I worked for about 10 hours on the previous entry, to present the confirming evidence I've accumulated for the first psychic reading I had pertaining to this study, in March of 2010. I had another one in December of the same year, but I don't think I'll follow suit with that one. It would require duplicating too much that's aleady in my first book, including images and poems. I think what I've done with the first reading illustrates my point, that it was genuine, and that when the psychic affirms that I was, in fact, Mathew Franklin Whittier, one should take it seriously. I've also shown that I'm not just blowing smoke or indulging in magical thinking. This is not pseudo-science, however much one likes to disparagingly call upon that invective. I did my part--it's up to everybody else, meaning, the real skeptics (not the cynics), to do their part.
While glancing through my stats this morning, I noticed that a handful of people seem to be looking at the samples I've provided, in various entries, of Mathew's asterisk-signed articles. That suggests, to me, that one or more academicians are curious about my claim that Mathew was the real author of the star-signed reviews, written in 1844-46 for the New York "Tribune," which have been wrongly attributed to Margaret Fuller. This is perhaps the easiest of the "famous" claims to prove. Mathew was first with this signature, including for book reviews. He used it all his life, on an occasional basis. There are only two periods I know of when he used it as his primary signature--in 1831/33, for a young man's magazine called "The Essayist," and in this instance, for the "Tribune." In both cases, he used it for book reviews.
But if there is such a curious academician out there, and if he or she is reading this, I want to tell him or her that I just did a quick search in my digital collection, and I found that, aside from the "Tribune," Mathew wrote at least 80 pieces under this signature during his lifetime. So if you are judging by the two samples I've provided, keep in mind these are two of 80. This figure, "80," is drawn from those pieces for which I named the file with the signature. I don't think I did that for all 1,500+ pieces that I typed. Therefore, I can confidently say there are at least 80.
That's all. Writing these entries keeps me in the project, which is to say, it automatically triggers, by association, the stress reaction that has developed from almost a decade of daily work on it. I really do need to back off it awhile, rather than keeping myself immersed in it by the clever ruse of writing blog entries to three or four people (and to posterity). I think posterity has enough entries, now. Even I, if it weren't my work, wouldn't read all that! I would read and relish the books, however, in the same spirit in which I have read other long books which were chock full of content.
I haven't made any of these claims regarding famous literary works casually. I put each one of them through a rigorous process of questioning and detective work. I didn't flinch from the evidence, pro or con. Whether the claim involved an obscure plagiarist, or a famous one, I subjected it to the same scrutiny, and I reported everything I found.
It finally comes down to the issues of cognitive dissonance, paradigm shift, and transformation vs. denial. What does it take for someone to allow themselves to be changed by the evidence? Especially when a real paradigm shift is required? I don't know. I know that, out of curiosity, I have been watching YouTube presentations of supposed artifacts on Mars, in the Rover photographs. I'm convinced. There is too much evidence. This is a debris field, left over from a catalysm which destroyed an ancient civilization. Inasmuch as I'm competent to judge geology and archeology, some of these shapes are extremely unlikely to have been natural. You have foundations; you have broken sculptures; you have various and sundry things that just aren't natural. If I had taken these photographs for the photography club I belonged to many years ago, and entered them as landscapes into one of their contests, the judge would mark them down for showing evidence of the "hand of man."
Just so, I have so much evidence confirming that I was once Mathew Franklin Whittier; and I have so much evidence that Mathew was the real, original author of some of these plagiarized pieces; that there really is no rational alternative. The problem is that I am almost entirely shut out. You can see why. I have a double-whammy. I am asking (presumably) materialistic scholars not only to accept evidence that, say, Mathew was the original author of the star-signed reviews; but that I am his reincarnation. The evidence is just as good for one, as for the other. And it will not be possible--if these "finds" are ever announced--to keep them separate. They will both rise together. I--or someone I deputize before I pass--will see to it. It will not be like Benjamin Franklin, who discovered electricity but did not, so far as we know, believe in reincarnation (he did and I can prove it).
I'm sure that whoever is curious about these things, is aware of that. Perhaps they are afraid to be the one who risks his or her career, by attempting to write a paper on it. But it is intriguing, isn't it?
