Category Archives: Essays

Artificial Intelligence, Essays, Literature, Performing Arts

THE GHOST IN THE SYNTAX

Leave a comment

Why Shakespeare’s lines demand intention, not imitation—and why machines can only echo sound.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 3, 2025

The rehearsal room was cold enough that the young actor’s breath lingered in the air. He stood on the stage with a copy of Macbeth, its pages soft from use, and whispered the line under his breath before daring it aloud: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. The words fell flat the first time. Too rehearsed. Too conscious. He shook his head, tried again, letting the syllables drag as if they themselves were weary from carrying time. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day… The repetition was not just fatalism; it was the sound of a man unraveling, his will eroded by grief and futility. The rhythm itself had to ache.

A machine could, of course, manage the cadence. A program could be tuned to repeat the word “tomorrow” with perfect solemnity, to stretch the vowels just so. Google’s WaveNet system can produce uncanny variations of stress, hesitation, even sighs—digital sighs—at precisely calculated intervals. DeepMind’s recent work on “expressive TTS” allows a line to be rendered in tones of grief, anger, joy, or boredom. There are demo reels online where Shakespeare is fed through these systems, and the result is surprisingly competent. But competency is not intention. What the young actor does—searching for futility in his own chest, summoning weariness from his own private reservoir—cannot be coded. Intent is not in the sound of the line; it’s in the act of dying a little as you speak it.

This is what Shakespeare demands, again and again: not just language, but will. His characters live on the knife-edge of consequence, their words pressed out by motive. Romeo, stumbling over Tybalt’s body, gasps, O, I am fortune’s fool! He has just killed his wife’s cousin, wrecked his future, and tasted blood he never meant to spill. It isn’t just regret—it’s horror, the shock of realizing you’ve become the villain in your own love story. No algorithm can know the sting of unintended consequence. An AI might shout the words, might even deliver them with trembling emphasis, but the cry comes from a boy watching his own destiny collapse. The line does not live without that recognition.

The experiment has been tried. In 2022, an AI-generated voice performed Romeo’s balcony scene at a conference in Vienna. Listeners were impressed—some even moved. But when the line O, I am fortune’s fool! rang out, the room chuckled. It wasn’t just that the intonation was slightly off; it was that the cry lacked stakes. It was Romeo without a pulse, Romeo without a body to bear the guilt. The line did not fall short technically—it fell short existentially.

Hamlet’s soliloquies are the most treacherous test. In Act II he marvels and recoils at the same time: What a piece of work is man… How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty. It sounds like admiration, but it isn’t pure. The words turn over themselves—what ought to inspire awe instead curdles into disgust. He sees hypocrisy in every supposed nobility, futility in every faculty. An actor must carry the irony in his voice, lacing admiration with loathing, as though the words taste bitter even as they sound grand. An AI might deliver a clean, almost clinical balance—“admiration” followed by “disgust”—like toggling sliders on a mixing board. But irony is not a switch. It’s a wound dressed in velvet.

When DeepMind released an expressive model that could generate “sarcasm,” the tech press hailed it as proof that machines could finally do subtlety. Yet what we heard was not a fractured human voice, but a pristine and empty performance. The algorithm delivered a raised-eyebrow cadence, the verbal equivalent of a painted-on smile—a gesture without the impulse to conceal. This is the core of the paradox: sarcasm and irony are built on a bedrock of paradox—they require a speaker to mean two things at once, to hold a contradictory feeling in their voice and body. A computer cannot hold a contradiction. It can only cycle between two different outputs. It cannot fracture its own will; it can only mask its lack of will with a calculated pose. It’s a perfect pantomime of motive, but it is not the thing itself.

John Barton, co-founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company, once said that “Shakespeare is inexhaustible because he leaves space for the actor’s choice. Every pause, every stress opens a door.” The line is telling: it is choice that keeps the plays alive, not just rhythm. Machines can render a pause, but they cannot choose it. They have no sense of opening a door.

