MoreRSS

site iconThe New YorkerModify

The full text is output by feedx. A weekly magazine since 1925, blends insightful journalism, witty cartoons, and literary fiction into a cultural landmark.
Please copy the RSS to your reader, or quickly subscribe to:

Inoreader Feedly Follow Feedbin Local Reader

Rss preview of Blog of The New Yorker

The Return of Family Detention

2026-04-13 19:06:02

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

In early February, Elora Mukherjee, who runs one of the country’s leading immigrants’-rights clinics, at Columbia Law School, told me about a client of hers who was detained in South Texas. The client, Mukherjee explained, was in the midst of a life-threatening medical crisis. What’s more, she was eighteen months old. Baby Amalia, as Mukherjee called her, had been sent to a San Antonio hospital with critically low oxygen levels. She’d spent more than a week in intensive care, where she and her mother were watched by ICE agents. After being discharged from the hospital, the toddler had been sent back to the place where she had nearly died: the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, where many children had severe respiratory illnesses. “The doctors prescribed Amalia a medication by nebulizer,” Mukherjee told me, but, when the child and her mother returned to Dilley, “the officers took those meds.” (A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said that any claims that Amalia “did not receive her medication or proper medical treatment” are false.)

For months, I’d been investigating how the suffering of children, including infants and toddlers, has become central to the Trump Administration’s immigration-enforcement strategy. In Chicago and Portland, Oregon, federal agents had fired chemical munitions at children. In Idaho, I reviewed evidence of children being swept up in a vast and violent immigration raid on a family-friendly horse race and zip-tied until their wrists bruised or bled.

When children’s bodies bear the brunt of federal immigration enforcement, it’s not merely a matter of collateral damage. In the first days of Donald Trump’s second term, his Administration launched a series of executive actions that, in effect, directed immigration enforcement against kids. Under Joe Biden, D.H.S. had designated “protected areas,” where ICE and Customs and Border Protection were discouraged from conducting operations; these included places “where children gather.” Trump’s D.H.S. rescinded that designation, freeing agents to target children, parents, and caregivers at playgrounds, child-care centers, and schools. (In March, Democrats in Congress released a report that documented forty-two such incidents in or around “schools, school bus stops, and day care centers,” with “devastating consequences for children learning and being cared for at these locations.”) Similarly, Trump’s Executive Office for Immigration Review cancelled a Biden-era memo that urged immigration judges to adopt “child-friendly courtroom procedures.” Later, a new ICE initiative urged agents to track down unaccompanied migrant children, ostensibly to insure that they weren’t being trafficked but also, in many cases, to deport them. “The real through line is a strategic and coördinated effort specifically to target kids, with the goal to make life so unbearable for immigrant families at every point of contact that they feel they have no choice but to leave,” Kica Matos, the president of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrants’-rights group, told me.

The harm to children is particularly clear in the Trump Administration’s revival and expansion of family detention at Dilley, where Amalia and more than five thousand other children and parents have been held during the past year. In a report released on April 1st, Human Rights First and RAICES—two major nonprofits working on immigrants’ rights—offer a close look at what they call a “new era of ICE family prisons.” Based on interviews with thirty-five families who have spent time during the past year in family detention and more than three hundred legal cases in which RAICES has represented asylum seekers, the report describes more than a dozen family separations that have been conducted by U.S. immigration enforcement since Trump returned to office; most of the incidents occurred at Dilley. It also alleges that significant due-process violations have led to the summary deportations of children and families with credible asylum claims. And it documents accounts of widespread medical neglect of children, including infants, in the care of CoreCivic, the private contractor that operates Dilley, which reported more than two billion dollars in total revenue last year. Faisal al-Juburi, a co-C.E.O. of RAICES, told me, “Right now, the egregious medical neglect alone could, isolated from all the other horrors, be considered clear evidence of intentional harm.” (D.H.S. said that all detainees receive due process and proper medical treatment. The agency also denied that ICE targets children.)

This January, the average daily population at Dilley soared to more than nine hundred. By mid-March, it fell to under a hundred before rising again. Robyn Barnard, a co-author of the report and the senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, told me, “There is no indication that they plan to wind down at Dilley.” She was aware of at least two families in the facility who’d been there for longer than a hundred days—more than five times the legal limit for holding a child in immigration detention, as indicated by a settlement called the Flores agreement. “If these are the horrors we know about, what are the ones we still don’t know about?” she asked. She also pointed out that, unlike in the past, many of the families detained at Dilley had put down roots in the U.S. In early April, I spoke to an Indian family of four who’d lived in the Los Angeles area since 2022; when we talked, they’d been held at Dilley for nearly fifty days. The father, Jagdish, told me that one of his children was vomiting and the other had bloody stools; both were depressed. “The suffering is too big,” he said.

Amalia and her parents, Stiven Arrieta Prieto and Kheilin Valero Marcano, were released in early February. On their first weekend out of detention, Prieto and Marcano sat down at a sponsor’s home to speak with me, joined by Mukherjee and three law students who’d worked many late nights to get them released. “I want to be a spokesperson for all the women with children at Dilley who are living with the nerves and desperation of not knowing if their child will survive,” Marcano told me. “So that they won’t lose hope. So that they won’t keep living in purgatory.”

Amalia was a healthy child last December 11th, when she and her parents were arrested by immigration-enforcement officials in El Paso. Prieto and Marcano had grown up in Venezuela, a country they never wanted to leave. But, in 2024, they sought asylum in the U.S., on the basis that they had opposed the Nicolás Maduro regime and faced persecution.

They took all the steps required by the Biden Administration. Arriving at the southern border, they registered for an appointment with Customs and Border Protection. They then waited for months in Mexico, during which time Marcano gave birth to Amalia. The family received an immigration court date in 2027 and were granted humanitarian parole, a status that allowed them to live lawfully in the U.S. until they appeared in court.

Two people listening to two birds hosting a radio show or podcast in tree outside their window.
“I love listening to the birds in the morning.”
Cartoon by Jeremy Nguyen

The family moved to El Paso, where they found a playground that Amalia loved and a close-knit church. Amalia learned her first words: “Mamá,” “Papá,” and “agua.” But, in 2025, the Trump Administration attempted to terminate many forms of immigration protection for asylum seekers, including humanitarian parole programs, and began apprehending families who were awaiting their chance to go before a judge. (“The law requires those in the country illegally claiming asylum to be detained pending removal,” a D.H.S. spokesperson told me.) In early December, Prieto was told to show up for an immigration check-in at an earlier date than ICE had initially requested and to bring his family. He complied. At the check-in, Prieto, Marcano, and Amalia were arrested. They weren’t provided with arrest warrants or any paperwork explaining why they were being apprehended. Amalia cried after the family was loaded into a van full of other parents and young children. “Why are you doing this?” Prieto asked the immigration agents. He recalled that an agent replied, “It’s a change of Administration. They pay us to deport you.”

When the family reached Dilley, they noticed that the water smelled strange. At the commissary, Prieto bought packs of bottled water, which they reserved for Amalia. (RAICES and Human Rights First note that families at Dilley routinely describe water that is “unclean, foul-smelling, and causes stomachaches”; bottled water, the report observes, must be purchased, despite the fact that detainees have typically been stripped of any sources of income.) In the cafeteria, Marcano told me, “a girl pulled a bug from her hamburger meat and showed it to all of us—and the kids didn’t eat that day.” Then, Marcano recalled, “the kids started falling sick.” (CoreCivic said that inspections have confirmed that the water at Dilley is “safe and clean for consumption” and that it has no record of a bug being removed from food at the facility.)

On January 1st, Amalia developed a high fever. The next day, Marcano took her to Dilley’s medical clinic; she told me that a clinician prescribed Amalia ibuprofen. The same thing happened the following day. “A fever is good, because it means she’s fighting off a virus,” Marcano recalled a clinician saying. But the fever didn’t go away, and Amalia was clearly suffering. After nearly two weeks, she began vomiting and having diarrhea.

Often, Marcano had to stand in line for hours with her sick daughter to insure that Amalia was seen by Dilley’s medical team. She waited in line at least eight times, she told me, only to get her concerns shrugged off by the staff. One day, after Marcano tried to lower her daughter’s temperature with a cool bath, Amalia lost consciousness. Marcano went back to the clinic and screamed, “Are you going to watch my baby die in my arms?”

Family detention is hardly unique to the Trump Administration. George W. Bush launched the first large-scale, for-profit family-detention facility, although it proved short-lived, on account of legal challenges and public outcry. The Obama Administration revived the concept in 2014 by opening family-detention camps, including Dilley, to deal with an influx of asylum seekers from Central America. At an event marking the opening of Dilley, Jeh Johnson, then the Secretary of Homeland Security, described the detention center as an “effective deterrent” against the rise in family border crossings. By the summer of 2015, the facility reportedly held more than seventeen hundred people, about a thousand of them children. When I first interviewed Mukherjee about Dilley, years ago, she was helping to coördinate an effort to provide pro-bono legal representation to families there. Back then, Mukherjee took her law students on an annual trip to Dilley; some of the students called it “spring break in baby jail.”

During the Obama Administration, allegations of neglect at Dilley were common. I wrote about a client of Mukherjee’s, a Honduran asylum seeker named Suny Rodríguez, who’d been detained there with her seven-year-old son for four months, in violation of Flores. In federal court, the pair alleged that they were subjected to “inhumane conditions” (including disregard for Rodríguez’s son’s asthma and weight loss), pressured to self-deport, and threatened with separation, claims for which they reached a settlement. Similarly, a group of ten mothers filed formal complaints in 2016, alleging substandard medical care in D.H.S. custody. One of those mothers noted, “I thought I came to this country to escape abuse, mistreatment, and disrespect. But it’s the same here.”

