FACES OF FRIENDS.

N our last we gave a picture of Bertram Keightley, and now follow with one of Archibald Keightley. Dr. Keightley was born in Westmoreland, England, on the 19th of April, 1859. His father was Alfred Dudley Keightley of Liverpool, who came of Swedenborgian stock, and Margaret Wakefield, whose parents were Quakers. Like Bertram, he began his education in the Charterhouse, then finished at Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A., after natural science tripos. He then took the degree of B. M., licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, London, and passed as member of the Royal College of Surgeons, England, and Master of Arts and Doctor of Medicine of Cambridge. Within the last two years he also passed the examination required in the State of New York and qualified as a physician under our law, and practiced for awhile in this city. He has also traveled a great deal, both in Europe and America, and took a long trip to New Zealand.

While in college he became interested in the phenomena of Spiritualism, as indicating unseen and unknown forces, and studied. the mystical philosophical works in the library there, as well as neo-Platonic philosophy. While engaged in this he noticed an advertisement of Esoteric Buddhism, bought the book, and after reading it was drawn to the subject. An introduction to Mr. Sinnett in 1884 followed, and with others he met to study some of the letters from the Mahatmas received by Mr. Sinnett, and then in the latter's house he met Brother Judge, who was on his way to Paris. He says he first saw H. P. B. at a meeting of the Society arranged to settle questions which had arisen in respect to the management of the movement in London, she coming over suddenly to the meeting unknown to anyone; this is the same. meeting referred to at which Bertram Keightley saw her in Mr. Hood's chambers. Later he went with the party and saw H.P.B. off to India.

Later on, having a feeling with others that H. P. B.'s presence was necessary, and she being then at Ostende, he wrote jointly with others to her to come over to London and help in the work, and finally assisted her on her journey to the Capital, where she, Bertram Keightley, Dr. Keightley, and the Countess Wachtmeister joined together in a household at Norwood, which was later

removed to 17 Lansdowne Road. This was in 1887, and nearly all his time was taken up then in helping in the editing and correcting of the Secret Doctrine. The Blavatsky Lodge and Lucifer were started at Norwood, but the greater part of the work was carried on at Lansdowne Road. In the following spring, at H. P. B.'s request, Dr. Keightley went to the first American Convention at Chicago, for which he started on short notice, arriving a little ahead of time, and thus being able to do some work on the Eastern Coast of America for the Society. Directly after that Convention he returned to Europe.

The following year it was proposed that he should again travel, but H. P. B. was against it for a long time. On a certain Sunday night she was opposed to it, but early the next morning at halfpast six she summoned Dr. Keightley to her and asked him:

66

'When can you start for America?", to which he replied: "By the next steamer," and on Tuesday night he was again started for America.

On this visit he went to Chicago, Cincinnati, Boston, Washington, and Philadelphia, and on that occasion first made the acquaintance of his wife. Towards the end of the next year he traveled around the world with his sister for her health, spending six months in New Zealand. From there he went to San Francisco and visited the Branches on the Coast, doing a great deal of lecturing. Came across the continent, attended the Boston Convention in 1891, and returned to England in the summer of that year. He returned to America shortly before his marriage to Mrs. J. C. Ver Planck, and settled in New York, practising medicine and lecturing for the Society. In the spring of 1893 he went back to England and began the practise of medicine in Lodon.

Dr. Keightley is well known to very many Theosophists in America and is loved by them all, as his genial ways and sincere character endear him to every one who makes his acquaintance. Very true is it that the name of Keightley is inseparably associated with our movement.

No decrying of other sects; no depreciation of others without cause, but on the contrary, a rendering of honor to other sects for whatever cause honor is due. By so doing, both one's own sect will be helped forward and other sects benefitted: by acting otherwise one's own sect will be destroyed in injuring others.—Rock Inscriptions of King Asoka, Edict 12.

Το

OUR CONVICTIONS.

SHALL WE ASSERT THEM?