Brook went further. In The Empty Space, he wrote: “A word, a movement, a gesture is empty until it is filled with the life of the actor who chooses it in the moment. That life cannot be faked.” Brook believed theatre was only alive because of its fragility—the possibility of collapse at any instant. An AI-generated Lear might roar flawlessly through every line, but the roar would lack the pulse of possible failure. For Brook, this pulse was theatre itself.

The question of intention extends far beyond Shakespeare. What of a writer like Samuel Beckett, whose characters mutter their way through a landscape of despair? Molloy, in his absurdist journey, seems driven by nothing but habit. Yet even his rambling, fragmented speech is an act of will. He confesses, he tries to make sense, he fails. The very act of muttering is a defiant choice against silence and nonexistence. The words tumble out of him not because of a calculation of probability, but because he is compelled by the fundamental, human need to bear witness to his own suffering. He wants to be heard, even if he doesn’t know why. The machine, by contrast, cannot be propelled by such need; it does not hunger or fear silence.

Borges provides another mirror. In “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote,” he imagines a modern writer who painstakingly rewrites Don Quixote word for word—identical to Cervantes, yet different in meaning because of intention. The same words in a different century become charged with irony. Borges understood that words are never just words; they are vessels for will, for history, for desire. An AI could reproduce Shakespeare endlessly, but reproduction is not creation. The ghost of intent makes the difference.

Shakespeare writes as if to test whether a human voice can hold the charge of intention. Lear’s roar against the storm is the most elemental: Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! It is not just noise; it is betrayal breaking loose. A father disowned, a king humiliated, Lear rages not only at the storm but at the cosmos for his madness and grief. It is a voice already fractured, demanding nature itself collapse. A machine can roar, yes. It can pump bass through speakers, crack like thunder. But it cannot bleed. To speak Lear’s line without the tremor of betrayal is to strip it bare of meaning.

The theater knows this well. In 2019, the Royal Shakespeare Company tested an AI-generated “co-performer” in an experimental production. The system generated lines in response to actors’ improvisations, its voice projected from a disembodied orb above the stage. The critics were fascinated, but they noted the same flaw: the AI could surprise, but it could not intend. The actors on stage carried the burden of consequence; the machine was a clever ghost.

Harold Bloom once wrote that Shakespeare “invented the human as we know it.” What he meant was not that Shakespeare created humanity, but that he revealed in language the contradictions, desires, and paradoxes that shape us. Bloom’s point makes the AI test more daunting: if Shakespeare gave us the map of interiority, then any performance that lacks interiority—any performance without stakes—is not merely deficient, but disqualified.

And then there is Portia, standing in the court of The Merchant of Venice, her voice softening into moral persuasion: The quality of mercy is not strained… It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven. Here intent is everything. Portia is not just lawyering; she is pleading with the very idea of justice, urging her audience to see mercy as divine, inexhaustible. Her belief must be palpable. A machine could roll the syllables like pearls, but eloquence without conviction is nothing but polish. What gives the line its power is the speaker’s faith that mercy belongs to the order of heaven. Without that belief, it’s rhetoric without heart.

Here the cultural anecdote is darker: in 2021, an AI-generated voice was used in a court training exercise to deliver witness testimony. The experiment was intended to test jurors’ susceptibility to persuasion by machine voices. The results were mixed: some jurors reported being swayed, others reported discomfort. What unsettled them was not the quality of the performance but the absence of belief behind it. To be persuaded by words without will felt like manipulation, not argument. One legal scholar described the prospect as “trial by ventriloquism”—justice bent not by human persuasion, but by hollow eloquence.

The ghost in the syntax grows clearest here. Machines can offer us form—eloquence, cadence, even dramatic surprise. What they cannot provide is risk. An actor saying The quality of mercy risks hypocrisy if he fails to embody belief. The line costs him something. A machine, by contrast, cannot fail. Every performance is safe, repeatable, consequence-free. And it is precisely consequence that makes Shakespeare’s words ache.

The paradox is that we, as listeners, are complicit. We project intention onto anything that speaks. We hear a chatbot offer sympathy, and we feel soothed. We hear an AI-generated sonnet, and we marvel at its poignancy. We want to find meaning. We bring the ghost with us. The ELIZA effect—named for one of the earliest chatbots—was discovered in the 1960s: people poured out their souls to a crude program that only echoed their words back. If we can believe that, we can certainly believe in an AI Lear. But the belief is ours, not the machine’s.