During Trump’s first term, family detention soared, and so, too, did accounts of medical horrors at Dilley. In the spring of 2018, a Guatemalan toddler contracted a respiratory infection there and died six weeks after being released; then, between September of 2018 and May of 2019, six children died in U.S. immigration custody, after nearly a decade without any such deaths. Under Biden, Dilley was shuttered. Asylum seekers were largely allowed to await their court dates outside detention, and many, like Amalia’s family, were granted humanitarian parole.

The second Trump Administration reopened Dilley in March of last year. By January 16, 2026, more than five hundred and fifty children were held in ICE detention, according to government data analyzed by the Marshall Project. Recently, detained families at Dilley have come from such countries as Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Haiti, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Often, Juburi and Barnard told me, children from non-Spanish-speaking countries have been asked to translate for their parents in high-stakes interactions with ICE officers, owing to Dilley’s limited interpretation services.

According to Barnard, the center has both threatened family separations and enacted them. “Many of the families we interviewed recounted being threatened that, if you don’t comply with us, we will separate you from your loved ones,” Barnard said.

In one case, an eleven-year-old boy and his parents fled Mongolia, flying to Chicago with the intention of seeking asylum. D.H.S. sent the family to Dilley, where officials, lacking a translator, allegedly asked the boy to inform his parents that ICE intended to separate him from them. The parents were shackled and sent to adult detention; the child was shipped to a federal shelter as an unaccompanied minor. “I am devastated,” the mother said in an official declaration. “ICE officers have not explained anything to me.” The family was only reunited two months later, in order to be deported back to Mongolia.

In another case, a thirty-seven-year-old woman from China and her ten-year-old son sought asylum at the border in San Diego. They were taken to the airport, where, she said, agents told her that she could accept deportation to China with her son or be forced to return on her own and have him “taken away” from her. She physically resisted and was briefly dragged by an agent. (In a sworn statement, she recounted one of the agents saying, “Fuck! You’re going on a military plane back to China!”) The mother and her son were sent to Dilley. There, according to RAICES records, they were officially separated: the son was sent, alone, to a federal shelter in New York, while she was sent to detention centers, first in New Jersey, and then in Texas and New Mexico. As of early April, the two remained separated.

People with a baby
Before they were arrested by the Trump Administration, Amalia and her parents had been granted humanitarian parole under Biden.

Often, threats of family separation work hand in hand with medical neglect, Juburi told me, persuading families to accept deportation. He described the case of a woman and her five-year-old daughter who were apprehended in an ICE raid in Chicago last September, then transferred to Dilley. The mother, he said, had ovarian cysts and, because she couldn’t access her usual medication while at Dilley, experienced profuse bleeding; she agreed to “voluntary departure” with her daughter because she didn’t want to die of blood loss in front of her. Juburi said that his team has represented scores of families who’ve accepted deportation only in the context of serious medical neglect. “Parents make these life-threatening journeys to the U.S. in service to their children, for their children’s safety, and so this Administration is very well aware of that parental psychology, that the parents would do anything to insure their child isn’t harmed,” he told me. “The evidence at Dilley points to the weaponization of that primal instinct.”

At one point, when Amalia was extremely sick, an ICE officer approached Prieto and Marcano and pressured them to sign paperwork that they could not understand. Mukherjee later told me that it was a motion intended to withdraw their application for admission to the U.S. “They felt they had no choice but to sign,” she said. “Had we not intervened, it would have resulted in their deportations.”

A few days after the incident in which Amalia lost consciousness, Marcano brought her back to the clinic at Dilley. A staffer measured Amalia’s blood-oxygen saturation—which, in a healthy individual, is between ninety-five and a hundred per cent—and found that it was in the low fifties. “Such a low amount of oxygen going to the brain can, if it’s long enough, kill off parts of the brain—it’s really, really high-stakes,” Prantik Saha, a pediatrician who reviewed Amalia’s medical records, told me. “It’s shocking that this level of callousness and omission of care could occur.” Amalia was taken to a local hospital, where it became clear that she needed care beyond what the facility could provide. She was transferred to a larger hospital in San Antonio, where she was given five diagnoses: Covid-19, RSV, bronchitis, pneumonia, and an ear infection. She received supplemental oxygen and intensive care.

While at the hospital with her daughter, Marcano sometimes went to the bathroom, kneeled on the floor, and prayed, “Don’t let Amalia die!” As she watched over her daughter, two ICE agents monitored the pair at all times, even when Amalia was breast-feeding. “The officers never left me alone,” Marcano told me. “If a nurse entered, they’d write it down, and if I moved to touch my baby, they’d write it down.”

On the second day in the hospital, the nurses kindly gave Marcano a bag of clothes and hygiene items for her and Amalia. An ICE agent angrily confronted the nurses, Marcano told me, and scolded her, too. “I don’t know why the nurses are giving you gifts like you’re a beggar,” Marcano recalled him saying. He told her that she should be grateful for the expensive medical care her daughter was receiving: “The nurses don’t understand that ICE is your protector.”

After ten days, Amalia and her mother were returned to Dilley. At that point, Mukherjee and her team got involved in Amalia’s case. “In previous Administrations, including the first Trump Administration, when I came across a kid with severe medical needs in detention, I could almost always work with ICE to insure that the child and parents were released,” Mukherjee said. But, during the past year, “in case after case, requests for parole that usually would have been granted in the past were ignored or denied.”

When that happened, she’d send a second urgent request. If needed, she’d send a third, including “medical testimony from highly respected experts in the field, sworn under oath.” When that proved fruitless—as it did in Amalia’s case—she’d turn to working with organizations such as RAICES and the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit legal group, to file a federal habeas petition pleading with the court for a family’s release. Essentially, she told me in early February, ICE was “no longer engaging in any individualized consideration of a toddler or baby’s urgent humanitarian needs.”

Older children endure their own kinds of pain. Shortly after meeting Amalia and her parents, I interviewed a Russian family of five in detention at Dilley, who’d also become clients of Mukherjee’s. The family spoke to me on a video call from Dilley. The youngest, a four-year-old boy named Konstantin, held up a drawing of a train he’d just made. “He said, ‘This train will take us away from here!’ ” his mother, a former nurse named Oksana, told me. Beside her sat her thirteen-year-old son, Kirill, a talented pianist who spent the interview with his head buried in his hands. Oksana’s eleven-year-old daughter, Kamilla, began the call upright but looked exhausted; she soon lay down on the bare floor without a pillow. Back in Russia, she’d been in a dance troupe. “She’s a very creative kid, and she loves to read poetry,” her mother told me.

The family, like Amalia’s, had come to the U.S. legally, seeking asylum. They fled first to Mexico, then presented themselves, last October 5th, at an official port of entry in San Diego. Their suffering, like Amalia’s, began promptly. First, they were detained in a Customs and Border Protection facility, where, Oksana told me, “we’d knock for an hour just to try to get them to let our kids go to the bathroom.” Oksana’s husband was separated from the rest of the family and held in a one-person cell, where he fell ill with a high fever. Soon, the whole family was sent to Dilley, where medical personnel seemed poorly equipped to address his symptoms; Oksana saw the staff Googling them. Meanwhile, Kamilla had developed a shooting pain in her ear. “They said, ‘Everything looks good,’ ” Oksana told me of the intake officials.

The next day, Oksana brought Kamilla to the medical office. Confident that her daughter had an ear infection, she wanted to obtain proper antibiotics. She was dismissed, she told me, but soon returned. This time, she recalled, a clinician said that it was just allergies and gave Kamilla antihistamines, telling them, “You came to the dustiest state!”

“I was outraged,” Oksana told me. “As a former medical professional, I can tell the difference between an ear infection and allergies!”

“After I created a ruckus, the nurse said, ‘Fine, give her an antibiotic,’ ” Oksana said. To obtain antibiotics and ear drops, Oksana and Kamilla had to stand in a long outdoor line. “We stood in line for two hours that night, in the cold, my child with a high fever and ear pain, until we finally got the drops,” Oksana said. She found it peculiar that the drops were in an unmarked vial; it was cold to the touch. She tried to warm the vial with her hands before administering the drops to her daughter. “But the guards said, ‘You’re holding up the line, you have to give them to her right now!’ ” Oksana told me. “They intimidated me, and so I did it, and right away Kamilla started crying and complaining of sharp pain. Pus started pouring from her ear.”

Hands
After weeks in family detention, Amalia had critically low oxygen levels. At a hospital, she received five diagnoses, including RSV and pneumonia.

Oksana shook her head as she recounted this to me; Kamilla remained motionless on the floor. “She cried that entire night,” Oksana continued. “After this treatment—if you can call it a treatment—my daughter said, ‘I can’t hear in this ear.’ It’s been nearly four months, and still her hearing has not been restored.” By the time we spoke, the family had been in detention for more than a hundred and twenty days—six times the legal limit.

Oksana told me that she had concluded that many of the people at Dilley were not qualified to administer the medical services that they were providing. Similar concerns had been raised about medical care in family detention during the first Trump Administration. In 2023, researchers affiliated with Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital analyzed the medical records of a hundred and sixty-five children who’d been held in family detention in Karnes County, Texas, between June, 2018, and October, 2020. According to the report, “There appeared to be a preponderance of providers practicing outside of their scope” and a “lack of pediatric-specific medical knowledge, evident in many medical records and inadequate documentation of medical reasoning.” More recently, the Human Rights First and RAICES report alleged “consistent patterns” with medical care at Dilley: “delayed and denied treatments, misdiagnoses, ignored emergencies, and direct interference with ongoing care.”

At the end of our interview, Kamilla rose from the floor. She perked up as her mother described the small collection of Russian-language books that Kamilla had cherished in detention, provided by the facility: the fairy tales of Pushkin, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” and the work of a Russian poet named Korney Chukovsky. Oksana seemed flush with a mix of pride and devastation as she spoke of her daughter’s literary curiosity. She told me, “Kamilla is turning twelve tomorrow.” She added that recently a woman had been released on her birthday. “So she got the idea that ICE gives birthday gifts and that maybe tomorrow, because of her birthday, she will be released.” Oksana had to urge Kamilla not to hope for their immediate freedom. She told me, “I’d always heard that America is wonderful with children, and that there’s so much love and nurturing toward kids here.” She continued, “So we’re bewildered. Is this not America?”

Prompt release wasn’t impossible for the family, I knew. Unlike many others in detention, they had an expert legal team. On the night of February 6th, I’d got word from Mukherjee that, after fifty-seven days in detention, Amalia and her parents had been released from Dilley. A staffer had driven the family more than an hour to Laredo and dropped them at a migrant shelter, without returning Amalia’s birth certificate, her vaccination records, or the medications she’d been prescribed at the hospital. (The family did eventually receive copies of the documents, after multiple requests.) They made their way to their sponsor’s home in California, where Amalia found balloons awaiting her, along with a music box and a train set.

When I spoke to the family, two nights later on Zoom, they looked elated to be sitting on a comfortable red couch, with Amalia snuggling into her mother’s arms. Marcano wore her hair in braids and smiled often. After an hour or so, Amalia fell asleep. “Amalia loved the welcome balloons,” Marcano said, as she cradled the sleeping child. “She loved tossing them in the air.”

Not long after that conversation, Mukherjee sent me more news: Oksana’s family was also slated for release. Soon, she told me, all five of them would be en route to a sponsor’s home, also in California. She took this development as a sign of progress; increasingly, she’s been able to get families out of detention after two or three parole requests. Still, Mukherjee told me, “Literally every day, I’m getting phone calls from families detained at Dilley who need help. It’s just one horrifying situation after another.”

When I spoke to the Indian family of four at Dilley, Guri, aged twelve, told me that he missed playing soccer at his school, back in L.A. Now, he said, he felt like “a bird in a cage—they just feed you and keep you here, like you’re trapped.” His sister, Manpreet, an eleven-year-old math whiz, had been at the medical clinic the night before we spoke, seeking help for vomiting, only to be turned away. That incident and others like it made her angry: “It’s like when you’re locked in a place and you can’t move anywhere and you don’t even have a little bit of freedom.” Soon, their parents began to weep. “Before being here, my daughter spoke normally, but now, she lashes out,” their father told me. Watching both of his children struggle with confinement and medical neglect had been, he said, a form of “mental torture.”

Recently, I looked up Korney Chukovsky, whose poetry Kamilla had been reading. One of his series, I learned, features a character named Dr. Aybolit—which translates loosely to “Dr. Ouch It Hurts”—who tends to the ailments of animals. When presented with a medical crisis, Dr. Aybolit acts with great skill and compassion: “No problem,” he calls out in one poem. “Give it here!” A mother hare is so pleased, at one point, that she laughs and shouts, “Well, thank you, Aybolit!”

I could see why Kamilla might have loved Chukovsky, and not just for his sense of humor. I sent her and her mother one of the poems I’d encountered in translation. When the doctor learns of young animals sick with cholera, appendicitis, malaria, and bronchitis, he races across fields, forests, and mountains to treat them. By the poem’s end, one of the creatures calls out, “Glory, glory . . . Glory to the good doctors!” ♦

The Violence in Vermeer

2026-04-13 19:06:02

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

In October, 2022, a man approached Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring” in the Mauritshuis museum, in The Hague, and rested his shaved head against the painting. He was not an eager art historian who believed that the work demanded the closest possible inspection and hoped to meet the subject eyeball to eyeball. (A not unreasonable plan: the speck of reflected light in each of the girl’s irises is a famous touch.) He was a climate protester, wearing a T-shirt that bore the slogan “Just Stop Oil,” and he was seeking to glue himself to the glass that shields the canvas from assault. A sidekick, similarly clad, then doused him with a canful of Campbell’s tomato soup, thus lending the stunt a mild but confusing flavor of Andy Warhol. The two men were barked at by angry visitors, removed by museum staff, and later charged with “violence against property.” The painting was undamaged. The planet continued on its fateful course. As for the girl with the earring, nothing changed. It was as though she had seen it all before.

Of the many ways in which people have tackled “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” the adhesive method used that day is merely one. Others include the spectrometric, the iconographic, the gemological, and the horny. In 2018, eight microscopic paint samples taken from the work were examined for varieties in isotopic composition; you will be relieved to learn that “the data were consistent with seventeenth-century Dutch lead white.” Another study, in 2020, revealed that there was no perceptible hook attaching the earring to the girl’s ear; only in our mind’s credulous eye do we see an earring at all. Oh, and one small thing: the pearl is not a pearl. According to the catalogue of a comprehensive Vermeer exhibition, at the Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam, in 2023, it is “probable that in Vermeer’s work we are looking at imitation glass pearls, which in his time were mainly sold by Venetian glassblowers.”

What We’re Reading

Discover notable new fiction, nonfiction, and poetry.

As for the pearl, so for the girl. She, too, is hard to catch. In a 2001 book on Vermeer, Anthony Bailey, a former staff writer for this magazine, tries to pin her down. “One wonders if the model’s name was Margriet, since that is the Dutch form of the Latin margarita, meaning ‘pearl,’ ” he writes. An alternative theory is that Vermeer employed one of his daughters, Maria, as the model. And don’t ignore Griet, the servant who sits for Vermeer in Tracy Chevalier’s novel “Girl with a Pearl Earring” (1999). With her firm grasp of pictorial structure, Griet has no doubt that the painting needs the earring—“Without it there were only my eyes, my mouth, the band of my chemise.” As the artist unleashes his lead isotopes, the excitement mounts:

“Lick your lips, Griet.”
I licked my lips.
“Leave your mouth open.”
I was so surprised by this request that my mouth remained open of its own will. I blinked back tears. Virtuous women did not open their mouths in paintings.

As yet, archival research has failed to substantiate this conversation, although it appears, more or less intact, in the 2003 movie version of Chevalier’s book, with Colin Firth, as a well-wigged Vermeer, issuing instructions to Scarlett Johansson, as Griet. Meanwhile, we have a fresh contender for the role of the girl in the painting. In a new book, “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found” (Norton), Andrew Graham-Dixon identifies her as Magdalena van Ruijven, the daughter of Vermeer’s most significant patrons, and offers a reason for her parted lips: “Not only does the girl seem on the point of utterance, she has the air of someone about to say the most urgent thing they have ever said.”

The someone, we are told, is another Magdalena—Mary Magdalene, who, in the darkness of early morning, goes to Christ’s tomb and finds it empty. She sees Jesus but believes him to be the gardener. (Is there a more wonderful example of mistaken identity—revelation delayed by human error?) In the words of St. John’s Gospel, “She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.” Virtuous women, it would seem, do open their mouths in paintings. That momentous turning, according to Graham-Dixon, is what we observe in Vermeer’s picture. As the girl looks over her shoulder, we are standing where Christ stood. And what of the pearl? “It is no simple jewel,” Graham-Dixon writes, “but a reflection of the state of her soul, bursting with joy and irradiated with divine light.” Try sticking your head to that.

How, why, and by what right does a person produce tranquil art in the midst, or the wake, of tumultuous times? Well, it helps if you hail from flat, contested northern lands. Think of Watteau, born on the join between present-day France and Belgium, in 1684, six years after the end of the Franco-Dutch War. Twenty-seven miles south lies the town where Matisse grew up and which German soldiers invaded when he was a year and a day old, at the dawn of 1871. (At the far end of his life, the éclat of his cutouts was conjured under Nazi occupation. His daughter, Marguerite, was tortured by the Gestapo.) Matisse’s father began in the textile trade, as did Reynier Jansz Vermeer, who was living in Amsterdam and engaged in the manufacture of caffa, a costly woven fabric, when he met a woman named Digna Baltens. They married in 1615, and it was not until 1632 that their son, Johannes, was born. As befits such an environment, his handling of tactile stuff—not just silk and fur but bread and brickwork, too—never deserted him. The raised ridges of a map, unrolled and hung on a wall, asked to be registered in paint.

