In the previous entry, I admitted an embarrassing mistake. I had seen a photographic postcard from the Museum of New York, showing a scene of Bowling Green purported to be from 1831. I used it as an example of historical mistakes, only to find a sharper copy clearly labeled as a photograph of a display. Still, there was a two-wheeled bicycle in the scene, which, as I understand the history of bicycles, is incorrect for 1831.
So I was partly right and partly wrong, but I had mistaken a photograph of a display for an actual photograph of the street.
If you have viewed my self-shot video interview (on the top of the Interviews page of this website), you may have noticed that I used the term "show-stopper" precisely opposite of its correct meaning. I used it to mean a "dealbreaker," instead of something noteworthy or exceptional. I couldn't edit this out, but the error continues to embarrass me. Perhaps people, predisposed to see me as a nutcase, simply dismiss me altogether when they see me make this mistake! Or so I find myself thinking.
But what I have not done, is to embarrass myself by being substantially wrong about the major conclusions of my study. I am, indeed, the reincarnation of 19th-century author Mathew Franklin Whittier; and I have remarried his soul-mate and first wife, Abby Poyen, who remains in the astral realm. Mathew and Abby, collaborating, wrote "A Christmas Carol," which was subsequently plagiarized by Charles Dickens; and Mathew wrote "The Raven," after her death. How Edgar Allan Poe got hold of it is, as yet, a mystery, but I seemed to remember a meeting between the two, in a regression session before I even suspected his theft of that poem.
But the reason I bring all this up, is that I just this morning ran across the trailer for a new film, entitled "The Man Who Invented Christmas." Here (in cut-and-paste URL mode) is the trailer:
This must have cost a bundle to produce--and I'm very surprised it's a commercial film, because I can't imagine that enough people are interested that the box office take will even pay for its production. Could someone have gotten wind of the rumor that Dickens wasn't the real author, and decided to do "damage control"? Seems unlikely.
But if not, what an embarrassing error they have made! Because Dickens didn't write "A Christmas Carol"--I'm certain of it. Nor did the author(s) of that piece invent Christmas. I have an article written by Mathew, about Christmas, before "A Christmas Carol" was published, which clearly shows that Christmas was being celebrated quite handsomely already, thank-you-very-much.*
Now, when I first saw that photograph of Bowling Green, New York, I jumped to conclusions. Then I ran across another image on Ebay, and revised my opinion. I am quite willing to eat "humble pie" when I'm wrong. (Note that "nutcases" generally are not.)
I have been researching my past-life case for eight years; and I have delved deeply into the question of Dickens' claimed authorship of "A Christmas Carol" several times during that eight years. The more I discovered, the more my theory was confirmed. Had it been otherwise, I would have said so. Every time I learned something new about this question, it went in the direction of my own conclusions. Every single time, that I can think of, which is something I can't say even about my research into my own past-life match. There, I sometimes ran into snags, things that seemed to contradict my primary thesis, until I looked deeper and unravelled the mystery.
But not with this question of Dickens' plagiarism of "A Christmas Carol." Each clue clicked into place like a jig-saw puzzle.
I don't say this lightly. I'm right about it. But there is this little matter of money, social legitimacy, and the power of the status quo. Dickens got away with it. He got away with it so thoroughly, and so profoundly, that we can no more imagine that he wasn't the author, than people of previous centuries could imagine that the earth revolves around the sun.
But I'm telling you, I'm right about this.
That was to have been the "forceful conclusion"; but I must add, that as I read through my evidence chapters one more time, I am now into the section dealing with Abby's own short stories. Mathew's influence in "A Christmas Carol" is easy to spot, once you are familiar with his style (and especially, when you get hold of Dickens' hand-written draft and reconstruct what he had scratched out, as I have done in my book). But now I am seeing Abby's contribution so clearly. It would be difficult to put into words, and I think, in this context--i.e., of challenging people who perchance don't take me seriously--I wouldn't try. But her personality, and her spirituality, are easily seen.
That Dickens, who turns out, in my estimation, to have been something of a scoundrel, a scoffer and a blatant plagiarist, should be given the credit for Abby's heartfelt masterpiece, is a travesty beyond words. But I think the error will be rectified someday.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*I have seen this idea, that Dickens "invented" Christmas, increasingly repeated in recent years, like an urban legend. The article, which is definitely written by Mathew, urges Americans to observe the holiday more like the British; but clearly it was being celebrated much as you see in the "Carol," before that story was ever published. One of Abby's short stories is also set on Christmas Day, and was written no later than 1840 (she died in March of 1841). It, too, suggests that Christmas was being celebrated much as we think of it, today.
Music opening this page, from "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol."