[qui] spectandi faciunt copiam.’  Ter.  Heaut. prol. 29.”—­Lily’s Gram., p. 97.  That is, “To gerunds in di there is sometimes not inelegantly added a genitive plural:  as, ’When, for the sake of seeing of them, I went into the forum.’—­’Who present an opportunity of attending of new ones:’  i.e., new comedies.”  Here the of which is inserted after the participle to mark the genitive case which is added, forms rather an error than an elegance, though some English writers do now and then adopt this idiom.  The gerund thus governing the genitive, is not analogous to our participle governing the possessive; because this genitive stands, not for the subject of the being or action, but for what would otherwise be the object of the gerund, or of the participle, as may be seen above.  The objection to the participle as governing the possessive, is, that it retains its object or its adverb; for when it does not, it becomes fairly a noun, and the objection is removed.  R. Johnson, like many others, erroneously thinks it a noun, even when it governs an objective, and has merely a preposition before it; as, “For the sake of seeing them.  Where seeing (says he) is a Substantive.”—­Gram.  Com., p. 353.

OBS. 43.—­If the Latin gerund were made to govern the genitive of the agent, and allowed at the same time to retain its government as a gerund, it would then correspond in every thing but declension, to the English participle when made to govern both the possessive case and the objective.  But I have before observed that no such analogy appears.  The following example has been quoted by Seyer, as a proof that the gerund may govern the genitive of the agent:  “Cujus autem in dicendo aliquid reprehensum est—­Cic.”—­Grant’s Lat.  Gram., p. 236.  That is, (as I understand it,) “But in whose speaking something is reprehended.”  This seems to me a case in point; though Crombie and Grant will not allow it to be so.  But a single example is not sufficient.  If the doctrine is true, there must be others.  In this solitary instance, it would be easier to doubt the accuracy even of Cicero, than to approve the notion of these two critics, that cujus is here governed by aliquid, and not by the gerund.  “Here,” says Grant, “I am inclined to concur in opinion with Dr. Crombie, whose words I take the liberty to use, ’That, for the sake of euphony, the gerund is sometimes found governing the genitive of the patient, or subject [say object] of the action, is unquestionable:  thus, studio videndi patrum vestrorum. [That is, literally, By a desire of seeing of your fathers.] But I recollect no example, where the gerund is joined with a possessive adjective, or genitive of a noun substantive, where the person is not the patient, but the agent; as, dicendum meum, ejus dicendum, cujus dicendum. [That is, my speaking, his speaking, whose speaking.] In truth, these phraseologies appear to me, not only repugnant to the idiom of the language, but also unfavourable to precision and perspicuity.’”—­Grant’s Latin Gram., 8vo, p. 236.