Could AI ever cross the threshold? Some technologists argue that with enough layers, enough feedback loops, emergent properties might arise that resemble motive. Perhaps one day a synthetic voice will “choose” to pause differently, to inflect a line with bitterness not because a human trained it so, but because its internal processes made that choice inevitable. If so, would that be intent—or the perfect illusion of intent? The philosophers divide: John Searle insists that no simulation, however perfect, ever achieves the thing itself; Daniel Dennett argues that if behavior is indistinguishable from intent, the distinction may not matter. The stage, however, resists the reduction. A pause can be “indistinguishable” only if we do not ask what it costs the speaker to pause.

The Royal Shakespeare Company, now experimenting with immersive technologies, has been clear-eyed about the limits. Sarah Ellis, their director of digital development, called the company’s work with Intel’s motion capture in The Tempest “21st-century puppetry.” She explained: “The actor is always driving the performance. The technology amplifies, but it cannot replace.” The line could have been written as a manifesto for the AI age: amplification without intention is echo, not expression.

Back in the rehearsal room, the young actor stumbles. His voice cracks slightly on a word, a small imperfection that carries more meaning than a perfect rendition ever could. The director, sitting at the edge of the stage, leans forward, attentive. The line is not flawless, but it is alive. The risk of failure is what makes the moment vibrate.

A machine could reproduce the monologue flawlessly. It could echo a thousand performances until the averages smoothed every edge. But what it could never offer is that tremor. The possibility of failure. The risk that gives intention its bite. For intention is always wager, always consequence, always stake. Without it, words are only words, no matter how well they trip on the tongue.

And that is Shakespeare’s test. Could AI ever deliver his lines with intent? Not unless it learns to bleed, to risk, to believe. Until then, it will remain what it is: syntax without a ghost. We may listen, we may marvel, we may even project a soul into the sound. But when the storm clears, when Romeo cries out, when Portia pleads, it will not be the machine we hear. It will be ourselves, searching for meaning where none was meant.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Essays, History, Literature, Poetry

THE CAFÉ OF ECHOES

Leave a comment

At Caffè Florian, a poet rehearses silence, quarrels with Ruskin, and dines with memory.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 2, 2025

In the autumn of 1883, Robert Browning arrived in Venice not as a poet seeking inspiration, but as a man rehearsing his own silence. He was seventy-one, celebrated in England yet still dogged by the charge of obscurity, more famous abroad for Elizabeth’s immortal sonnets than for his own labyrinths. This essay is not fact but speculation, not history but atmosphere: Browning imagined at his table in Caffè Florian, where mirrors, velvet, and silence conspired with memory to become his final stage.

The boat nudged the dock like a hesitant thought. Browning stepped off with the stiffness of age and the grace of habit. The air smelled of brine and stone, of centuries folded into mist. He paused, cane in hand, and looked toward the dome of the Salute—its silhouette a question mark against the morning haze. Seventy-one years weighted his shoulders, but he stood upright, as though irony itself were a brace. The vaporetto pulled away, its wake dissolving into green silk. He had no luggage beyond a notebook and the ghosts already crowding his mind.

The fog is not weather—it is thought. It thickens, withdraws, curls back upon itself. Even in this cup before me it lingers: caffè corretto, black cut with brandy, bitter and sweet as a line half-finished. Florian is dim at this hour, its velvet walls inhaling the echoes of centuries. Mirrors multiply the room into infinity. Each reflection a fragment of me: old, young, diminished, fractured. A poet made a kaleidoscope.

Byron once sat here, Goethe scribbled here, conspirators whispered “Viva San Marco!” in the Sala del Senato. Today I sit, ordering polenta e schie—shrimp fried in brine—and the taste is lagoon, memory, salt. A plate of amaretti arrives, sugared consolation. The waiter suggests biscotti di mandorla as well, almonds crushed into sweetness. I chew slowly. The polenta is soft, golden, humble—like memory softened by time. The schie, tiny survivors of the lagoon, taste of endurance. Amaretti crumble like old letters, sugared on the outside, hollow at the core. The coffee, thick as ink, stains the tongue with bitterness and clarity. Florian does not serve meals; it serves metaphors.