Two men standing in front of hospital nursery.
“I’m a little nervous—it’s my first one, and my first time seeing this weird glass baby prison.”
Cartoon by Joe Dator

There are areas in the life of Vermeer, who died in his forties, in 1675, that have never been mapped. In all likelihood, they never will be. Given how acutely some of his work refers to Italian artists of the previous generation, for instance, it’s not inconceivable that he went to Italy; regardless, no record of the visit exists. To the millions of people who recognize “Girl with a Pearl Earring” or “The Lacemaker,” Vermeer is little more than a name and a place: Delft, where his life began and ended, and where he is buried in the Oude Kerk, or old church. (A sign in the church declares that the coffin of one of his children was laid on top of his.) Beyond the bounds of Delft, the living Vermeer was largely uncelebrated. His reputation, such as it was, went into eclipse, until he was reclaimed and illuminated by French critics in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

An earlier book by Graham-Dixon—his vigorous biography of Caravaggio, from 2010—was alert to the brunt of pestilence and the ardors of the Counter-Reformation, and “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found,” likewise, deals with a deeper background. Thanks to the religious hostilities that burst open in the late sixteenth century, the prevailing hue is blood. Among the atrocities committed by Catholic Spanish-led forces in the Low Countries, bent on the suppression of local rebels, was the 1576 Sack of Antwerp by mutinous Spanish troops. In Graham-Dixon’s account, they “descended on the city like wolves.” As many as eight thousand citizens were massacred. One of the children who somehow survived the slaughter grew up to be the maternal grandfather of Vermeer.

The reader who pauses for breath, after this recitation of horrors, is soon rewarded by being plunged into a yet more catastrophic mire. The Thirty Years’ War, which was concluded by the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, spread across mainland Europe and killed some eight million people. Aware that its battlefields have been exhaustively tilled by historians, Graham-Dixon prefers, wisely, to snag our attention on a few details that we would rather forget. “People were so crazed by hunger that they tore the bodies of dead criminals from gallows and gibbet,” he writes. Vermeer, in short, grew up in a world where the living consumed the departed. One German mother, we are told, ate her own son.

What does all this have to do, pray, with a woman pouring milk from a jug, or reading a letter, or patiently making lace—the kind of activity, that is, pursued in Vermeer’s art? One answer would be that the more savage the storm, the more urgent the need for safe havens. If you wanted to live in peace, however frail; to worship as you wished, however furtively; to prosper in business and to educate your children; to walk the streets without dread and to die a natural death, uneaten; if that was your desire, in the guts of the seventeenth century, then Holland was the best, maybe the only, place to be. There was even a transport network, via trekschuiten, horse-drawn barges that travelled along the canals; an appendix to “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found” lists a timetable, showing that the daytime service from Delft to The Hague ran every half hour. Given what the rest of Europe endured, such benign civic efficiency verges on the comic. Indoors, reportedly, one came across a corresponding ease, to the surprise of outsiders. An English visitor of the period is cited by Graham-Dixon:

It’s very ordinary to find the Man of the House of one Opinion, his Wife of another, his Children of a third, and his Servants of one different from them all; and yet they live without the least Jangling or Dissension.

Compare this with the United States of 2026, where you can’t hear yourself think for the jangle. There is a trap, though. All too readily, we can slide into treating Vermeer as an agreeable intimist—a transcriber of the smooth-running niceties of the domestic. Hence the merchandise that I found, recently, in a gift shop on the Voldersgracht, in central Delft, where Vermeer once lived: placemats, cookie tins, tote bags, and chocolate bars adorned with images from his art. Many major painters get the same treatment these days, but Vermeer has more than most to lose from the indignity, because of the mysterious tensions in his work that are not there for the selling. One thing that sets him apart from a contemporary such as Pieter de Hooch, to whom he is instinctively likened, is a murmur that the stillness may not hold. Something in these quiet rooms is getting ready to happen. The letter, held in a lady’s hand, might bring transforming news. The paradox is well captured by Lawrence Gowing, in an elegant monograph on Vermeer, from 1952:

The common characteristics of all the painter’s work, the remarkable order which he extracts from the world, his elaborate evasion of its human claims, suggest the imminent possibility of opposite qualities, a fearsome anarchy.

At the start of “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found,” Graham-Dixon pays tribute to Gowing, but he ventures along very different paths. Where Gowing concentrates on what he calls the “unremitting internal pressure” of Vermeer’s compositions, Graham-Dixon gauges the pressures from outside. His contention is that the people who inhabit the paintings are breathing a specific spiritual atmosphere, bred by the company that Vermeer kept. The parents of Magdalena, say, nominated by Graham-Dixon as the “one plausible candidate” for the girl with the earring, were Maria de Knuijt and Pieter Claesz van Ruijven. A wealthy couple, they owned around twenty pictures by Vermeer, the majority of his known output, keeping them in their house in Delft and finally bequeathing them to Magdalena. They are listed in an inventory of possessions that was compiled after she died, in 1682.

A work of art
“The Concert,” circa 1663-1666.Art work by Johannes Vermeer / Courtesy Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

Pieter van Ruijven was a Remonstrant—that is, he belonged to a radical Protestant movement whose roots lay in the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). Most of Arminius’s family had been murdered by Spanish soldiers. Schooled in Calvinism, he had moved away from the severity of its doctrines, notably that of a predestined elect, toward a more tolerant (and, among the Dutch, grudgingly tolerated) faith. Remonstrants mustered, semi-secretly, in private houses, or schuilkerken, hidden churches. One such meeting place was the home of van Ruijven and his wife: such, at any rate, is the thesis propounded by Graham-Dixon. He sets the imagined scene:

At the gatherings held in the house by the hidden Remonstrant church in Delft there would be more than words and music to stir the souls of the faithful. There would be paintings.

This becomes the wellspring of the book. From it flows a new interpretation of most, though not all, of Vermeer’s work. At the Met, for instance, “A Maid Asleep” (or, “A drunken sleeping maid at a table,” as it was described when sold at auction, in 1696) shows not a young hedonist who has been overdoing the booze, as might be inferred from the glass in front of her, but someone who has just unveiled her heart to God. Her ghost of a smile should be parsed as beatific rapture. As for the glass, the affinity is with communion wine. In the same vein, if you are struck by Vermeer’s “Woman Holding a Balance,” in the National Gallery in Washington, D.C., and by the curious fact that the balance is empty, Graham-Dixon can explain. Indicating the jewels on the table in front of her, he says that she has undone them and laid them down, the better to renounce her worldly possessions for higher treasures: “She has put her conscience in the scales, and found it so light as to be weightless. She has done no evil, bears no burden of sin.”

It’s hard to predict how readers of the book will respond to these readings of the art. They are delivered with a confident brio, though the author is careful to enter caveats. Of “Woman Holding a Balance,” he says, “Such an image might have spoken clearly and directly to pious women gathered in Maria de Knuijt’s house, giving a shape and a direction to their prayers, also perhaps acting as a catalyst for their discussions or free prophecies.” Fair enough, though what I want to ask is, How would that catalysis function in practice? Did somebody guide the assembled worshippers through the import of each painting, like a teacher with a chalkboard? Or was everyone present sufficiently schooled in Vermeer’s symbolic array? It was, after all, a somewhat private mythology, more so than its Italian Renaissance counterparts. When Botticelli or Fra Angelico painted the infant Jesus holding a pomegranate, they could rely on viewers who understood that the blood-red fruit denoted the Resurrection. Who in Delft, however, outside the Remonstrant clan, would know that your soul could be measured like a gold coin, or, for that matter, hung from your ear?

Parts of the Vermeer industry, I suspect, will bridle at the determined speculation that lends such energy to “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found.” In an essay published in 2001, “Religion in the Art and Life of Vermeer,” Valerie Hedquist devotes no more than a few brief lines to the Remonstrant cause. A greater emphasis, instead, is laid on the painter’s marriage to Catharina Bolnes, in April, 1653. Bolnes was a Catholic, as was her rich and frankly terrifying mother, Maria Thins, with whom the young couple lodged. (If anyone ever compiles a list titled “Sitcoms of the Dutch Golden Age,” that setup would be the winner.) Hedquist comments, “Without documentation confirming Vermeer’s individual acceptance of Roman Catholicism, it is difficult to state definitively that he converted. Nevertheless, his marriage and eventual living situation firmly place him in the Roman Catholic center of Delft.” So, where did Vermeer belong, or take refuge: in the hidden church or the family home? No wonder the pictures are so coded and discreet. They might have been painted by a spy.

Getting into the Vermeer show at the Rijksmuseum, in 2023, was tough. Having failed to secure a ticket, I was taunted with pitying one-upmanship by acquaintances who had had more success. “You should have applied to be a friend of the museum beforehand,” they said, as if the chance to peer at twenty-eight Vermeers, through a swarm of rival fans, were akin to attending the hottest Broadway play. To see the paintings was, in a way, less important than the social exultation of having seen them. Hit exhibitions are seldom an unalloyed delight, and Vermeer, in particular, does not take kindly to being mobbed. He survived more than a hundred and fifty years of restful obscurity, and sometimes one can’t help wishing, for his sake, that he could dwindle back into the gloom.

A better way to study Vermeer is the Barney technique. It goes like this:

“What do you want, Barney?”
“I want to see every Vermeer in the world before I die.”
“Do I need to ask who got you started on Vermeer?”
“We talked about a lot of things in the middle of the night.”

Barney is the orderly who guarded Hannibal Lecter in Thomas Harris’s “The Silence of the Lambs.” This exchange comes from the sequel, “Hannibal,” and Barney’s interlocutor is Clarice Starling. Lecter is now at liberty. His taste in art was always less eccentric than his taste in flesh, and Barney has been well advised. To arrive at a lone Vermeer at the end of a patient pilgrimage is to invest the work with the meditated gravity that it deserves.

