General Gordon's correspondence during the first six years of his
government of the Soudan was entrusted to me to prepare for the press.
In my _Colonel Gordon in Central Africa_ I attempted to do justice to
the rare genius, to the wise and pure enthusiasm, and to the exalted
beneficence of that great man. The labour that I gave to these works
was, as regards my main purpose, by no means wholly thrown away. I was
trained by it in the duties of an editor, and by studying the character
of two such men, who, though wide as the poles asunder in many things,
were as devoted to truth and accuracy as they were patient in their
pursuit, I was strengthened in my hatred of carelessness and error.

With all these interruptions the summer of 1885 was upon me before I was
ready for the compositors to make a beginning with my work. In revising
my proofs very rarely indeed have I contented myself in verifying my
quotations with comparing them merely with my own manuscript. In almost
all instances I have once more examined the originals. 'Diligence and
accuracy,' writes Gibbon, 'are the only merits which an historical
writer may ascribe to himself; if any merit indeed can be assumed from
the performance of an indispensable duty[4].' By diligence and accuracy
I have striven to win for myself a place in Johnson's _school_--'a
school distinguished,' as Sir Joshua Reynolds said, 'for a love of truth
and accuracy[5].' I have steadily set before myself Boswell's example
where he says:--'Let me only observe, as a specimen of my trouble, that
I have sometimes been obliged to run half over London, in order to fix a
date correctly; which, when I had accomplished, I well knew would obtain
me no praise, though a failure would have been to my discredit[6].' When
the variety and the number of my notes are considered, when it is known
that a great many of the authors I do not myself possess, but that they
could only be examined in the Bodleian or the British Museum, it will be
seen that the labour of revising the proofs was, indeed, unusually