_Question_. What is the best philosophy of summer recreation?
_Answer_. As a matter of fact, no one should be overworked.
Recreation becomes necessary only when a man has abused himself or
has been abused. Holidays grew out of slavery. An intelligent
man ought not to work so hard to-day that he is compelled to rest
to-morrow. Each day should have its labor and its rest. But in
our civilization, if it can be called civilization, every man is
expected to devote himself entirely to business for the most of
the year and by that means to get into such a state of body and
mind that he requires, for the purpose of recreation, the
inconveniences, the poor diet, the horrible beds, the little towels,
the warm water, the stale eggs and the tough beef of the average
"resort." For the purpose of getting his mental and physical
machinery in fine working order, he should live in a room for two
or three months that is about eleven by thirteen; that is to say,
he should live in a trunk, fight mosquitoes, quarrel with strangers,
dispute bills, and generally enjoy himself; and this is supposed
to be the philosophy of summer recreation. He can do this, or he
can go to some extremely fashionable resort where his time is taken
up in making himself and family presentable.
Seriously, there are few better summer resorts than New York City.
If there were no city here it would be the greatest resort for the
summer on the continent; with its rivers, its bay, with its wonderful
scenery, with the winds from the sea, no better could be found.
But we cannot in this age of the world live in accordance with
philosophy. No particular theory can be carried out. We must live
as we must; we must earn our bread and we must earn it as others
do, and, as a rule, we must work when others work. Consequently,
if we are to take any recreation we must follow the example of
others; go when they go and come when they come. In other words,
man is a social being, and if one endeavors to carry individuality
to an extreme he must suffer the consequences. So I have made up
my mind to work as little as I can and to rest as much as I can.
_Question_. What is your opinion of Mr. Gladstone as a controversialist?
_Answer_. Undoubtedly Mr. Gladstone is a man of great talent, of
vast and varied information, and undoubtedly he is, politically
speaking, at least, one of the greatest men in England--possibly
the greatest. As a controversialist, and I suppose by that you
mean on religious questions, he is certainly as good as his cause.
Few men can better defend the indefensible than Mr. Gladstone.
Few men can bring forward more probabilities in favor of the
impossible, then Mr. Gladstone. He is, in my judgment, controlled
in the realm of religion by sentiment; he was taught long ago
certain things as absolute truths and he has never questioned them.
He has had all he can do to defend them. It is of but little use
to attack sentiment with argument, or to attack argument with
sentiment. A question of sentiment can hardly be discussed; it is
like a question of taste. A man is enraptured with a landscape by
Corot; you cannot argue him out of his rapture; the sharper the
criticism the greater his admiration, because he feels that it is
incumbent upon him to defend the painter who has given him so much
real pleasure. Some people imagine that what they think ought to
exist must exist, and that what they really desire to be true is
true. We must remember that Mr. Gladstone has been what is called
a deeply religions man all his life. There was a time when he
really believed it to be the duty of the government to see to it
that the citizens were religious; when he really believed that no
man should hold any office or any position under the government
who was not a believer in the established religion; who was not a
defender of the parliamentary faith. I do not know whether he has
ever changed his opinions upon these subjects or not. There is
not the slightest doubt as to his honesty, as to his candor. He
says what he believes, and for his belief he gives the reasons that
are satisfactory to him. To me it seems impossible that miracles
can be defended. I do not see how it is possible to bring forward
any evidence that any miracle was ever performed; and unless miracles
have been performed, Christianity has no basis as a system. Mr.
Hume took the ground that it was impossible to substantiate a
miracle, for the reason that it is more probable that the witnesses
are mistaken, or are dishonest, than that a fact in nature should
be violated. For instance: A man says that a certain time, in a
certain locality, the attraction of gravitation was suspended; that
there were several moments during which a cannon ball weighed
nothing, during which when dropped from the hand, or rather when
released from the hand, it refused to fall and remained in the air.
It is safe to say that no amount of evidence, no number of witnesses,
could convince an intelligent man to-day that such a thing occurred.
We believe too thoroughly in the constancy of nature. While men
will not believe witnesses who testify to the happening of miracles
now, they seem to have perfect confidence in men whom they never
saw, who have been dead for two thousand years. Of course it is
known that Mr. Gladstone has published a few remarks concerning my
religious views and that I have answered him the best I could. I
have no opinion to give as to that controversy; neither would it
be proper for me to say what I think of the arguments advanced by
Mr. Gladstone in addition to what I have already published. I am
willing to leave the controversy where it is, or I am ready to
answer any further objections that Mr. Gladstone may be pleased to
urge.
In my judgment, the "Age of Faith" is passing away. We are living
in a time of demonstration.
[NOTE: From an unfinished interview found among Colonel Ingersoll's
papers.]