Not that the itinerary is too arduous. The Eastern Seaboard is especially fertile, though the thieves who relieved the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum of its entrancing Vermeer, “The Concert,” in 1990, saved you a trip to Boston. Flee to Europe for a still richer harvest—first to London and Edinburgh, and thence to Dublin for “Woman Writing a Letter, with her Maid,” which has itself been stolen, twice, once for the I.R.A. and once by a local gangster. In spite of that thrilling history, the painting leaves Graham-Dixon unmoved. The light of it is “hard as stone,” he says, and he’s not wrong; yet I confess to being arrested, so to speak. The folded arms of the servant, who stares away from her mistress and out of the casement, tell a tale of long-suffering attendance, and, as so often in Vermeer-watching, you find yourself tempted to dig up a concealed plot.

A work of art
“Woman Holding a Balance,” circa 1664.Art work by Johannes Vermeer / Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington, Widener Collection

From here, the Barney tour becomes a homing in. Berlin, Braunschweig, and Frankfurt. Dresden’s Gemäldegalerie, for “Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window” and the spectral mirroring of her features in the glass. (The whole museum, I’d say, need detain you no longer than a lifetime.) Paris for “The Lacemaker,” if you don’t mind camping out in the line for the Louvre, plus Vienna for “The Art of Painting,” if you can scrub from your brain the fact that it was once owned by Adolf Hitler. “Cool colour is not a visual preference,” the art historian Kenneth Clark remarked of this crowning masterwork, “but expresses a complete attitude of mind.” He also compared the seated figure of the painter—framed from behind, and maybe intended as a self-portrait—to a giant cockroach. So, that’s what Vermeer was like.

In the end, you come to the Netherlands, and to the hints of Vermeer that litter the cityscape, clueing you in before you reach the pictures. Shutters decorated with two black triangles? View them in Delft, on a dwelling on the Voldersgracht, and then, again, in Vermeer’s “View of Delft,” in The Hague. The journey from one town to the other took me twelve minutes by train, though the slower pace of a trekschuit, three hundred and fifty years ago, would have been more suitable, and I kept looking out for a horse. As for the Mauritshuis, it provides further proof, if any were needed, that to greet a painting in reproduction is to see it through a glass, darkly. See it face to face, wherever you can, and in proximity to the faces of other works; wittily positioned beside “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” for example, is another girl with a pearl earring, depicted in profile by Gerard ter Borch. (Do the two girls whisper to each other, after hours?) Then, there’s a dramatic landscape by Jacob van Ruisdael, with gray clouds muttering on high and brighter blues impending in the sky below. Two stretches of yellow-brown wall have caught the sun.

For the same details, walk into a nearby room and consult “View of Delft,” which was painted a few years earlier. The main difference is that Ruisdael cranes upward, to behold a castle on a hill, whereas Vermeer levels his gaze across open water. For all the splendor of Ruisdael’s picture, it is the second that partakes—in ways that countless gallerygoers have keenly felt but struggled to articulate—of the miraculous. My favorite sentence in Graham-Dixon’s book has him probing the nitty-gritty of Vermeer’s roofs: “It is possible that he ground actual red terracotta tiles in with his pigments and oil to get the required result.” So compelling are these critical closeups that I found myself leaning in to investigate the surface of a yellow roof on the right, and found it stippled and dotted, as if it bore a message in Braille. I was warned away by a guard, despite the fact that my shirt was not blazoned with “Just Stop Oil.” Breaking news: oils can just stop you in your tracks.

Needless to say, I am not the only person to glory in that luminescent patch. As Proustians and Vermeer junkies alike will rush to remind you, it’s one of the last things witnessed by Bergotte, a fictional writer, in “Remembrance of Things Past.”(Before expiring, he blames his swoon on undercooked potatoes.) What tends to be overlooked, in the aesthetic shock, is Proust’s elaborate hymn to its moral and spiritual implications. Brace yourself:

There is no reason inherent in the conditions of life on this earth that can make us consider ourselves obliged to do good, to be kind and thoughtful, even to be polite, nor for an atheist artist to consider himself obliged to begin over again a score of times a piece of work the admiration aroused by which will matter little to his worm-eaten body, like the patch of yellow wall painted with so much skill and refinement by an artist destined to be forever unknown and barely identified under the name Vermeer. All these obligations, which have no sanction in our present life, seem to belong to a different world, a world based on kindness, scrupulousness, self-sacrifice, a world entirely different from this one and which we leave in order to be born on this earth.

That draws near, I think, to the territory laid out by Graham-Dixon. He regards the radiance in “View of Delft” both as that of a familiar, peaceable town, glittering after the rains and tempests of a brutal epoch, and as a vision of the heavenly city, as vouchsafed in the Book of Revelation. To look at the painting, he writes, is to sense “a rainbow at our backs.”

Amen to that—and, indeed, to the arguments that are sustained throughout “Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found.” You may disagree with them, fiercely so, but they could not be more persuasively put, and they rescue Vermeer from the shelf, as it were, on which we have placed him for our convenience. Far from being “forever unknown,” in Proust’s phrase, he is now in danger, like his countryman van Gogh, of being blurred and dulled by global fame. Graham-Dixon’s task, as it was in his biography of Caravaggio, is to resacralize an art that the current age consigns to the realms of the secular. In opting for Caravaggio the sexually roistering bad boy and Vermeer the charming celebrant of the mundane, we discard the imprint of faith. Graham-Dixon presses its claim afresh, and, in the process, discovers it everywhere. The light that falls from the left, through half-open windows, onto Vermeer’s walls, some of them bare, testifies not so much to an overcast Dutch day as to a suffusion of grace. Andrew Graham-Dixon may be on a mission, but so, he believes, was Vermeer. “He painted for the same reason that people pray: to make things come true.” ♦



Ed Solomon’s Family Portrait

2026-04-13 19:06:02

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

“You know how sometimes you don’t know what something is really about?” the London-based screenwriter Ed Solomon (“Men in Black,” the “Bill & Ted” movies) cryptically asked the other day, in SoHo. “And, in fact, you block yourself emotionally from it completely?” The question was posed in a claustrophobe’s nightmare of an unmarked elevator, entered from street level, which felt like it could lead anywhere—perhaps to Socrates’ Athens or the Mongol Empire. The destination, alas, was only the Tara Downs art gallery.

“I like this piece,” Solomon noted, peering at a semiabstract work by Sofía Sinibaldi, “Remediation (The Past Creates the Future).” His latest film, “The Christophers,” directed by Steven Soderbergh, features Michaela Coel as a disillusioned young painter who’s hired by the money-grubbing children of a bitter, lapsed artist (Ian McKellen) to forge some of his unfinished portraits. Coel signs on as McKellen’s assistant; shifts in desiderata and allegiance ensue.

“I always wanted to make a movie about the relationships that I’ve had with certain mentors,” Solomon said—specifically, four male figures who, feeling villainized or betrayed, retreated from the public eye. Over pints one night, Soderbergh mentioned toying with the idea of a “chamber kind of thing—think of ‘The Dresser,’ but with more of a Patricia Highsmith bent.” Maybe this was Solomon’s chance.

They shot the film in nineteen days, in 2025. Solomon realized recently that his mother, Maxine, had inspired the script, too. “She’s a painter! She quit for nine years to be a parent. But she returned to it.” She’s since had to retire, at ninety-two. Solomon pulled up Maxine’s website, where she quotes the artist Richard Diebenkorn: “I can never accomplish what I want. Only what I would have wanted had I thought of it beforehand.” Maxine used both additive and subtractive painting processes to build textured canvases. “The more she did, the more she would obfuscate,” Solomon said.

His mother taught him “never to paint within the lines,” a lesson he plans to impart to his youngest, crayon-wielding child. In “The Christophers,” Coel’s character first starts painting after seeing the show “Enfant Terrible,” made up of work created by art stars in their youth. McKellen’s character supplied a piece titled “Anyone Can Do This and Call It Art.”

At Dimin gallery, Solomon studied a blue-and-orange canvas, and explained that his mom favored a specific type of paintbrush. Around twenty-five years ago, the manufacturer stopped making them. “They were basically dead stock,” Solomon said. She rallied her artist friends around San Francisco to all order a bunch.

“Every year, she’d go through one brush,” Solomon said. “And two years ago was her last brush. I have photos of her holding that brush.” McKellen’s character hasn’t painted in decades. He’s kept himself afloat by slinging quips on a reality-TV show called “Art Fight” (he tells one contestant to title a piece “Why My Therapist Chose Early Retirement No. 7”) and filming Cameo videos for fans, in a blue beret, by the glow of a ring light.

At Bortolami gallery, Solomon said that he had consulted the Pop artist Jann Haworth, who co-designed the “Sgt. Pepper” album cover, to get a sense of the British art world of McKellen’s character’s prime. “When Michaela is verbally undressing Ian, and basically saying, ‘I know you better than you think I know you, and I know you maybe even better than you are willing to acknowledge you know yourself’—I wrote a version of that speech with Jann’s help,” Solomon said. He also sent it to his mother for review.

Solomon strolled over to the Odeon, for some art respite and fries, and recounted watching both “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “The Christophers” at a Toronto film festival, during which he’d noticed a through line: “ ‘Bill & Ted’ is a film about the exuberance of two very optimistic people who really believe that their art”—a metal band called Wyld Stallyns—“matters, and that they will live forever through their art. And then here you have this movie about two people who have given up on the idea of letting others see their work.”

