OBS. 27.—­But, before we say any thing more about the government of this case, let us look at our author’s next paragraph on participles:  “An active participle, preceded by an article or by a genitive, is elegantly followed by the preposition of, before the substantive which follows it; as, the compiling of that book occupied several years; his quitting of the army was unexpected.”—­Allen’s Gram., p. 171.  Here the participial nouns compiling and quitting are improperly called active participles, from which they are certainly as fairly distinguished by the construction, as they can be by any means whatever.  And this complete distinction the author considers at least an elegance, if not an absolute requisite, in English composition.  And he immediately adds:  “When this construction produces ambiguity, the expression must be varied.”—­Ib., p. 171.  This suggestion is left without illustration; but it doubtless refers to one of Murray’s remarks, in which it is said:  “A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning as would be conveyed by the participle without the article and preposition.  ’He expressed the pleasure he had in the hearing of the philosopher,’ is capable of a different sense from, ’He expressed the pleasure he had in hearing the philosopher.’”—­Murray’s Octavo Gram., p. 193; R.  C. Smith’s Gram., 161; Ingersoll’s, 199; and others.  Here may be seen a manifest difference between the verbal or participial noun, and the participle or gerund; but Murray, in both instances, absurdly calls the word hearing a “present participle;” and, having robbed the former sentence of a needful comma, still more absurdly supposes it ambiguous:  whereas the phrase, “in the hearing of the philosopher,” means only, “in the philosopher’s hearing;” and not, “in hearing the philosopher,” or, “in hearing of the philosopher.”  But the true question is, would it be right to say, “He expressed the pleasure he had in the philosopher’s hearing him?” For here it would be equivocal to say, “in the philosopher’s hearing of him;” and some aver, that of would be wrong, in any such instance, even if the sense were clear.  But let us recur to the mixed example from Allen, and compare it with his own doctrines.  To say, “from our having received of the words through a French medium,” would certainly be no elegance; and if it be not an ambiguity, it is something worse.  The expression, then, “must be varied.”  But varied how?  Is it right without the of, though contrary to the author’s rule for elegance?