O THE PATH:-Please resolve a doubt. Are members of the T.S. required to become flabby in character upon entering the Society, and to give up their convictions for fear of a vague future dogmatism? I ask this because in some of our magazines I have seen objections raised to a free promulgation of one's ideas on such subjects, for instance, as the Adepts or Masters, Reincarnation, Karma, and so on. If we are so required, then I would ask why we have a free platform in the T.S., and when were the statements made in the President's inaugural address of 1875 withdrawn?

Fraternally,

S. F. HECHT.

Admitted to the T.S. May 5, 1892.

This question seems easy to answer. It is presumed that the correspondent refers to an objection to my plainly stating either in our journals or in any other way my own personal beliefs. It is evident that S. F. H. is thinking of the objection made in the Theosophist by N. D. K. to my plainly saying I believe in the existence of the Masters of whom so often H.P. B. spoke. N.D. K., taking up a letter of mine, quoted this sentence; "And when we come to examine the work and the foundation of the T. S. and its policy, I find it perfectly proper for me to assert, as I do in accordance with my own knowledge and belief, that our true progress lies in our fidelity to Masters as ideals and facts". S. F. H. is perplexed because N. D. K. seemed to object to that, but the perplexity need not exist nor need we become flabby in our convictions.

For, as will be seen by reading, and not straining, the sentence quoted, the "policy" of the T. S. referred to by me therein is that of leaving everyone quite free to express his views on all these points. Although N. D. K. would appear to think I meant that the T.S. policy was for it to make these declarations, it is easy to see by consulting the constitution that its policy is the opposite. The policy is freedom to members and perfect neutrality on the part of the T.S. To have any other, or to say that merely because one is in a society such as ours, or is an officer, he cannot give his own opinions so long as he accords the same privilege to another, would be a monstrous thing, contrary to our constitution and quite against a long history in which, from H. P. B. and Col. Olcott down, all members have had perfect freedom of expresSo S. F. H. need have no fear; our policy of freedom is not

sion.

altered; all have a right to their convictions; and it is certain that if anyone is becoming flabby the oldest members of the T.S. will at once adjure him to strengthen his sincere convictions and not hesitate to give them expression, always allowing to every one else the same liberty of thought and speech. And to aid our correspondent we will give some further light if possible.

Let us take first H. P. Blavatsky. She began in the T.S., with its free platform, immediately to preach and promulgate her own personal view that the Masters were facts, and facts of very great magnitude, and this she did and continued against the most violent opposition and the fiercest ridicule. She also proclaimed unequivocally, as Cagliostro did many years before in Paris, a belief in the occult machinery of the Cosmos with all that that implies. Moreover, in the name of the Master she did very wonderful phonomena, which one of the same Masters has said, as published by Mr. Sinnett, have puzzled men for a good part of a century. And while thus freely expressing her own views she allowed the same freedom to all others, and was herself the agent for the taking into the T. S. of many who did not believe as she did but who often scouted at her convictions. Then, further, she proclaimed a system of philosophy with all her ardor just as she had a right to do, and merely laid it before the world within the pale of a free Society, which is not compelled to accept but whose members fortunately do in great part. And in saying they are thus fortunate I am now giving expression to my own views.

Next consider the career of Col. H. S. Olcott since he began the work of the T. S., President then as he now is, as and we hope he will remain. He is our highest officer. Yet he has not failed to assert his undying belief in the Adepts and Masters universal and particular. It is a good example for those who have the same belief. It was done in the T.S., not as officer but as man, as individual member, and it would be a poor sort of constitution that would have prevented him. Long ago he said they existed and tried to prove it. He worked with the Psychical Research Society of London to prove to them the existence of the Masters. and the truth of the doctrines given out by them as to occult phenomena. That may have appeared to be disastrous, but it was done with good intent and still under the constitution, for if against the constitution why was he not charged and put out? Because it was within his right. And in various places since then he has made the same assertions. At the Convention of the European Section in 1891 he publicly said on the platform that the Masters existed and that he had seen them himself, and spoke