12/23/24
The second of my two interviews with Richard Syrett for his podcast, Strange Planet, is up next on his website, https://www.strangeplanet.ca/. As of 4:40 a.m., it's not live yet, but should be in a day or two--almost certainly by Christmas Day. Being chronologically the first one, he has titled it "The Charles Dickens Conspiracy." Technically, if you want to call it a "conspiracy" you'd have to bring in Dickens' publicist, John Forster, whom I didn't talk about in the interview. Dickens was just a sociopath, or in today's jargon, a "malignant narcissist." I'm not kidding, I'm not imagining it and I'm not exaggerating. It's the only thing that makes sense when you have all the evidence in front of you--and not just the squeaky-clean version the Dickensians will let you see.

I feel sorry for them in a way. When the truth comes out, not only their careers, but their entire edifice will crumble--the whole Myth of Dickens, along with all of their hero worship. Because on his own merits, he wasn't even a great author. He was a popular author, which is not the same thing--and even that, he achieved dishonestly with rampant plagiarism.

On the other hand, I have found their behavior toward me nothing less than juvenile. So much for academic scholars as seekers of knowledge.

I gather, from my attempts to channel with Abby, my astral wife and partner, that she wants me to stop my outreach efforts altogether after Christmas, except for the Jan. 2nd live interview I have coming up with Jeremy Scott on "Into the Parabnormal" at 10:00 p.m. I don't know if that includes this blog--so far I think she means making social media comments, and writing to people, as I've been doing every single morning for the past few weeks. Actually, I've been at this full time the past year or so. It has yielded a vast amount of snubbing, some ridicule, some hateful flaming, and a handful of people saying they want to work with me, i.e., a few scholars and one reporter. But nothing tangible has come of it at all, so far. I may or may not have planted some seeds, which will bear fruit years, or decades, from now. All it takes is for a scholar to come across some particular bit of information, at which time my research suddenly snaps into place and makes perfect sense. I may not even still be alive when that "Aha! moment" takes place. With luck, my work, along with Mathew and Abby Whittier's full legacy, will be waiting for him or her, and will be accessible with a little digging.

This morning I'm going to indulge, by presenting a nice bit of detective work--the material I've been holding off on the last couple of entries. This concerns Mathew Franklin Whittier's comic series in "The Knickerbocker" in the mid 1850's. I have discussed it in my blog entry of July 27, 2024, so you can get the full background, there. The gist of it is that Mathew had, I think, been amused by a country fellow who was being lauded as a rustic genius, but who was, actually, abominable. The whole thing struck a chord with him--it seemed, to him, a metaphor for the state of literature, in general. Being a true literary genius, Mathew very rarely tooted his own horn. He was so reticent that his Quaker brother described him as "not forthputting on his own account." Only on very rare occasions would he get so exasperated, that he would describe himself as a genius in comic, self-deprecating caricature. More often, he would parody the awful stories which passed for great literature and which won prizes.

But now, he took this opportunity to create two characters. The first was a moderately-well educated, normal fellow named "P. Pepper Podd," who had discovered the rustic genius, "K.N. Pepper." Now, Mathew, as a boy, had been called "Peter Pumpkin," as well as "some pumpkins!" I have long had the memory that Abby used to call herself and Mathew "peas in a pod." Let me check with AI to see how far back that expression goes...

I thought it would have been earlier, but I am told "at least the early 19th century." That means it would have been current slang when Abby used it, in the 1830's.

So "P. Pepper Podd" is Mathew, himself, basically. "K.N. Pepper," as you may have guessed, phonetically translates to "Cayenne Pepper." Which is to say, this country "genius" is a "pepper." This is basically a version of Mathew's already-established character, "Ethan Spike," but in this case he writes poetry. I can prove it, because writing philosophical essays under another of his pseudonyms, "Caleb Leathers," Mathew has quoted K.N. Pepper in a particular way which tells me he's quoting himself. Let me see if I can find that...

That's Mathew praising his own work as though he was merely quoting someone else.

