[A few days later he wrote again on the same subject, after reading the obituary of Asa Gray, the first American supporter of Darwin's theory.] March 23, 1888. I suppose Dana has sent you his obituary of Asa Gray. The most curious feature I note in it is that neither of them seems to have mastered the principles of Darwin's theory. See the bottom of page 19 and the top of page 20. As I understand Darwin there is nothing "Anti-Darwinian" in either of the two doctrines mentioned. Darwin has left the causes of variation and the question whether it is limited or directed by external conditions perfectly open. The only serious work I have been attempting lately is Darwin's obituary. I do a little every day, but get on very slowly. I have read the life and letters all through again, and the "Origin" for the sixth or seventh time, becoming confirmed in my opinion that it is one of the most difficult books to exhaust that ever was written. I have a notion of writing out the argument of the "Origin" in systematic shape as a sort of primer of Darwinismus. I have not much stuff left in me, and it would be as good a way of using what there is as I know of. What do you think? Ever yours, T.H. Huxley. [In reply to this Sir J. Hooker was inclined to make the biographer alone responsible for the confusion noted in the obituary of Asa Gray. He writes:-- March 27, 1888. Dear Huxley, Dana's Gray arrived yesterday, and I turned to pages 19 and 20. I see nothing Anti-Darwinian in the passages, and I do not gather from them that Gray did. I did not follow Gray into his later comments on Darwinism, and I never read his "Darwiniana." My recollection of his attitude after acceptance of the doctrine, and during the first few years of his active promulgation of it, is that he understood it clearly, but sought to harmonise it with his prepossessions, without disturbing its physical principles in any way. He certainly showed far more knowledge and appreciation of the contents of the "Origin" than any of the reviewers and than any of the commentators, yourself excepted. Latterly he got deeper and deeper into theological and metaphysical wanderings, and finally formulated his ideas in an illogical fashion. ...Be all this as it may, Dana seems to be in a muddle on page 20, and quite a self-sought one. Ever yours, J.D. Hooker. The following is a letter of thanks to Mrs. Humphry Ward for her novel "Robert Elsmere."] Bournemouth, March 15, 1888. My dear Mrs. Ward, My wife thanked you for your book which you were so kind as to send us. But that was grace before meat, which lacks the "physical basis" of after-thanksgiving--and I am going to supplement it, after my most excellent repast.