I don't know if these "little proofs" are interesting to people, or not. I get almost no feedback on these blogs; I do get resounding feedback on my book, which is to say, hardly anyone even looks at the point-of-purchase on my online store. There is always a future audience, if I'm doing what I think (know) I'm doing.
I got another one of these "little proofs" in, today, but first I need to give some background. Mathew Franklin Whittier--myself in the 19th century, and the subject of my research--wrote under scores of pseudonyms, to avoid detection. Most of them were one-offs, or brief series. Some were spin-offs, the way that television shows have spin-offs, today. But he had a few that were constant throughout his working career. These, I can use as anchors and as standards of comparison. But I can also use them to determine his location, when he was traveling. And there were several periods of his life when he was traveling.
Two which I know are definitely him, are his Archie Bunker prototype, "Ethan Spike"; and an unsigned series of lecture reviews. Even before this series was officially launched in 1852, I know his review style. Because he had formal training in public speaking and debate (kind of like "Toastmasters," if you've ever had any experience with that organization), when he reviewed a speaker, he would always critique his or her speaking style, first--evenly, pro and con, just as he presumably was taught to do in these organizations. There are other indicators, but I know his style.
I also know that he contributed to the Portland (Maine) "Transcript" from the early 1840's, until 1875. So when I see a lecture review that's typical of his style in that publication, dollars-to-doughnuts, it's his work. This, of course, was his bread-and-butter writing, his "work product." I've often thought it ironic that I have keyed in all of these things, which Mathew must have written out by hand to earn extra money; and here I am copying them by hand again, this time with no earnings resulting from it.
Then, from 1849 to mid-1852, I know that he is a certain travelogue writer, in a Boston newspaper. I had to work very hard to wrest the attribution from a contemporary--I finally figured out what was going on. It's Mathew, alright. Then, he picks it up again, in 1856/57, under a different character, for the "Transcript."
That's right, when he wrote these travelogues, they were essentially true-to-life, as regards his experiences en-route, except that he would adopt a character and lie a little bit when necessary to throw people off, so he couldn't be identified. That's another story.
So all that means, when he is traveling during this period, from 1849-1852, and then again in 1856/57, I have three different "voices" which I know are his; and I can track his whereabouts. If he writes under another pseudonym, temporarily, I can check to see where he is at any given time, and see if it lines up.
So, I bought an 1849 edition of the Portland "Transcript." It came in this afternoon's mail. It has a lecture review in Mathew's typical style. The lecture being reviewed was given by a professor who had spent a summer touring the Swiss Alps. Mathew, himself, as the travelogue writer, would tour the Alps in 1851, two years later. This appears to have been one of the things that inspired him to take the trip.
The travelogue writer--the disputed pseudonym--just happens to be in Portland, at the same time that Mathew is reporting on this lecture. Meaning, not the publication date, but the actual dates given in the travelogue, and in the lecture review, respectively. This is what you might call a cross-correspondence, between his literary voices. It reinforces both of them at the same time--the review (almost all of these reviews are unsigned), and, the travelogue, which as said, is disputed.
"Ethan Spike" is useless during this period, because he is supposedly in California describing the gold rush, which had to have been entirely fictional. Another life-long pseudonym is silent during this period. The travelogue writer also publishes, during this same period, a report on having attended a Shaker service. This could have been any time--but the style of reporting is almost identical to one he used, under his own name, four years earlier, to report on a "Millerite" meeting (the Millerites were a Christian doomsday sect). So by style, whoever wrote the Shaker meeting piece, wrote the Millerite piece, and that was Mathew Franklin Whittier, because he signed the earlier one with his own name.
All this means that if I have done my homework, and correctly identified Mathew's different voices and pseudonyms, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like playing a game after you've already won--running up the score when the other team can't possibly beat you.
I continue to do this because I can, because I want to be thorough, and because nobody will take me seriously, as it seems. Nobody believes me, so I keep on proving it over, and over, and over.
But the significance of proving these pseudonyms as being Mathew's work (he very, very rarely signed with his own name), is what's in them. Just about everything I remembered about Mathew, is proven to be correct in these hundreds of pieces written by him. Just about everything that two different psychics said about him, and his soul-mate and first wife, Abby, are also revealed as being true in these pieces. The historical record is flat-out wrong about him--but I was right, before I had all of this work by him to substantiate it.
In short, I've proven not only Mathew's authorship of these various pieces, but I've proven the case. My past-life memories and impressions were accurate. Mathew--contrary to the biographers--is revealed as being very much like I am, today. So much so. You have no idea.
In short, I did it. I did it so well, that apparently, everybody is scared of me. I don't know. Or they don't believe me. But really, it has to be the former. Because they refuse to give my work a fair shot. That way, they can pronounce it nonsense because it just has to be nonsense. What else could it be? Therefore, nobody has to bother to read it, because they all already know it's impossible, so it's not worth trying to read.
That's called circular logic, by the way. It is, because it is, because it is.
I'm just biding my time. I know what I've accomplished. I know how good it is, how readable I've made it, and how fun it is. I know how strong the case is, now. If everybody is A.D.D. these days, and can only sustain concentration for a short tweet, or at most a brief comment on Facebook, well, then, I am not writing for this era. I'm writing for the era when people desperately want to know the answers. By the looks of things, I don't think it will be too many more decades.
It's late and I've just written this stream-of-consciousness. I may tighten it up or even delete it altogether, tomorrow--for now, I'm going to give it a quick once-over for obvious errors, and call it a night.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page: "Awaken" by Eric Johnson, from the album, "Up Close"