K.N. Pepper writes horribly ignorant poetry, and the joke is that he's supposedly famous as a great poet. The editor, Lewis Gaylord Clark, plays along, printing P. Pepper Podd's correspondence, and the monumental poetry that he has obtained from his friend, K.N. Pepper. The reader is thus kept up with events in Pepper's life, as for example his romance with "Hanah Gane," which is thwarted by her father. Here, Mathew is inserting autobiography concerning his courtship with Abby. The poems are awful and brilliant at the same time, because you have an ignoramus driven, in the background, by a comedic genius. (Think, Tommy Smothers.) It's some of Mathew's best work, and what's interesting to me is that so far as I know, it was never falsely claimed by anyone. The scholars have, seemingly, ignored it, so none of them have had the opportunity to plant their flag on it, claiming authorship for any other 19th-century literary figure. Basically, it's my discovery, and this time, I don't have to defend it against any other contenders.

But, you see, as brilliant as this series is, because I am not claiming it for any famous historical author, nobody cares. If I tried to submit a paper to a scholarly journal on this subject, I would be told, to my face, "We don't publish papers about individual authors." (I've already been given that response.) But privately, they would have Googled my name, and said amongst themselves, "We can't publish anything by this tinfoil hat."

Because the entire world, including Academia, runs on reputation and perceived credentials. Which means, reality, to these people, is social reality.

Here is the communication from P. Pepper Podd and K.N. Pepper in the November, 1855 edition of "The Knickerbocker." This time, instead of poetry, we have a letter from K.N. Pepper, shared with the editor by P. Pepper Podd, in which the former describes his personal visit with that editor! But this, per Mathew's typical modus operandi (as seen in "Ethan Spike," which scholars acknowledge as Mathew's), means that Mathew, himself, visited the editor of "The Knickerbocker," Lewis Gaylord Clark.

It so happens that Clark had a little reception for Mathew, as one gathers, and that several New York literary notables were invited--including William Cullen Bryant and Washington Irving. K.N. Pepper proclaims, with his egotistic innocence, that Irving cried when he saw Pepper! (Indeed he would have.) It's typical MFW humor. I'd know it anywhere.

But let us briefly turn to what Mathew had to say about both of these men, when he was reviewing them for the New York "American" in the early 1830's. Mathew was signing these reviews with a single asterisk or "star"--the same that he used for the New York "Tribune" in 1844-46, which series has been mistakenly attributed to Margaret Fuller. I have written a paper on this subject, which you can read, here.

In the November 23, 1831 edition of the "American," Mathew writes:

Our readers will be glad to learn, what we are happy to say on good authority, that W. C. Bryant is engaged in collecting his poems together, and is about to publish them in a duodecimo of some 200 pages. Mr Bryant's fugitive pieces have traveled far and wide; but though they may form the greater and not least creditable part of his productions, we imagine that his reputation is principally owing to the thin little volume published in his name about ten years since. We rejoice, therefore, as we wish him the extended celebrity he so justly deserves, that our first American Bard has once more set himself to work together the sybelline leaves that have erst been scattered by his retiring muse. His first volume was hailed on its appearance, and a British Quarterly, as an earnest of what an American poet might do to refute European aspersions upon the genius of his countrymen. We are convinced that the second will prove--above the many that have rushed into the ranks in the meantime, what an American poet has done to keep possession of the vantage ground so spiritedly acquired. Now that Byron is dead, Scott superannuated, Southey retired on half pay, Wordsworth laid up in an herbarium, and Coleridge in ordinary, Campbell modeling, and Moore mute, Mr. Bryant stands for the first living poet in the language.

But he is more specific on January 14 of the following year, when he reviews the work at length. Here, I will give you the original page. You will be starting in the second column with the "Review of the Week."

I am well aware that I may be "wasting my sweetness on the desert air," as none of my 10 readers may have gotten down this far. Perhaps one or two folks may in posterity, with any luck.

So what K.N. Pepper tells us, about meeting Bryant at this party, is:

Mr. O'Brian (a pote) with a wite Baird, sed my stile't was a lonk shot ahed ov hissen. he confes mi 'Grek Slaiv' cuite noc the spots off ov his 'Tannytopsyturvy,' he sed oald as he was he ment to bete me yet: but he ca-a-a-nt, you se; no use't tryink. i no dout hele conclood to stic to his Poast, lik a sensibel man, & not tri to fli lik egle.