Across the square, Quadri blazes with chandeliers, an operatic stage flattering the surface. Florian is darker, more inward. Its light is borrowed, its silences long. Quadri is performance for an audience. Florian is monologue.

I open my notebook: Ruskin, copied lines from The Stones of Venice. His voice has been my reluctant companion for thirty years. “We may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot remember without her.” John, always the preacher. He carved morality into marble, turned buttresses into sermons. For him, Venice’s decline was sin. For me, decline is theatre. To remember is not to repent but to perform again. Memory is rehearsal.

The waiter refills my cup. The brandy sharpens thought, steadies irony. I recall my own lines from A Toccata of Galuppi’s:

As for Venice and her people, merely born to bloom and drop,
Here on earth they bore their fruitage, mirth and folly were the crop.

I scolded them then. How Puritan I was. Sitting now at Florian, I envy them. Folly is not failure; it is fruit. Who begrudges the bloom because it falls?

A German couple at the next table mutter Goethe. Their syllables stumble in Venetian air. A waiter tells a French traveler that Byron loved their zabaglione. A young woman sketches the gilded lamp above the doorway, her graphite smudged. She glances at me: “Are you a writer?” “No,” I reply, “a reader of ruins.” She frowns, puzzled. Youth believes silence means emptiness.

Elizabeth drifts through the mirrors. Her eyes catch mine across the velvet gloom. She wrote of Florence in Casa Guidi Windows, calling for liberty. She saw windows; I see walls. She opened; I enclosed. She is remembered for love, I for irony.

Her voice returns in my By the Fire-Side:

Oh, moment one and infinite!
The water slips o’er stock and stone;
The West is tender, yet the night
So soon must veil it, mine alone.

The water slips even now beneath the piazza stones. Tenderness yields to night. And yet—even absence is mine.

I once watched her read Petrarch aloud at Casa Guidi, her voice trembling with belief. She said poetry must lift. I said it must dig. We never resolved it. But in Venice, I hear her voice lifting still, even as I dig. I imagine writing a letter to her, one I will never send: My dearest Ba, Florian multiplies us in its mirrors. You see eternity; I see fragments. You spoke love; I speak echoes. And still, together, we wrote scaffolding for survival.

Ruskin appears across the table, severe, ascetic, with eyes that drill into conscience. He clears his throat: “The first cause of the fall of Venice was her falsehood.” He gestures to Florian’s mirrors. “Deceit multiplied.”

I answer: “John, is not poetry falsehood? Have I not spoken through murderers and monks, adulterers and judges? Masks, every one. But tell me—was the mask less true than the face?”

He insists: “Gothic is the expression of a Christian people, the confession of their faith in the work of their hands.”

I sip. “Faith, carved into cornices, labor engraved in stone. And what has it left us? Ruins. Whereas the Renaissance, with all its duplicity, left us colour, flourish, theatre. I prefer a glowing lie to a tedious truth.”

Ruskin frowns: “The Lamp of Truth must burn in every arch.”

“Truth burns, yes,” I reply, “but it also blinds. Give me the lamp of illusion, John. It casts longer shadows.”

I remember reading Ruskin aloud to Elizabeth once, in Florence, when his Seven Lamps of Architecture was still fresh. She had shaken her head. “He sees sermons in stone,” she said. “I see spirit in breath.” We argued half the night, she quoting Casa Guidi Windows, I muttering that breath is nothing without scaffolding. And here I sit now, scaffolding without breath.

The waiter brings another plate, sets down biscotti di mandorla. Ruskin fades into the mirror. I smile. I have won the debate by eating.

But another ghost sidles into Florian: Byron, lounging with rakish ease, boots muddy from some clandestine canal adventure. He leans back, laughing: “Browning, you scold folly, yet you envy it. Admit it—you envy me.” I do. I envied him once, his thunder, his immediate grip on the world. Venice loved his scandal, his Don Juan verses written between embraces. I admired the music, the power, the theatricality, even as I recoiled from his flamboyance. He used Venice as a symbol of faded grandeur, of moral ambiguity. And have I not done the same, though with less applause? “You were lightning,” I tell him. “I am only the echo.” He winks. “Echoes last longer than thunder.”

