So entirely unacquainted are his countrymen with the history of his life, that a very plausible work might be written to disprove both his authorship of the “Century,” and his invention of the steam-engine. Indeed Scotland has already contributed materials for the former, and M. Arago, late Astronomer Royal of France, has all but made out the latter! And such a production would excite little suspicion and probably no hostility of feeling. But this need not cause much surprise when it is mentioned, that it has not yet been the good fortune of any writer, touching on the Life of the Marquis of Worcester, to escape recording a mass of errors, such as occur in no other biography in our language; although the period usually selected seldom exceeds four or five years, out of a life of sixty-six. The reader, therefore, who takes up the present volume, under impressions derived from such dubious sources of information as those indicated, will find little to confirm his preconceived opinions. The histories of men as of nations require facts for their basis, judgment to guide in their arrangement, discretion to direct a wise selection, and a knowledge of the whole to perfect the desired work. The mixed character of the Marquis of Worcester has ever been a stumbling-block to the purely classical scholar, the divine, the politician, and the lawyer; while, on the other hand, the rapid advances in science during the last fifty years, have deprived “The Century” of more than half its interest. Science cannot hope to be advanced by discussing the automata of the 17th century, its fountains, improvements in fire-arms, bows, keys, stairs, boats, fortifications, and many other promising inventions. But a Life of the Marquis of Worcester, without the “Century,” would be a drama without its most important character. It is, therefore, no act of supererogation to give a commentary on that little, but perplexing book; it is something more than a mere amusement, it is a necessary adjunct, and is not wholly useless considered as a matter connected with the history of science. The commentator on the “Century” may hope to render the biography of its noble author interesting from another and most important point of view, which would be wholly lost by its omission, or by treating it as secondary or unimportant. The “Century” is the exponent of the man; the author without his pocket-journal of his life-long labours is reduced to a nonentity, with nothing higher left to him to boast of than his descent from royal blood, the unimpeachable character of his noble line of ancestry, and his own spotless rectitude of character--an amiable, unintellectual man!