Of course, "Tannytopssyturvy" is "Thantopsis." Keep in mind that these authors read "The Knickbocker," which means Mathew was pulling their respective legs. This is exactly what he did, ghost-writing for Mark Twain, with the story that Twain read aloud for John Greenleaf Whittier's 70th birthday party, where Oliver Wendell Holmes (Mathew's long-time personal friend), Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Ralph Waldo Emerson were the guests of honor. That story got Twain in hot water with the press, but he never admitted he wasn't the original author. Scholars think I'm mad when I try to tell them, because they go by reputation, and not by facts. In their minds, Mark Twain was the great icon of 19th century American humor, while Mathew was a mere footnote. To Mathew, who launched the entire genre as a boy of 12, Twain was a "young lion," as they say in the world of jazz.

I cannot resist giving you K.N. Pepper's poem about the Greek Slave, which was a famous statue by sculptor Hiram Powers. Mathew had written about it several times, under different pseudonyms. I think it reminded him of Abby; and, of course, it had a direct bearing on abolitionism.

'A Noad to the Greek Slaiv.

'ONCT moar mi pen asoom onct moar the trasis
ov blanc vers, onct moar spring litely into em.
doant gerk. go cam & cuiet, but git on fire
gradily, mi pen, and giv the subjeck conwulshuns.

'STATOO! (good hevinks! wers mi i's. ime blind!)
STUN PICTER! hale! in consekens ov your glory
i shel be compel to hev a operashun pirform
fur cat a rack imeditly. i thought i cood go this slo
But i se it cant be dun: youm al powrfle,
your inflooens is sech ime al ov a tremble
& i fele a sort ov sicnes creping into mi stomic
slo but shoor like a gimblit into a bord.
was you al sculp frum 1 pese? sa pirfeckshun,
havent you got no goints maid or puty nor nothink?
But no. i fele youm pirfeck: i thinc at lest
that POWRS's story orter be giv ere to
wich ses youm al hac out ov a marble stun.
(imortle POWRS! wot a genus for sculp!)
'distingguish femail! standin their onto 1 leg
in silens admyred bi hundreds, i supoas
you ken apreshate the felinks ov her
as went in swimin & soon aperink onct moar
diskiverd nothink into the plais ov a
good soot ov cloas as wos a liin their
But 1 short minit previs supoged to be hern.
(pardon me greek fur the alooshun.)
But wat nede has Buty fur meny articals
ov aparril? how meny ladis you se
wich sertinly thinc as EVE's fashion was the
handyest, but tha parshly giv in to custum
out ov the nateral kindnis ov thayer hart.
was that the stile wen you wos animated?
then wot did you cawl maikin a toy lit?
from your compleckshun i shood thinc peraps
you dyned prinsiply onto your natyv are.
it must hev been ov a solider maik than
united Staitsen are, wich is mity thin dyit
wen used egscloosiv, as I orter no.
o Slaiv----but i leve you to ges wots hapend
oanli remarkin that 3 wekes ive livd on it,
But at last poor nacher is com round to vitles.

'wot butifle hans so delekit & wite!
thats moastly dun bi activly dooin nothink.
i no a yung lady as hes got sech hans
oanli not cuite so wery wite & teanty,
oin to a crule Faither as maiks her werc.
her naim is HANAH g. W. her fete air larger
But woodent be ef her shoos & stocins wos of.
her arm ef anythink is bigern yourn,
& shes rayther better lookin in the fais.
firther comparrisuns wood be but ges werc
owin to the present inconwenyet fashins
But i dout not wood be faverable to HANAH.
i no her figers shorter, likewais her noas;
But in them fechers statoos must be pardond
fur sculpers hev inoomerible rinkels.
POWRS thincs Buty lays in hite & length
But 1 looc at HANAH wood chaing his hul idee.
yet who wood hev al Buty ov a pese?
STATOO! fur your stil youm pirfeck!
your looc ov cam disgust is probly rite
altho sum harts wood gladly se thee smil.
your are is forin sos your nashun 2
you air the wery picter ov a grek
in chanes & no doubt a 1st chop sampel.
it doant tan you much to traivil i se:
youm probly well cloathed exsept wen shode.
then your dres is egstreamli lo in the nec
Being a wizzhunary bloomer without eny pans
or a full dress posessiv cais under stood.

