Mr. Sparks and Mr. Cleave, young men of twenty and nineteen, wereaccustomed to "mesmerise" each other in their dormitory at Portsmouth,where they were students of naval engineering. Mr. Sparks simplystared into Mr. Cleave's eyes as he lay on his bed till he "went off".The experiments seemed so curious that witnesses were called, Mr.Darley and Mr. Thurgood. On Friday, 15th January, 1886, Mr. Cleavedetermined to try to see, when asleep, a young lady at Wandsworth towhom he was in the habit of writing every Sunday. He also intended,if possible, to make _her_ see _him_. On awaking, he said that he hadseen her in the dining-room of her house, that she had seemed to growrestless, had looked at him, and then had covered her face with herhands. On Monday he tried again, and he thought he had frightenedher, as after looking at him for a few minutes she fell back in herchair in a kind of faint. Her little brother was in the room with herat the time. On Tuesday next the young lady wrote, telling Mr. Cleavethat she had been startled by seeing him on Friday evening (this is anerror), and again on Monday evening, "much clearer," when she nearlyfainted.All this Mr. Sparks wrote to Mr. Gurney in the same week. He wasinviting instructions on hypnotic experiments, and "launched a letterinto space," having read something vague about Mr. Gurney's studies inthe newspapers. The letter, after some adventures, arrived, and on15th March Mr. Cleave wrote his account, Mr. Darley and Mr. Thurgoodcorroborating as to their presence during the trance and as to Mr.Cleave's statement when he awoke. Mr. Cleave added that he madeexperiments "for five nights running" before seeing the lady. Theyoung lady's letter of 19th January, 1886, is also produced (postmark,Portsmouth, 20th January). But the lady mentions her _first_ visionof Mr. Cleave as on last _Tuesday_ (not Friday), and her second, whileshe was alone with her little brother, at supper on Monday. "I was sofrightened that I nearly fainted."These are all young people. It may be said that all five wereconcerned in a complicated hoax on Mr. Gurney. Nor would such a hoaxargue any unusual moral obliquity. Surtees of Mainsforth, in otherrespects an honourable man, took in Sir Walter Scott with forgedballads, and never undeceived his friend. Southey played off a hoaxwith his book The Doctor. Hogg, Lockhart, and Wilson, with AllanCunningham and many others, were constantly engaged in suchmystifications, and a "ghost-hunter" might seem a fair butt.But the very discrepancy in Miss ---'s letter is a proof of fairness.Her first vision of Mr. Cleave was on "Tuesday last". Mr. Cleave'sfirst impression of success was on the Friday following.But he had been making the experiment for five nights previous,including the Tuesday of Miss ---'s letter. Had the affair been ahoax, Miss --- would either have been requested by him to re-write herletter, putting Friday for Tuesday, or what is simpler, Mr. Sparkswould have adopted her version and written "Tuesday" in place of"Friday" in his first letter to Mr. Gurney. The young lady,naturally, requested Mr. Cleave not to try his experiment on heragain.A similar case is that of Mrs. Russell, who tried successfully, whenawake and in Scotland, to appear to one of her family in Germany. Thesister corroborates and says, "Pray don't come appearing to me again".{91a}These spirits of the living lead to the subject of spirits of thedying. No kind of tale is so common as that of dying people appearingat a distance. Hundreds have been conscientiously published. {91b}The belief is prevalent among the Maoris of New Zealand, where theapparition is regarded as a proof of death. {91c} Now there isnothing in savage philosophy to account for this opinion of theMaoris. A man's "spirit" leaves his body in dreams, savages think,and as dreaming is infinitely more common than death, the Maorisshould argue that the appearance is that of a man's spirit wanderingin his sleep. However, they, like many Europeans, associate a man'sapparition with his death. Not being derived from their philosophy,this habit may be deduced from their experience.As there are, undeniably, many examples of hallucinatory appearancesof persons in perfect health and ordinary circumstances, the questionhas been asked whether there are _more_ cases of an apparitioncoinciding with death than, according to the doctrine of chances,there ought to be. Out of about 18,000 answers to questions on thissubject, has been deduced the conclusion that the deaths do coincidewith the apparitions to an extent beyond mere accident. Even if wehad an empty hallucination for every case coinciding with death, wecould not set the coincidences down to mere chance. As well might wesay that if "at the end of an hour's rifle practice at long-distancerange, the record shows that for every shot that has hit the bull'seye, another has missed the target, therefore the shots that hit thetarget did so by accident." {92} But as empty hallucinations are morelikely to be forgotten than those which coincide with a death; asexaggeration creeps in, as the collectors of evidence are naturallyinclined to select and question people whom they know to have a goodstory to tell, the evidence connecting apparitions, voices, and so onwith deaths is not likely to be received with favour.One thing must be remembered as affecting the theory that thecoincidence between the wraith and the death is purely an accident.Everybody dreams and out of the innumerable dreams of mankind, a fewmust hit the mark by a fluke. But _hallucinations_ are not nearly socommon as dreams. Perhaps, roughly speaking, one person in ten hashad what he believes to be a waking hallucination. Therefore, so tospeak, compared with dreams, but a small number of shots of this kindare fired. Therefore, bull's eyes (the coincidence between anappearance and a death) are infinitely less likely to be due to chancein the case of waking hallucinations than in the case of dreams, whichall mankind are firing off every night of their lives. Stories ofthese coincidences between appearances and deaths are as common asthey are dull. Most people come across them in the circle of theirfriends. They are all very much alike, and make tedious reading. Wegive a few which have some picturesque features.
