OBS. 3.—­In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the explanatory term; because the case of the principal term depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule.  In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which might be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation.  Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, William Pitt—­Marcus Tullius Cicero.  It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, Lord Bacon—­Sir Isaac Newton.  William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of “George Washington,” absurdly take the former word as an adjective belonging to the latter.  See Russell’s Gram., p. 100; and Ware’s, 17.  R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names.  See his New Gram., p. 97.  And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, “John Wickliffe’s influence,” “Robert Bruce’s exertions,” and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives in apposition with the former.  See Nixon’s English Parser, p. 59.  Wm. B. Fowle, in his “True English Grammar,” takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives.  According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language.  A later writer than any of these says, “The proper noun is philosophically an adjective.  Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, may be parsed as adjectives, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, President Madison,—­Doctor Johnson,—­Mr.  Webster,—­Esq.  Carleton,—­Miss Gould,—­Professor Ware,—­lake Erie,—­the Pacific ocean,—­Franklin House,—­Union street.”—­Sanborn’s Gram., p. 134.  I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a man’s name in parsing it.  A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately:  for example, that wonderful doctor, Paracelsus, who called himself, “Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim.”—­Univ.  Biog.  Dict.

OBS. 4.—­A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this:  “Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case.”—­Adam’s Latin Gram., p. 156.  The same has also been applied to our language:  “Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case.”—­Bullions’s E. Gram., p. 102.  This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty:  first, because the apposition of pronouns seems not to be included it; secondly,