active servant of the church." (See Fry's _Bibliographical Memoranda_, p.
257.) Sir Walter Scott (Preface to his reprint of _The Letting of Humours
Blood in the Head Vaine_) gives us a very different idea of the nature of
his calling. His words are:

"Excepting that he lived and wrote, none of those industrious
antiquaries have pointed out any particulars respecting Rowland[s]. It
has been remarked that his muse is seldom found in the best company;
and to have become so well acquainted with the bullies, drunkards,
gamesters, and cheats, whom he describes, he must have frequented the
haunts of dissipation in which such characters are to be found. But the
humorous descriptions of low-life exhibited in his satires are more
precious to antiquaries than more grave works, and those who make the
manners of Shakspeare's {420} age the subject their study may better
spare a better author than Samuel Rowlands."

The opinions of both these writers are entitled to some respect, but
they certainly looked upon two very different sides of the question.
Gilchrist's conjecture that he was an ecclesiastic is quite untenable,
and I am fully inclined to agree with Sir Walter Scott, that Rowlands'
company was not of the most _select_ order, and that he must often have
frequented those "haunts of dissipation" which he so well describes in
those works which are the _known_ production of his muse.

EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

* * * * *

"APRICOT," "PEACH," AND "NECTARINE," ETYMOLOGY OF.