OBS. 14.—­The English possessive case unquestionably originated in that form of the Saxon genitive which terminates in es, examples of which may be found in almost any specimen of the Saxon tongue:  as, “On Herodes dagum,”—­“In Herod’s days;”—­“Of Aarones dohtrum,”—­“Of Aaron’s daughters.”—­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 ever had been so, it would still be easy to prove the point, by citations from ancient books.  The general principle then is, that the apostrophe forms the possessive case, with an s in the singular, and without it in the plural; but there are some exceptions to this rule, on either hand; and these must be duly noticed.