Another adviser on “The Christophers” was the art restorer Lisa Rosen, who offered tips on pulling off a convincing restoration (or forgery). “She was talking about literally the ability now to find an artist’s DNA on material,” Solomon said. In the film, Coel digs up some of McKellen’s old paintbrushes that she says “have been dead stock for decades” and remarks, “The microfibres alone would vet—huge.” ♦

Sandy Liang Puts a Bow on It

2026-04-13 19:06:02

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

The fashion designer Sandy Liang recently boarded a hundred-year-old wood-panelled elevator in the basement of the Frick Collection and rode it to the museum’s first floor. There, she was ushered into the Cabinet Gallery for a private preview of “Ruffles & Ribbons,” a new exhibition of two dozen fashion plates, the hand-colored engravings that preceded fashion magazines, from the time of Marie Antoinette.

It’s a title that could be given to any of Liang’s recent collections, which feature a multitude of ruffles, ribbons, and bows—a dress from her Fall 2026 show was made entirely of the latter. One logo for her eponymous brand, which she founded in 2014 after graduating from Parsons, is a bright-pink bow. From her store on Orchard Street, not far from her family’s Cantonese restaurant, Congee Village, she’s sold bow-shaped earrings, leather bags with bows, bow-adorned puffer jackets (for humans and dogs), and hair bows of every ilk. Last year, partnering with Gap, she put bows on hoodies, trenchcoats, and jeans. She’s also teamed up with Beats by Dre for bow-patterned headphones, and with the Japanese brand Subu for beribboned pink slippers. Collectively, her designs call to mind the 2011 “Portlandia” sketch “Put a Bird on It!”—only with a different “B” word.

In 2023, social media pronounced Liang the leader of a “great bow-pocalypse.” The trend was so prolific that, in September of that year, a headline in the Times asked, “Have We Officially Reached Peak Ribbon?”

As the Frick’s “Ruffles & Ribbons” proves, there is no such thing. Organized by the curatorial fellow Yifu Liu, the show has trimmings in just about every frame. The idea was to lure visitors in with notions of decadence and frills, and then force them to confront the harsh realities of imperialism, colonialism, and the relentlessness of the fashion cycle. “Even the simplest, most frivolous fashions carry all these histories with them,” Liu said. “We named it ‘Ruffles & Ribbons’ kind of as a subversion. We made it so cute and so delicious. But, when you look at these images and you read the captions, you realize, Oh, these are historically significant works of art.”

The first plate depicts the world’s earliest bow-fluencer, Marie Antoinette. In it, she wears an elaborate red court gown with a wide hoop. In the second, a woman wears a chemise à la reine, a style of white dress the Queen popularized “that looks like what you’re wearing,” Liu said, pointing at Liang, who had on a white poplin baby-doll dress, with ribbons embroidered on the sleeves, and tulip-print leggings—both of her own design. Liu was wearing a black blazer, starched white culottes, and black oxfords.

Liang, a longtime follower of Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola’s 2006 bio-pic is one of her favorite movies), was eager to learn more about the Queen’s shopping habits. She oohed when Liu explained that ruffles were originally used to hide seams, which were left mostly unfixed so that expensive fabric could be reused when trends inevitably changed, and aahed at the sight of a lévite, an Ottoman-inspired open-front gown that was tied at the waist with a ribbon, which Marie Antoinette wore when she was pregnant.

With a seemingly unlimited clothing budget and access to goods and ideas from around the globe, the Queen had a vast, ever-evolving wardrobe. This meant that the public was constantly racing to keep up, turning to fashion plates to see, for example, whether they should style their curls in tall, “Bridgerton”-esque poufs or let them dangle from under a hat. Each year, Marie Antoinette ordered up to three hundred new gowns, and the winds changed accordingly.

“You’ve kind of killed the romance for me,” Liang said at the end of the tour. “Fashion nowadays is so fast—nobody has any time to think. You just have to put stuff out. I always thought that in Marie Antoinette’s day, you bought what you liked. But even she, or the women of that era, felt the pressure.” She sighed. “And there wasn’t even Instagram.”

Liu nodded: “It was intensely stressful for them.” Even worse, he added, “a lot of these women had gout.”

In a pink, chandeliered room in the Gilded Age mansion of a dead steel magnate, the past and present melded in a manner that was both unsettling and affirming. (Everyone knows what happened to Marie Antoinette.) In many ways, Liang felt validated. “The thing about ribbons and bows—do you ever get tired of them? I still get excited when I see a bow in a painting.”

At the end of the visit, an employee who wore bow-shaped earrings pointed out a wooden chest with gilded detailing that had belonged to Marie Antoinette. Liang bent down to examine it. “Look!” she said, pointing to a motif in the center. “A bow.” ♦

St. Paul Remade Human History. How Did He Do It?

2026-04-13 19:06:02

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

If Western civilization were asked, in the terms of the old Reader’s Digest column, to name the Most Unforgettable Character It Ever Met, it would surely answer, with a single, sighing voice: Paul. Not Sir Paul the Beatle, blessed as he is in advanced age, but St. Paul the Apostle, who, in the first century C.E., soon after the founding of the Jesus cult, brought to the Gentile world its salvationist doctrines shorn of the complex legalisms, dietary laws, and minutiae of devotion that marked the Judaism from which it sprang. In this way, Paul turned the heresy of a tiny sect of Messianic Jews into the dominant religious and cultural architecture of the West for the next couple of thousand years.

Christianity as we know it—the all-are-welcome Church, with fairly undemanding required rituals, no daily prostrations, no rules for separating cheese blintzes from corned beef, just confession, Communion, and prayer—owes more to Paul than to anyone else, perhaps even more than to the narrowly parochial and Jerusalem-centered Jesus. It was Paul, almost single-handed, and against the suspicions of Jesus’ original disciples, who journeyed and pleaded and made the faith portable. Quite a character! So much so that, in the nineteen-fifties and sixties, the director Frank Capra was eager to make a movie of Paul’s life starring Frank Sinatra. And though it sounds ridiculous when you say it, the casting actually makes sense. Whoever Paul was, he must have had charm, energy, and intensity, and been equally popular with the first-century equivalent of bobby-soxers and of made men. Raphael’s great image of Paul preaching in Athens, arms outstretched, crowd rapt, could be the Chairman on tour in Greece.

Our strictly historical sources for Paul are thin. There are the Epistles, the letters Paul is believed to have written around the fifties C.E. to the small but burgeoning Christian assemblies of the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean. Of the thirteen letters attributed to him, only seven are generally regarded as authentic; the others are thought to be later forgeries written to make Paul endorse more conservative positions in death than he did in life. (In the genuine epistles, he shows a remarkable equanimity about women playing an active role in the new Church; the forged ones are openly misogynistic.) Then, there are the Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament account of the early years of Christian evangelism, generally thought to have been written by the author who is given the name Luke and who either accompanied Paul on his travels or heard about them afterward. The Epistles tell us what Paul said, the Acts some of what he might have done.

What We’re Reading

Discover notable new fiction, nonfiction, and poetry.

A detailed story of Paul’s travels and mission, Acts is also generally agreed among scholars to be largely, if not entirely, fictionalized, containing an improbable number of shipwrecks and prison breaks and snakebites and other twists typical of Greek storytelling from the period. It also smooths away the conflicts that the Epistles put on the page. The polemical point of Acts was basically to placate the imperial power by showing that Romans are good, Jews are bad, and Christians, though practicing a mutated form of Judaism, are more like Romans than they are like Jews.

Just as important, the Epistles and the Acts date to different sides of the great divide in Jewish history: the “Jewish War” of the latter half of the first century, a quixotic and doomed revolt against Roman domination, which ended in 70 C.E. with the complete destruction of the Second Temple and the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem—the greatest catastrophe in Jewish history until the Holocaust. As Jews now tend to forget, the Temple-based religion was very little like the disputatious, text-bound, and intellectual religion of rabbinic Judaism; more frankly pagan in feeling, it essentially pivoted on regular rites of animal sacrifice conducted by a set priestly caste.

Then, overnight, there were no more sacrifices, and the priest class had nothing to do. In the wake of this disaster—one that the Jewish general turned Roman historian Josephus blamed on a fanatic lack of common sense and realism among the Jewish rebels, of a kind well caricatured in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”—the choices for saving the old faith were varied. The orthodox response was the development of rabbinic Judaism, which we now think of simply as Judaism. The study of the Torah, and the elaborate argumentative commentaries of the Mishnah and the Talmud, became the core of the religion, refereed by learned rabbis rather than supervisory priests. Another response was to drive forward the sectarian religion of the Jesus cult, and that’s where the Pauline initiative took over.

If Paul’s life can be reduced, from these polemical sources, to a set of more or less undisputed facts, it would be this: he was born, as Saul, in Tarsus, in what’s now southern Turkey, sometime around the year zero, and came of age as a Greek-speaking Jew in the Diaspora. He became aware of the Jesus cult very shortly after its emergence, in the thirties C.E., and at first, by his own account, he “persecuted” the new faith—though, given how small the cult still must have been and how few public powers were available to Jews to enforce their prejudices, this was more likely persecution by argument than by torture. Then, sometime in the same decade, he had the most famous conversion experience in history, falling off his horse while trotting toward Damascus and seeing a celestial vision of the risen Jesus.

