women's, children's_, and makes them regular. But I find no evidence at all
of the fact on which these authors presume; nor do I believe that the
regular possessive plural was ever, in general, a syllable longer than the
nominative. If it eve