And Shelley, gentler, spectral, drifts in too. He never lodged here long—only passed through—but his lyricism breathed Italy. I remember writing Pauline, my first confession of a poet’s soul, under his influence. Shelley gave me metaphysics tuned to music, ideals sung into air. I once wrote a short poem, Memorabilia, about shaking hands with a man who had known him. Imagine—that thrill of proximity! Shelley’s ghost leans toward me now, whispering: “Poetry must lift, Robert, even from ruins.” His words tremble like a lyre string.

I admire Shelley still, though I turned away from his idealism. He lifted; I dug. He soared; I performed. And yet, I cannot deny: his fusion of thought and song shaped me as much as Byron’s theatre. Byron gave me thunder, Shelley gave me music. Elizabeth gave me breath. Ruskin gave me quarrel. And Venice—Venice gives me echo.

I recall In a Gondola, my youthful play with passion:

The soul of music slumbers in the shell
Till waked and kindled by the master’s spell.

How earnest I was. I believed love eternal, dramatised into permanence. Now I know better. Love is architectural. It leaves ruins. One walks among them—not grateful for permanence, but for echo.

The young artist glances at me again, and this time she sketches my hand—gnarled, ink-stained, resting on the cup. I wonder what she sees. Not the poet, surely. Perhaps only a ruin worth recording. Perhaps only another relic of Venice.

Florian’s velvet breathes of centuries. The Sala del Senato still hums with 1848, Daniele Manin declaring the Republic of San Marco. I imagine their whispers lingering, “Viva San Marco!” clinging to the mirrors. Byron’s laughter, Shelley’s sighs, Casanova’s schemes, Goldoni’s wit—all still staged. The velvet absorbs nothing; it amplifies.

Outside, the piazza fills with orchestras. From Florian, a waltz in minor key, introspective, precise, like Strauss slowed by melancholy. From Quadri across the stones, a polka, bright, frivolous, Offenbach reborn in defiance. The melodies clash above San Marco. Venice plays both scores at once, refusing to choose between tragedy and farce.

I attempt a stanza in my head to match their duel, half-jesting, half-serious:

One side mourns with violins, one side laughs with brass,
Yet both belong to Venice, as shadow and mirror pass.
I sit between the melodies, cane planted, glass in hand,
Hearing waltz and polka argue what I cannot command.

The waiter sets down another caffè corretto. I trace the rim of the cup, whisper fragments that may form another book. A line half aloud:

One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break…

I know better. Clouds often do not break. Yet I say it still. Faith is not in triumph, but in endurance.

Elizabeth’s ghost leans across the table, chiding gently. She opened windows, I enclosed walls. She gave hope; I gave puzzles. She left sonnets; I left monologues. She is love’s voice; I am irony’s echo. Together we were scaffold and soul. Alone, I am scaffold only.

The German couple departs, their voices swallowed by velvet. The gondolier outside cries a Byron line again, misremembered. The young woman finishes her sketch, closes her notebook. I scribble a note in Ruskin’s margin: “Dear Mr. Ruskin, Gothic is faith hewn in stone. Renaissance is theatre. And theatre endures longer than sermons.”

I close the notebook, order one last plate—polenta e schie again, salt and brine against the tongue. Outside, gondolas drift like commas in an endless sentence. Mirrors scatter me into fragments. Florian holds me like a stage.

Ruskin’s voice returns from memory: “When we build, let us think that we build for ever.” Poor John. Nothing lasts forever. Not fresco, not marble, not even love. But echoes last. And echo is all art requires.

Tomorrow I depart. The fog will remain. And somewhere in it, a voice—hers, mine, ours—will echo still.

They will read me in fragments, quote me in footnotes, misunderstand me in classrooms. That is the fate of poets. But if one reader hears the echo—hears Elizabeth’s breath in my silence, hears Venice in my irony, hears Byron’s thunder subdued into cadence, hears Shelley’s song distilled into thought—then I have not vanished. I have rehearsed eternity.