The epiphany took. For the next thirty or so years, Paul ceaselessly rode out on Christian missions, founding churches and corresponding with and correcting the movement’s scattered small ones. (These churches tended to be little more than living-room gatherings of at most sixty or so people, usually from the same household, with a land-owning family, its servants, and enslaved people together.) He had decisive meetings in Jerusalem with the man he called Cephas and whom we call Peter—the two names, Aramaic and Greek, respectively, just meaning “rock.” He also met a man named James, who is presented as Jesus’ brother. After mutual suspicion, the two arrived at a reluctant truce in which Paul was free to bring non-Jews into the Jesus movement, emancipating them from Jewish ritual, while the original Jerusalem circle continued to keep kosher, circumcise, and all the rest. Acts has Paul then being arrested and, because he was a Roman citizen, transported to Rome for a trial, which is where the story abruptly ends. Later legend has him executed by the very Romans he worked so hard to placate; other accounts seem to locate his end in Spain.

The most remarkable thing that emerges from these texts is what you might call Paul’s emotional availability. He instructs, cajoles, gives shrewd advice—“be all things to all people” is his positive counsel on how to build coalitions—and sometimes engages in what certainly sounds like the hyper-cynical placation of opposing poles: cagily paying off that rival Jerusalem sect, warning against heretical influences, begging his far-off correspondents to avoid “splitting,” praising competitive apostles, and taking exasperated digs at obscure obstacles to his work, oddly personal in tone for one so inspired by the Lord. “Alexander the coppersmith,” he sighs at one point, “did me great harm.” Then Alexander and his copper disappear from the record.

Paul agonizes, too. In his epistle to the Christian community in Rome, his insistence on grace collides with an undiminished loyalty to his own people (he can’t accept that God has abandoned Israel), and the passage feels pained and real. “Some of the branches have been broken off,” Paul writes to the Greek Christians, referring to Jews who reject Jesus and stand outside God’s grace, “and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root. Do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches! . . . You do not support the root, but the root supports you. . . . Do not be arrogant, but tremble.”

Paul’s tone in the Epistles, to use a comparison that will scandalize followers of either half of the analogy, is strikingly like Leon Trotsky’s in his autobiography. Trotsky (né Bronstein) was also a Jew who had both stopped being one and, necessarily, remained one, took a new name to lead an organization made up of Gentiles, and combined a pragmatic appetite for alliances with a hard ideological line. Both Trotsky and Paul get absorbed in quarrelsome dialectics and in point-scoring built around minute differences. Trotsky’s arguments about revolution in one nation versus a revolution of the international proletariat, like the fine argumentative tracery of Paul’s Jewish Christians versus Greek ones, seemed vital to the movement at the time but weirdly trivial and abstract to those outside it.

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul strains to show that the Gentile mission and the Jerusalem mission, though carried out by mutually mistrustful parties, belong to a single divine design. His mode of argumentation resembles nothing so much as Marxist dialectics, sinuously arguing from opposites and forcing a desired conclusion upon unobliging texts. He rereads God’s promise to Abraham as if it had always presaged the later turn to “all nations,” boldly reinterpreting the Jewish patriarch’s “seed.” Although everyone had taken it to mean Israel, Paul writes instead, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’ ” On that basis, he arrives at the bracing conclusion: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The power of an orator who can, in this way, fuse feeling and doctrine is immense. (After hearing Trotsky speak in the nineteen-tens, my great-grandfather’s brothers were converted from Orthodox Judaism to a Jewish-inflected Bolshevism.) Trotsky himself had seen that the pragmatist follower who lacks true belief usually ends up on the other side; a passionate believer who lacks pragmatic planning skills usually ends up dead. In Paul’s time, Josephus was a perfect instance of the first kind, a brilliant military leader who, when faced with the fanaticism of his cohorts, chose to shift his allegiance to Rome. Foremost among the examples of the second kind was the rabbi Jesus.

Wherever he appears, Paul is not a saint in his cell but a messenger at work—a man of close shaves, sudden escapes, and high-stakes debates. His tales and truths have, for all their apocalyptic mysticism, a decidedly practical charge that makes them exceptional in the New Testament or almost any religious literature. It would be a good movie! You can almost see the toughened, sinewy Sinatra of the fifties as Paul, with Sammy Davis, Jr., as the suspicious James and Dean Martin as a slightly befuddled Peter.

There are, however, many lacunae in Paul’s writing and life that have puzzled readers. Why, across the tens of thousands of words of his epistles, does he never tell the story of the work and life of Jesus of Nazareth? There’s essentially no Mary, no Joseph, no Nativity (much less a virgin birth), no miracles, no mission, no overturned tables at the Temple, no Galilean ministry rendered through narrative. This silence has led a handful of scholars to insist that Paul knew no earthly Jesus at all. But it’s possible that Jesus was simply more important to Paul as a risen God than as an admirable man.

Just as we are lucky to have Mormonism as a near-at-hand experiment in how improbable religions rise and grow, we have the cult of the Brooklyn Lubavitcher Rebbe as a very near-at-hand reminder of how Jewish messianic cults come to life. And one of the lessons is that, although the Rebbe’s personal history is widely known, it isn’t part of his followers’ messianic insistence. Ask an evangelical Lubavitcher whether he knows that the Rebbe studied for two years in Paris at the highly secular Sorbonne, and you’ll often draw a blank look. Similarly, Malcolm X must have had some awareness of the actual life of Elijah Poole, but, when he was delivering the words of the Messenger, he didn’t mention any of it, certainly not that he came from Georgia or had worked in Detroit factories or had been to prison. The Messenger and Elijah Poole were very different figures.

A building entrance with a sign that reads “Try Pushing First Then Pull.”
Cartoon by Kaamran Hafeez and Al Batt

Another puzzle relates to Paul’s role, despite his Jewish training and identity, in early Christianity’s open hatred of Jews. The older picture of Paul as the begetter of Christian antisemitism became, for obvious reasons, intolerable to many believing scholars after the Holocaust, and a counter-reading took shape that tried to return him to a sturdier Jewish setting. On this account, the Roman Paul gives way to a more strictly Jewish Paul; his outreach to Gentiles was meant to be expansive without being exclusionary, and the Jesus movement, even as it grew, still rested on the Torah.

The impulse is intelligible: to reassure post-Holocaust Christians that their faith does not, in fact, depend on the rejection of Jews that later Christian texts so plainly stage. You see the problem in the second-century Epistle of Barnabas, a post-Pauline codicil that treats circumcision not even as an obsolete rite but as a sort of mark of Cain. The old covenant is rewritten as a curse, with Jewish suffering cast as deserved punishment.

In more recent years, though, there has been a countermovement to restore Paul to a more credible Hellenistic context. Suddenly, we now have not the Roman Paul whom Acts depicts, nor the Jewish Paul, immersed in the prophetic traditions, whom his recent apologists conjure, but the Hellenistic Paul—Paul being a man who, after all, wrote in Greek and drew his imagery and instances from Greek myth and literature. The stakes of these disputes are high because of what they say about his inheritance. If Paul’s creed is essentially Roman, then Christianity looks, from the outset, like a religion trained to live with empire, its compass always set toward placating power. If significantly Greek, then the question becomes how philosophical—and, more specifically, how Platonic—the religion is at its core, with doctrines that can seem mystical and otherworldly. If foundationally Jewish, or even anti-Jewish, then the question is: how much of the old faith remains in the bloodstream, and what did Paul think he was doing to it?

This new, revisionist view is well represented in a recent scholarly collection, “Paul Within Paganism: Restoring the Mediterranean Context to the Apostle” (Fortress), edited by Alexander Chantziantoniou, Paula Fredriksen, and Stephen L. Young. The Paul of these pages, sketched by sixteen scholars, is close to his contemporary Philo of Alexandria. Like Philo, he joins the Platonism current in his day, with its layered cosmos and transcendent God, to a boldly reworked reading of Biblical prophecy, encountered in Greek translation rather than in Hebrew. Robyn Faith Walsh offers a beautiful poetic analysis of Paul’s otherwise odd celestial obsessions, making the case that “Paul, like other Middle Platonists, saw the moon as a clearinghouse for souls awaiting a cosmic judgment.” He belongs to a liminal space where occult Jewish faith documents and the poetic universe of Plutarch and Platonists coexist. Trying to appease two audiences at once, Jewish and Greek, he instinctively combined their preoccupations.

In an even more startling essay, with the unforgettable title “Paul Among Pagan Penises,” Ryan D. Collman argues that Paul’s fixation on the politics of circumcision has been distorted by a simple mistranslation. A Greek term that means “foreskinned” has routinely been rendered as “uncircumcised.” Paul, Collman stresses, wasn’t saying that the Gentiles lack something the Jews have. He was talking about two different kinds of possession: Gentiles have foreskins; Jews have the ritual that removes them. More startling still, Collman demonstrates that, since the glans of the uncircumcised penis is visible only when aroused, Greeks assumed Jewish penises to be in a state of permanent arousal, thus producing a standing Hellenistic joke that only a “penis from Jerusalem” could satisfy a lustful woman. The politics of penises in this period gave enticing credit to Jews as erotic masters—an idea that sat well with the larger allure of Jewish exoticism to Christian converts. Rather like Indian gurus in nineteen-sixties hippie culture, the Jews were assumed to be repositories of every kind of mystical and human elevation. Indeed, Walsh is sympathetic to an account of Pauline Christianity’s allure that emphasizes its “exemptive” ostentation: the peasant simplicity and extreme antiquity of the Jewish-Christian faith was perfectly designed to appeal to alienated Roman urbanites who, like those hippie guru followers, wanted a new faith that was old, exotic, and of rustic origins, with incense burning day and night.