'I must now bid you a abrupt adoo
fare STATOO! felink al the distresink symptoms
ov a pereodicle atact ov pain in the bowls.
MARBLE STUN ENTERPRIS!--FAIR THEE WEL!'

[editor's comment] This deserves now the offered prize!

That appeared in the November, 1854 edition of "The Knickerbocker"--exactly one year before the letter. Now, compare with a serious poem Mathew wrote on this same subject, the Greek Slave. Can you believe this is the same author? This comes from the March 7, 1852 "Carpet-Bag," being signed "A. Trunk." It nested inside a longer poem entitled "Third Visit to Amory Hall; A Poetic Peep at the World's Fair." Actually, even this is given in serio-comic style. Mathew didn't write truly serious poetry unless he knew his identity was very well disguised, indeed.

THE GREEK SLAVE

Within the Moslem mart she stands,
A captive Greek, with fettered hands,
But on her lip and in her eye
Still lives the quenchless majesty,
O'ershadowed now, but unsubdued
Within her proudly swelling breast,
And in her mute and tearless mood,
  We read a quiet far from rest;
The agonizing thought is there
  That scornful eyes survey her shame,
And, knitted in a fixed despair,
Controls the tremblings of her frame;
They shall not see a Grecian shrink,
Though slavery's cup be hard to drink!

She stands within the Moslem mart,
Her limbs enchained, but not her heart,
Her soul has wings, and skims sublime
The chronicles of early time,
When Greeks were men and Greece was young,
  And Sunian maidens proud and fair,
"When burning Sappho loved and sung,"
  And Orpheus charmed the listening air.
What recks she of the fetters wrought
  With impious force around her arms?
They cannot chain the viewless thought,
Nor rob a line from beauty's charms;
The "captive Greek" has captive ta'en,
The world, in Love's resistless chain.

I just discovered something as I added the HTML code to the above. I knew--and felt--that the statue of the Greek Slave reminded Mathew of Abby. He had given away his sole portrait of her shortly after her death, imagining that his state of emotional shock was actually due to his prowess as a Stoic philosopher. He found himself plunged into deepest grief, as soon as it work off! From then on, he would look for any image which was similar to hers. There is a mention, in another series, that he would spend his half-hour lunch gazing at this statue, when it was on display in New York City. The inference is that he was admiring the artwork--but I know better.

Now look at the one and only sentence given fully in italics, in the poem, above. In the 19th century, and in Mathew's writing style, in particular, italics represented not only emphasis, but could also point to a hidden meaning. Sometimes that meaning was as obvious as a pun--but sometimes it was deeply personal. And in that case, it would refer specifically to Abby. So we have the line:

When burning Sappho loved and sung

The line, as I find by Googling it, derives from Byron's "The Isles of Greece," which is why Mathew has it in quotation marks. He frequently quoted Byron throughout his career, having defended him eloquently at age 13 in the Boston "New-England Galaxy." But this reference is to Abby. She was the poet, whom Mathew described in a tribute poem entitled "To A Bright Lady." This poem was signed with his "star," and published in the January 17, 1846 Portland "Transcript," cited as having been reprinted from the "New Mirror." This was the same period in which Mathew was writing star-signed reviews for the New York "Tribune," which scholars have mistakenly attributed to Margaret Fuller. The relevant stanza reads:

Speak thy glowing words, lady,
 Full of poet fire,
Smother not the gladness
 Spirit dreams inspire.