And when I return, as I surely shall, though not by will but by death’s courtesy, they will bring my coffin to the Salute. Bells will toll, gondolas will line the water, poets will compose their elegies. They will call me Venice’s last guest, though I was only ever her reader of ruins. Elizabeth will not be there, but I will hear her still, in the fog, in the echo, in the silence.

For art does not conclude. It endures. Like Venice herself, it is scaffolding and soul, ruin and flame, silence and applause. And in the hush that follows, I hear my own final stanza rehearsed already by this city—Ruskin’s stones, Elizabeth’s voice, Byron’s thunder, Shelley’s song, Galuppi’s chords, my reluctant cadence—echoing forever across the water.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Artificial Intelligence, Essays, Opinion, Society, Technology

TOMORROW’S INNER VOICE

Leave a comment

The wager has always been our way of taming uncertainty. But as AI and neural interfaces blur the line between self and market, prediction may become the very texture of consciousness.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 31, 2025

On a Tuesday afternoon in August 2025, Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce announced their engagement. Within hours, it wasn’t just gossip—it was a market. On Polymarket and Calshi, two of the fastest-growing prediction platforms, wagers stacked up like chips on a velvet table. Would they marry before year’s end? The odds hovered at seven percent. Would she release a new album first? Forty-three percent. By Thursday, more than $160,000 had been staked on the couple’s future, the most intimate of milestones transformed into a fluctuating ticker.

It seemed absurd, invasive even. But in another sense, it was deeply familiar. Humans have always sought to pin down the future by betting on it. What Polymarket offers—wrapped in crypto wallets and glossy interfaces—is not a novelty but an inheritance. From the sheep’s liver read on a Mesopotamian altar to a New York saloon stuffed with election bettors, the impulse has always been the same: to turn uncertainty into odds, chaos into numbers. Perhaps the question is not why people bet on Taylor Swift’s wedding, but why we have always bet on everything.

The earliest wagers did not look like markets. They took the form of rituals. In ancient Mesopotamia, priests slaughtered sheep and searched for meaning in the shape of livers. Clay tablets preserve diagrams of these organs, annotated like ledgers, each crease and blemish indexed to a possible fate.

Rome added theater. Before convening the Senate or marching to war, augurs stood in public squares, staffs raised to the sky, interpreting the flight of birds. Were they flying left or right, higher or lower? The ritual mattered not because birds were reliable but because the people believed in the interpretation. If the crowd accepted the omen, the decision gained legitimacy. Omens were opinion polls dressed as divine signs.

In China, emperors used lotteries to fund walls and armies. Citizens bought slips not only for the chance of reward but as gestures of allegiance. Officials monitored the volume of tickets sold as a proxy for morale. A sluggish lottery was a warning. A strong one signaled confidence in the dynasty. Already the line between chance and governance had blurred.

By the time of the Romans, the act of betting had become spectacle. Crowds at the Circus Maximus wagered on chariot teams as passionately as they fought over bread rations. Augustus himself is said to have placed bets, his imperial participation aligning him with the people’s pleasures. The wager became both entertainment and a barometer of loyalty.

In the Middle Ages, nobles bet on jousts and duels—athletic contests that doubled as political theater. Centuries later, Americans would do the same with elections.

From 1868 to 1940, betting on presidential races was so widespread in New York City that newspapers published odds daily. In some years, more money changed hands on elections than on Wall Street stocks. Political operatives studied odds to recalibrate campaigns; traders used them to hedge portfolios. Newspapers treated them as forecasts long before Gallup offered a scientific poll.

Henry David Thoreau, wry as ever, remarked in 1848 that “all voting is a sort of gaming, and betting naturally accompanies it.” Democracy, he sensed, had always carried the logic of the wager.

Speculation could even become a war barometer. During the Civil War, Northern and Southern financiers wagered on battles, their bets rippling into bond prices. Markets absorbed rumors of victory and defeat, translating them into confidence or panic. Even in war, betting doubled as intelligence.