Look deeply into the character of Margaret Fuller and Edgar Allan Poe (who were friends). Then look at the moral character of the works they are supposed to have written. It's impossible, like a man with the head of a giraffe. Or, if you want to dig into obscurity, and set aside the element of fame, compare the personal character of Ossian Dodge with the "Quails" travelogue; and the personal character of Albert Pike with the "A.P."-signed poems and stories. These, also, are glaring mis-matches--except for a few poems Pike wrote, himself, or where he adulterated Abby's poetry (the difference between their respective styles is obvious). The same holds true for the other instances where either Mathew's works, or Abby's, were claimed by others.*
A person's character is raw data. It can be studied objectively, and so can the personal character expressed in literary works. Psychology researchers analyze traits like this all the time. I've given all the examples--but one has to be rational about this. Without a rational audience, my hands are tied. I have to wait until one comes along. Edgar Allan Poe is a total character mismatch for "The Raven" (when you understand that this was a poem about the author's faith crisis);** Charles Dickens is a total character mismatch for "A Christmas Carol" (when you understand that it was not a "ghost story," as he subtitled it). Margaret Fuller is a total character mismatch for the star-signed reviews, when you understand that she was a prima donna. Ossian Dodge--who was nicknamed "The Dodge"--is a total character mismatch for the "Quails" letters (that is, once you dig beneath his squeaky-clean professional persona). Albert Pike--give me a break. He was a Civil War general for the South, and as a high-ranking Mason, taught some version of Luciferianism. He didn't write Abby's piercingly beautiful poems about the stars; nor was the deeply devotional strain in these poems his. (Where he sticks his ugly paw into them, he writes about drunken Bacchus on a chariot joy-ride with a goddess.) Nor did "Essayist" editor George W. Light, who joined in the feeding frenzy by also claiming some of Abby's 14-year-old poetry, write about dancing among the streams and flowers. Likewise with others of the 15 or 16 false historical attributions that I have come across, where people claimed Mathew's work as their own. The easiest of these to debunk was Francis A. Durivage, who stole Mathew's entire series of humorous sketches written under the signature of "The Old 'Un." He was caught plagiarizing from his editor. As with Pike, he wrote a few of the "Old 'Un" sketches, himself, and they are dark and convoluted--very different in style and "energy." There is none of Mathew's light, wry touch about them, and their moral is dark, as well.
It occurs to me, on re-read, that perhaps that person who is looking at these star-signed examples, might like to see another one. This is entitled "The Spirit Lyre," and it is yet another tribute by Mathew to his late wife, Abby (as was "The Raven," and also "Lady Geraldine's Courtship," published this same year, by Elizabeth Barrett). This one is not, however, written in that style. Abby, judging by other tributes and references, was an excellent harpist. So here, Mathew personifies her as a lyre, in childhood, marriage, and heaven, respectively. This was published in the June 15, 1844 edition of the Portland (Maine) "Transcript," a weekly paper. Abby's birthday was June 2nd. This same year, in November, Mathew began writing the star-signed reviews and essays for the New York "Tribune." He had written for two other New York papers the previous decade, the "Constellation" and the (New York) "Transcript"--both edited by Asa Greene, for whom he also ghost-wrote "The Life and Adventures of Dr. Dodimus Duckworth" in 1833. He was the acting junior editor for the "Constellation," and wrote almost all of the editorials for that paper.
So this poem was published roughly six months before "The Raven," under the pseudonym that Mathew then used for his review column in the "Tribune." I have another poem Mathew published in the "Tribune" not long before "The Raven" was published, but that one he signed with his first initial, "M." It is more in the style of "The Raven" and "Lady Geraldine." This is not the only asterisk-signed tribute poem Mathew published during this period. He apparently wrote several of them. He must have shared some with Poe, and sent some to Barrett. No-doubt he sent some of these to other, more ethical famous writers, who didn't publish them as their own. I am just scratching the surface of the evidence, per usual.
Note the quality of this poem. Mathew was the younger brother of one of the celebrated poets of the 19th century, and he had the same home-schooled education; plus, Abby, a poetic prodigy, tutored him, as well. He is said by Whittier's biographers to have written poetry, but no examples were preserved as part of the official Whittier legacy. I found a great number of them, finally, including this one I've shared, here. He was excellent--and if one admits he was the original author of "The Raven," that poem's fame actually exceeds JGW's "Snow-Bound."
If I express frustration at times, in this blog, it is because my findings are so clear, and I yet can't get a single expert in any field to give me the time of day, despite the fact that these discoveries are nothing short of earthshaking. What I am waiting for, is one expert who is brave enough, and selfless enough, to announce these findings including reincarnation, and me. Who won't try to compartmentalize them and steal them for himself, in other words, keeping me--and reincarnation--in the shadows. I won't let that happen, but I'd rather avoid the fight. I'm looking for one who will risk his or her neck to present the entire package to his or her peers. So far, as the King of the Dead said in "Lord of the Rings," "The way is shut."
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Henry Ward Beecher's "Star Papers," which he originally wrote in 1855 for the New York "Independent" over a "star" signature, do not appear to be Mathew's work, but rather, Beecher's own. Beecher was an avid fisherman, and wrote about it lyrically in this series, whereas I don't have any reason to believe that Mathew shared this hobby. Beecher might have adopted the signature in tribute to Mathew's 1844-47 series in the "Tribune," which, presumably, he would have believed was Fuller's. Mathew reviewed Beecher's talks several times, and always favorably, even after Beecher became embroiled in public scandal. One other writer that I know of, James Redpath, adopted this pseudonym for his paper, the "Pine and Palm," in 1861/62. Redpath knew of Mathew, and may have known him personally, but there is no way to know whether or not his adoption of this pseudonym was a coincidence. I don't suspect Mathew of ghost-writing these articles, because as I understand it, they advocated violence in combating slavery and Mathew would not have done so. Redpath is said to have later apologized for that message (as I recall reading during the course of my research).
**As I've pointed out many times, Poe is also a total character mismatch for the pseudonym that "The Raven" first appeared under, "---- Quarles." But Mathew had very recently praised a poem by Francis Quarles, writing for the "Tribune" under the asterisk--and he had reviewed Quarles' poetry at some length, many years earlier, for "The Essayist." For that two-part review, however, he used one of his other pseudonyms in that paper, "Franklin, Jr."
Music opening this page, "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts," by Nancee Kahler,
from the album, "Songs Without Words"