Abby loved ancient Greece, and featured it prominently in her tutoring sessions with Mathew when they were both young. Those tutoring sessions are described in the poems, "Lady Geraldine's Courtship" and "Wine of Cyprus," plagiarized from Mathew by the future Elizabeth Barrett Browning in 1844. Abby's love of ancient Greece also comes through loud and clear in the "Hymns to the Gods" series, falsely claimed and nefariously published by Albert Pike, Abby's classroom teacher when she was 14 years old. It was a class assignment to write poetry to the Roman gods, but as soon as Abby got past the poems' titles, she defiantly switched over to giving the gods their Greek names.

Do you see how this all fits together?

Incidentally, you see in the above extract from "To A Bright Lady" that Mathew had spirit visitation dreams from Abby. (If you research the subject, you will find that they are quite common.) There are several references in Mathew's poetry, including the first poem in the series by "A. Trunk." This is why I say that Edgar Allan Poe ruined the last four lines of "Abigail P----" (which he renamed to "Annabel Lee"). I have suggested in my sequel, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own world," that the original conclusion of that poem might have read something like this:

And so every night I am given the sight
Of my beautiful Abigail P——;
 As she comes from that realm just for me,
 As she comes from the infinite sea.

Remember that a retired English professor, whom I hired briefly as a remote researcher, enthusiastically proclaimed that I was doing "above Ph.D. level work." And all he had glimpsed was one infinitesimally small corner of my research. This is your fool that scholars won't even waste time on responding to. They lack the ability to discern between a madman with an elaborate, internally consistent delusional system, and a pioneer working outside the system who has done meticulous research and has real results to show for it. But then, they don't have the academic credentials for that, either, so in passing judgment on my sanity, they are actually outside their field of expertise. (This, from people who protest that Topic A is not to be discussed by them, because it lies outside their special expertise on Topic B!)

It's the same way Mathew was treated. He responded to it with humor, and code, and anonymity. I just tell you flat-out. Mathew, I think, was allergic to ridicle. I've got a thick skin, now. Throw those rotten tomatoes--see if I care. I know that I will be getting the last laugh.

So now how does Mathew treat Washington Irving in his reviews for the "American"? In the June 22, 1831 edition, we see the following enigmatic response to the editor of another paper:

"The Richmond Whig and Washington Irving."--Below will be found the remarks of the Richmond Whig on the article written for this paper, but not (as the asterisk at its closed denoted) written by the Editor. They are published because the Editor of the Whig requested; and are replied to by the same hand which called them forth. It is not our purpose to take any part in the discussion of Mr. Irving's literary character; nor should we interpose at all, but that we feel it to be only a just act of courtesy to the Editor of the Whig, to express our sense of the kind terms in which he has referred to us, and to one whom to know was indeed to honor and to love. We assure him, that, and dissenting as we certainly did and do from the justness or fitness of his censure upon Washington Irving, we did not, by admitting the remarks of our young and enthusiastic friend, mean at all to question the motives--only the taste--of the editor of the Whig.  *

This is written in code. Apparently, the editor of the "Richmond Whig" has taken exception to Mathew's star-signed comments about Washington Irving. Where we see "kind terms in which he has referred to us," likely this is ironic. Mathew is making it clear that he, not the editor of the "American," is signing as a "star" (while still not revealing his actual identity). Let me see if I can find the article which the editor of the "Whig" was responding to...

Ah, here it is, in the May 19, 1831 edition. I apologize for the quality, it's the best I can do with a large sheet like this and my point-and-shoot, plus having to compress the file for the internet. Note that this piece, also, is signed with a star.

So here is what K.N. Pepper says about meeting Washington Irving at Lewis Gaylord Clark's party (which may have been thrown in honor of Mathew's visit):

'Washinkton Irvink shed teres when he see me. he sed I remynd him of somnolen Jo, in Pickwic (wots that, i wunder?) not to show mi ignorens, i sed--so a grate menny hev toald me; wich seme to plese him. he sed he wish he cood go out and drinc with me, but he supoas hede hev to stay there, & droun hisself in the Aquis Elemen.

