As I continue to key in the series of works stolen from Mathew Franklin Whittier by Francis A. Durivage, and published by the latter in the 1849 "Flag of Our Union," I run across fascinating nuances. This one I just keyed, today, is a warning to parents about sociopathic young men who are drawn to babies and children. I can put this in the context of many similar pieces Mathew had written earlier, for other papers, and those he would write in the future. His intention is to entertain; but also, as said, to warn. This series, written as "The Old 'Un," is ostensibly a collection of sketches--but Mathew steps entirely out of that genre, here, and into another. This one I would term the "model type." He has also typified, for example, the "model bloomer," and, as I recall, the "model actor," or the "model dandy."
The "Old 'Un" sketch I keyed in just before this one, was one of Mathew's typical sketches of rural ministers and deacons. In fact, I'll have to add that one to my compilation of Mathew's stories on this and related subjects. As I believe I mentioned, earlier, it makes use--twice--of one of Mathew's pet colloquialisms, "2 40," meaning, a racing speed.
But what's fascinating about the one I just now finished typing, is that Francis Durivage was a sociopath; he steals all of these pieces, and he has them published verbatim (getting the royalties, and the fame, for himself)--and yet, he also publishes the ones portraying sociopaths. It doesn't bother him. Recently, I saw a video interview with a hit man, in prison, who claims to have shot President Kennedy. He said, of his former occupation, it didn't matter who it was. It was just a job, "like taking out the garbage."
Mathew didn't have the conceptual framework to understand the sociopathic mind. His psychology was religion; and religion, at least Christianity, ill-equips one to deal with this small percentage of society. These people are not redeemable--at least not in this lifetime. If the Christ spark is within them, it is squashed and silenced during this incarnation. They are unreachable.* When you think you are reaching them, or that someone else has reached them, they are faking it--playing along as part of their own plans.
So Mathew got fooled again, and again, and again. Despite the fact that he was keeping an eye peeled for them. I was thinking about this in the shower, this morning. Mathew was both highly ethical, and unconventional, at the same time. He admired people who were ethical; but he also admired "original geniuses," i.e., people who were unconventional, who dared think outside the box, and who marched to their own drummer. Unfortunately, most people don't combine these character traits. Either they are highly ethical, and conformists; or they are unconventional, and unethical. So when Mathew chose friends, he sometimes chose unconventional people who turned out to be sociopathic--and these people took advantage of him (male and female).
I don't know what happened in the intervening lifetime, in the early 20th century, which I can't "solve" (as the Stevensonians use the term, which means, "identify"). But for much of my current lifetime, I struggled with this issue. I have finally got to the point where I hardly have any friends, except my soul-mate, Abby, in the astral realm. But I also have no sociopathic personalities in my life. And I intend to keep it that way. As a hermit I saw on YouTube recently said, "I never get lonely--I enjoy my own company."
This is a phase--no doubt I will have more social connections someday, in this life, in the astral realm, or in a future life. But this issue of sociopathology is a crucial one for modern society. We had better come to grips with this, because they are killing us, and they have nearly taken over on every level. Do you know that it is possible to legally murder someone, by deliberately breaking their heart and inducing them to commit suicide? It's the perfect crime--you can't be charged. Although I think I did see an exception, awhile back. Sociopaths don't always run afoul of the law. Some of them know how to practice their trade in ways that can't get them arrested. (There were no effective copyright laws in the early and mid-19th century, so you were pretty safe plagiarizing other authors' works.)
So here is Mathew's attempt to warn parents about those particular sociopaths whom he calls "mother's aversion," who target children.
More as I type these up, and run into particularly interesting ones, either intrinsically-so, or in the context of my research.
Oh, I do have an interview coming up. But this one is really interesting, because he and his co-host used to run a community access TV show on the paranormal, in Haverhill, Mass.--Mathew's hometown. On a whim, I told him flat out, "I'm the reincarnation of John Greenleaf Whittier's younger brother." Maybe I should do that more often, instead of beating around the bush. More on this one as the date firms up. I have the feeling from Abby that things are moving...
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
As I key in the next adventure story published by Durivage in the "Flag of Our Union," I was having trouble reading some of the words of this tale, having to do with an Englishman caught in the Spanish Inquisition. I had the thought to do an internet search on some of the interior lines, and discovered that Durivage had published it in a compilation entitled "Three Brides, Love in a Cottage, and Other Tales." I was aware of this volume, but had never looked into it because--as I've mentioned before--I find it excruciating to examine Mathew's stolen works, where some of it may be his, and some of it either adulterated, or written entirely by the plagiarist. I will now have to go through this entire volume more carefully. But look at what Durivage says in the introduction (the skunk!):
What a brazen ass. But this is interesting, because undoubtedly Mathew was contesting it--either publicly, or at least privately. If it was only privately, Durivage wouldn't have needed to comment on it in his introduction--because a sociopath is supremely practical. Therefore Mathew has made inroads, at least among authors, editors and publishers. He may well have tried to do the same thing with Edgar Allan Poe, but was largely unsuccessful because of Poe's reputation and connections.
Mathew didn't attempt this after Dickens self-published "A Christmas Carol" (after supposedly authoring it in a fit of inspiration, within a six-week period), because, as I've shown recently, Mathew admired Dickens and thought it was by consent, or at least by implied consent, when he offered Dickens his and Abby's manuscript. But if you want to see a real sociopathic literary masterpiece, check out Dickens' "Violated Letter," denying his affair with actress Ellen Ternan. It's easy to find online--just search "violated letter, dickens." Or, better yet, read Poe's essay, "The Philosophy of Composition," where he says he set "The Ravenb" in a room, because a "circumscription of space" has "an indisputable moral power." This guy wouldn't know what moral power was if it bit him--and the poem was set in a room, because it's essentially autobiographical, and Mathew was in a room.
*Actually, my intuition tells me they are short-circuited, in that they have accepted some rationalization so fundamental that it entirely short-circuited their conscience in lifetimes past, and it has become so deeply a part of who they are, that it has actually manifested in this life as hardwiring in their brains. In order to get to it, you would have to find that point at which they adopted that rationalization, and re-work it. But I think only intense suffering will ever do that, because in order to change at a fundamental level, you have to want to change very badly. These people cannot want to change, so they are stuck in a Catch-22, such that any change they make will be part of the game they are playing.
Music opening this page: "Thief in the Night," by Eric Johnson,
from the album, "Venus Isle"