our's Lost_, Act II. Sc. 1., Boyet, speaking of the King
of Navarre and addressing the Princess of France, says:

"All his behaviours did make their retire
To the court of his eye, peeping thorough desire:
His heart, like an agate, with your print impressed,
Proud with his form, in his eye pride expressed:
His tongue, _all impatient to speak and not see_,
Did stumble with haste in his eyesight to be;
All senses to that sense did make their repair,
To feel only looking on fairest of fair."

This speech is a remarkable specimen of the affected style of
compliment prevalent in the time of Elizabeth. The third couplet, at
first sight, appears to have a signification exactly opposed to that
which the context requires. We should expect, instead of "the tongue
all impatient _to speak_," to find "the tongue all impatient _to
see_."

No one of the editors of Shakspeare appears to me to have given a
satisfactory explanation of this passage. I therefore venture to offer
the following.

In the Latin poets (who in this followed the Greeks) we find
adjectives and participles followed by the genitive case and the
gerund in _di_. Thus in Horace we have "patiens pulveris atque solis,"
"patiens liminis aut aquae coelestis," and in Silius Italicus (vi.
612.), "vetus bellandi." For other instances, see Mr. Baines' _Art of
Latin Poetry_, pp. 56-60.

The Latin poets having taken this license, then proceeded a step
further, and substituted the infinitive mood for the gerund in _di_.
I cannot find any instance either of "patiens" or "impatiens" used
in this connection; but numerous instances of other adjectives and
participles followed by the infinitive mood may be found in pp. 68. to
73. of the _Art of Latin Poetry_. I cite two only, both from Horace:
"indocilis pauperiem pati," "quidlibet impotens sperare."

Following these analogies, I suggest that the words "impatient to
speak and not see" mean "impatient of speaking (impatiens loquendi)
and not seeing," i.e., "dissatisfied with its function of speaking,
preferring that of seeing."

This construction, at least, renders the passage intelligible.

X.Z.

* * * * *

TREATISE OF EQUIVOCATION.

(Vol. ii., pp. 168. 446.)

I feel greatly indebted to J.B. for a complete solution of the
question respecting this ambiguous book. Bewildered by the frequent
reference to it by nearly cotemporaneous writers, I had apprehended
it certain,