This revisionist view of Paul has reached a climax with Nina E. Livesey’s recent book, “The Letters of Paul in Their Roman Literary Context” (Cambridge). Despite its dry title, the book argues, astonishingly, that Paul’s epistles, indeed “Paul” himself, are inventions of the second century—that they actually were written largely by the crucial yet easily overlooked figure of the heretical editor Marcion and then backdated. Livesey, a professor emerita at the University of Oklahoma, is recognized as a significant Pauline scholar, and her book is closely argued, formidably annotated, and beautifully provocative. In her view, no first-century evidence exists for Paul, just as little exists for Jesus. More important, Paul’s preoccupations with the politics of circumcision, and with Jewish ritual generally, seem to fit badly within a first-century, pre-Jewish War context. Back then, with the Temple still intact, those things were not controversial. The preoccupations make far better sense in a second-century context, when a wave of anti-Jewish suspicion filled the Empire, particularly after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-35 C.E., the last great Jewish uprising against Rome, which ended in catastrophic defeat, mass death, and the refounding of Jerusalem as a pagan city. No one cared about condemning circumcision in 50 C.E.; everyone did a century later.

Letters were, in any case, a genre more than an epistolary act: most collections of antique letters, Livesey points out, were unmailed and literary, written to enlarge a theme, not persuade a recipient. The proliferation of letters in the New Testament is also typical of second-century literary activity; letters written as rhetorical models, using the epistolary form as an intimate vehicle for argument, are everywhere in the later period. So Livesey thinks that Paul’s letters make much better sense as a literary performance, too, if keyed to second-century Greek concerns and practices. This dramatic redating also contextualizes those odd interpolations—the Jew-hating sentences make more sense if written after the Bar Kokhba revolt—and, indeed, the broader question of how, exactly, there could have been so many practicing churches for Paul to correspond and commune with so soon after the establishment of the Jesus cult.

Livesey’s thesis is so tightly and rationally argued that it can’t be readily dismissed, and, even if it’s wrong, it could be one of those theses which point the way to a larger rightness. Meanwhile, Livesey’s arguments have been met with respectful—and, to this amateur reader, persuasive—rebuttals by several fellow-scholars, most formidably by Fredriksen and Walsh. Paul’s letters, they note, read like letters, not literary performances, filled with local detail, tempest-in-a-teapot controversies, and people, like that coppersmith, who read only as living annoyances, not neat symbolic figures. They are also filled with apocalyptic premonitions that make sense only in a first-century context, when Jesus was credibly thought by his followers to soon be on his way back home, ready to take believers up to Heaven, or the moon, with him. By the second century, even devout Christians had to walk back this belief. Why, Fredriksen has asked, would writers of the mid-second century, composing pseudonymous letters in the voice of a first-century figure, include statements predicting Christ’s imminent return?

Both Fredriksen and Walsh are convinced that, however Hellenized Paul might seem, he was entirely apocalyptic and millenarian in his thought and fully expected the world to burn within his lifetime. Is it inconceivable, though, that even a second-century invented Paul might have persisted in these premonitions? Those who raise millennial expectations often adjust to their disappointment without great difficulty. No one was more confident than William Miller, whose preaching gave rise to Seventh-day Adventism, about the timing of the world’s end and Christ’s return: October 22, 1844, to be exact. But when it didn’t happen he responded, in a beautiful instance of direct American speech worthy of General Ulysses S. Grant, “I confess my error and acknowledge my disappointment.” In the same spirit, the early Christians seem to have quickly adjusted their own apocalyptic beliefs, easily recasting Jesus’ return from “soon” to “someday.” Paul’s belief in the approaching apocalypse was perhaps a mixture of self-persuaded propaganda, a desire to impress, a readiness to retreat if necessary, and a shrugging, side-eyed nerve that says, “Well, what’s the worst that can happen if I’m wrong? And, if my words helped scare people straight, what’s the harm?” A second-century Paul might well be imagined as apocalyptic in this more rhetorical manner, too.

All days of fulfillment in religious history are, in any case, Great Disappointments, since the thing expected—Nirvana, the Apocalypse, the New Jerusalem—never does happen. Sooner or later, we trust the disappointment more than the dream. The original “Jewish” Church, which flares out like a glorious firework in the last, apocalyptic book of the Bible, Revelation, faded away in time, and Paul’s universal Church grew and eventually triumphed.

What is ultimately at stake in the new literature is the question of Paul’s commitment to universalism and, through him, the universalism of his faith. We love Paul for his celebration of love, for his insistence, in a key that seems to echo Jesus, that “faith can move mountains,” and for his remarkable amendment of that claim: “If I have a faith that can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.” Yet his single-minded zeal is inseparable from his intolerance. As one revisionist scholar argues, this very insistence on doctrinal and moral boundaries became one of Christianity’s most serviceable features once it encountered imperial power. A religion that defined itself sharply could be mobilized by the state, because, from Paul onward, its leading voices showed a readiness to regulate and to enforce. Paul, in other words, hands down both the ethic of love and the habit of boundary-drawing, and leaves it to us to harmonize them.

Paul’s account of love is complex, but on the aspects that matter it is clear. Love does not boast, it does not demean the weak, it is slow to anger, and it extends compassion to strangers. Contemporary Christians who give other Christians a pass on any of these do not seem to be very good correspondents of the Apostle. Paul’s idea of agape is philosophically pointed; it carries the weight of duty and self-denial as much as of warmth and affection. But the originality is there. It is hard to think of an earlier Jewish, Greek, or Roman thinker giving pride of place to “love” of any kind. Even in Paul, though, the spiritual is balanced by the material. At the very end of Acts, when one might expect apotheosis, we are told that Paul lived in Rome “at his own expense.”

Where the consensus of disinterested scholars on matters Pauline leads is to the usual place: the texts, like all sacred texts, are a mishmash of literary tropes, polemical invention, retrospective editing, and emotive appeal. They are conflicted, as we are. Jewish believers have had to come to terms with the inarguable truth that the story of the Hebrew enslavement, flight, and deliverance from Egypt is almost entirely mythical. The Hebrew people were not held in bondage in Egypt, and, in any case, there was no promised land to go to, since it was already under Egyptian control. Yet the meaning of the ritual is undiminished for its participants. Passover is not about a historical event but about a metaphoric explication of an ideal. If its objects are Hebrew enslavement and escape, its subject is hope. It does not reduce the ritual or pietistic content to know that it is fiction. In fact, the allegory travels more easily once it is freed from literalism. The same applies to Paul’s case. “Fictional” needn’t mean either fatuous or false. Jesus, who speaks in parables, not in dicta or dogmas, provides us with a primary instance of the power of the nonliteral tale. We do not ask where the prodigal son’s father really lived, or whether the man who built his house on sand had a deed, or who could certify that the foolish virgins were virgins.

An oddity of modern life is that, just as humanists have made us newly alert to the irreducible power of stories, people of faith, who already possess the advantage of strong stories, reach for spurious “science” to underwrite them. Hence the appeals to a “fine-tuned universe,” as if divine order were proved by the fact that the cosmos had to meet an exquisitely narrow set of conditions to yield conscious human beings. In truth, this is the same argument, beloved of parents, that the whole point of the universe was to produce one particular child. Consider the chain of contingencies that had to align, and the child’s existence can feel like a miracle. In a sense, it is. Yet the pattern is blessed only in retrospect. We were always going to find ourselves in a universe compatible with our existence, because there is no other place in which we could be aware that we existed. And, if we are not cold or conscienceless, the universe that contains us cannot be wholly cold or conscienceless, either. It includes warmth because it includes us. Our values are human-made, but that does not make them unreal.

Was Paul’s effect on history, incalculably large, good or bad on the whole? Edward Gibbon argued that Paul carried a “Jewish” intolerance into a pagan world that, for all its cruelties, was broadly pluralistic in matters of worship. Yet Paul also offered a universalism so urgently moving that it remains powerful today. That may be as close as judgment gets for a figure of his scale. We turn to philosophers and essayists, from Socrates to Richard Rorty, for inquiry and self-doubt. We turn to apostles and prophets, from Paul to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for the broader conviction that faith really can move mountains, and then for the still bolder thought that even moving mountains is not enough if love is absent. “All or Nothing at All,” Sinatra’s greatest epistle, revised across his life as the purposes of his music changed, might have served as a theme for that Capra bio-pic. It is bad advice for a lover. But it is good advice for a believer, since such intensity of commitment is, in the old-fashioned sense, awesome. St. Paul, whenever exactly he lived or whatever precisely he said, was nothing if not all in. ♦

“Apocalypso,” by Dobby Gibson

2026-04-13 19:06:01

2026-04-13T10:00:00.000Z

I couldn’t finish the article about
short attention spans either,
armed feds in the Wendy’s,
Saturn slowly losing its rings.
Turns out that sinking freighter
was loaded with rubber duckies,
and now the beach is filthy with kids,
tiny cameras in the cash machines,
a car alarm is triggering a car alarm
is triggering a car alarm, day-ay-ay O.
As far as the Arctic melting goes,
good thing we’re already 70% water,
the rest old locker combos
and the memory of a kite
snagged high in a tree.
We probably expected too much
from a people held together
by something signed with a feather.
Calypso held Odysseus captive
on her island for years,
so don’t be surprised to see
their ski masks getting sweaty.
Look at me through your doorbell cam,
the light is beautiful
and a particle
and a wave.