So Mathew is playing the clown; but really-speaking, he is on personal terms with these prominent authors. What they actually think of his work--and whether they are aware of his serious work, some of it claimed by famous imposters like Edgar Allan Poe--is unknown. At any rate, we have evidence, here, that Mathew was on personal terms with editor Lewis Gaylord Clark. AI tells me that Clark was a literary adversary of Edgar Allan Poe. Do you think that Mathew would have privately told him that he, and not Poe, had been the real author of "The Raven"? And then sworn him to secrecy? If so, could there be, lurking in Clark's effects, some mention of it? Here is what my little gear-headed buddy has said, by way of summary concerning the feud between Clark and Poe:

The feud between Lewis Gaylord Clark and Edgar Allan Poe was a long and bitter one, marked by numerous public disputes and personal attacks. Here's a brief summary:

Origins of the Feud: The feud began in the early 1830s when Poe started criticizing the works of New York writers in his role as a literary critic. Clark, as the editor of the Knickerbocker Magazine, felt it was his duty to defend New York's literary reputation.

Public Disputes: Clark and Poe exchanged numerous defamatory and derisive articles in various journals. Clark used his position at the Knickerbocker to attack Poe's character and literary opinions, while Poe responded with scathing critiques of Clark and his allies.

Clark's Advantage: Clark had the advantage of owning his own magazine, which gave him a platform to consistently attack Poe. Poe, on the other hand, had to rely on other publications to voice his opinions.

Reasons for Hostility: Clark's hostility towards Poe stemmed from several factors, including Poe's criticism of New York writers, Clark's sectional loyalty to New York, and personal rivalries within the literary community. Clark's twin brother, Willis Gaylord Clark, also had conflicts with Poe, which added to the animosity.

Impact on Poe: The feud contributed to Poe's reputation as one of the most maligned literary figures of his time. Despite the personal attacks, Poe continued to defend his literary opinions and critique the works of his contemporaries.

I can extrapolate that Mathew tried to tell his friend and secret collaborator, humorous writer Benjamin Penhallow Shillaber, that he had written "The Raven," Shillaber's response being to make fun of him. But we have that precedent--Mathew would sometimes open up to his literary friends on this point.

Unfortunately, where you can find the preserved papers of famous literary figures, what has invariably been retained is their correspondence with other famous persons (and with family). The long arm of Society has ruined things once again, by putting value on reputation. If Lewis Gaylord Clark's papers have been preserved, any correspondence he had with Mathew Franklin Whittier was probably put out in the trash; while his letters to William Cullen Bryant and Washington Irving are carefully placed in an acid-free box. Still, it's possible that his letter inviting them to meet with the author of "K.N. Pepper" could have been saved...

There's one final bit in K.N. Pepper's letter, as shared by P. Pepper Podd. It concludes:

i foun Aappel their. Aappel was good. 1 long-windy feler, after hevin a pare ov tin Lunks maid (as i am creditabli inform)--but i muss stop. ile tel you moar in mi nex.

"Lunks" is a deliberate misspelling of "lungs." This is evidently a reference to Massachusetts statesman Daniel Appleton White, who was born in Methuen, Massachusetts, near to Mathew's hometown of Haverhill. His portrait looks distinctly familiar, and my AI copilot confirms that he had a reputation for being long-winded:

Yes, Daniel Appleton White was known for his detailed and thorough speeches and writings. His reputation for being long-winded was noted by his contemporaries, who often remarked on his extensive and meticulous approach to legal and political matters.

AI also tells me he was aligned with the Federalist party, which tended to be lukewarm on the slavery issue. So the reason Mathew would have ribbed him about being long-winded, here, aside from his public reputation, is that his detailed defense of the Federalist position would have been extremly tedious, if not excruciating, to Mathew, who as a radical abolitionist would have had to bite his tongue in that situation.

When I say that my research results form a vast, interconnected tapestry, you have no idea. You could get some idea by reading my e-books, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words," and "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own world." If you have found this blog entry interesting (it took me about six hours), you would find my books, which took me 15 years, nothing less than fascinating. It's page after page of revealed intrigues and deeply buried evidence, like this. I am fully aware that when I state my end results, they sound utterly absurd to the untrained ear. It would only be after reading my books that all of it would make perfect sense.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.

Blog Archive