London coffeehouses of the seventeenth century were thick with smoke and speculation. At Lloyd’s Coffee House, merchants laid odds on whether ships returning from Calcutta or Jamaica would survive storms or pirates. A captain who bet against his own voyage signaled doubt in his vessel; a merchant who wagered heavily on safe passage broadcast his confidence.

Bets were chatter, but they were also information. From that chatter grew contracts, and from contracts an institution: Lloyd’s of London, a global system for pricing risk born from gamblers’ scribbles.

The wager was always a confession disguised as a gamble.

At times, it became a confession of ideology itself. In 1890s Paris, as the Dreyfus Affair tore the country apart, the Bourse became a theater of sentiment. Rumors of Captain Alfred Dreyfus’s guilt or innocence rattled markets; speculators traded not just on stocks but on the tides of anti-Semitic hysteria and republican resolve. A bond’s fluctuation was no longer only a matter of fiscal calculation; it was a measure of conviction. The betting became a proxy for belief, ideology priced to the centime.

Speculation, once confined to arenas and exchanges, had become a shadow archive of history itself: ideology, rumor, and geopolitics priced in real time.

The pattern repeated in the spring of 2003, when oil futures spiked and collapsed in rhythm with whispers from the Pentagon about an imminent invasion of Iraq. Traders speculated on troop movements as if they were commodities, watching futures surge with every leak. Intelligence agencies themselves monitored the markets, scanning them for signs of insider chatter. What the generals concealed, the tickers betrayed.

And again, in 2020, before governments announced lockdowns or vaccines, online prediction communities like Metaculus and Polymarket hosted wagers on timelines and death tolls. The platforms updated in real time while official agencies hesitated, turning speculation into a faster barometer of crisis. For some, this was proof that markets could outpace institutions. For others, it was a grim reminder that panic can masquerade as foresight.

Across centuries, the wager has evolved—from sacred ritual to speculative instrument, from augury to algorithm. But the impulse remains unchanged: to tame uncertainty by pricing it.

Already, corporations glance nervously at markets before moving. In a boardroom, an executive marshals internal data to argue for a product launch. A rival flips open a laptop and cites Polymarket odds. The CEO hesitates, then sides with the market. Internal expertise gives way to external consensus. It is not only stockholders who are consulted; it is the amorphous wisdom—or rumor—of the crowd.

Elsewhere, a school principal prepares to hire a teacher. Before signing, she checks a dashboard: odds of burnout in her district, odds of state funding cuts. The candidate’s résumé is strong, but the numbers nudge her hand. A human judgment filtered through speculative sentiment.

Consider, too, the private life of a woman offered a new job in publishing. She is excited, but when she checks her phone, a prediction market shows a seventy percent chance of recession in her sector within a year. She hesitates. What was once a matter of instinct and desire becomes an exercise in probability. Does she trust her ambition, or the odds that others have staked? Agency shifts from the self to the algorithmic consensus of strangers.

But screens are only the beginning. The next frontier is not what we see—but what we think.

Elon Musk and others envision brain–computer interfaces, devices that thread electrodes into the cortex to merge human and machine. At first they promise therapy: restoring speech, easing paralysis. But soon they evolve into something else—cognitive enhancement. Memory, learning, communication—augmented not by recall but by direct data exchange.

With them, prediction enters the mind. No longer consulted, but whispered. Odds not on a dashboard but in a thought. A subtle pulse tells you: forty-eight percent chance of failure if you speak now. Eighty-two percent likelihood of reconciliation if you apologize.

The intimacy is staggering, the authority absolute. Once the market lives in your head, how do you distinguish its voice from your own?

Morning begins with a calibration: you wake groggy, your neural oscillations sluggish. Cortical desynchronization detected, the AI murmurs. Odds of a productive morning: thirty-eight percent. Delay high-stakes decisions until eleven twenty. Somewhere, traders bet on whether you will complete your priority task before noon.

You attempt meditation, but your attention flickers. Theta wave instability detected. Odds of post-session clarity: twenty-two percent. Even your drifting mind is an asset class.

You prepare to call a friend. Amygdala priming indicates latent anxiety. Odds of conflict: forty-one percent. The market speculates: will the call end in laughter, tension, or ghosting?

Later, you sit to write. Prefrontal cortex activation strong. Flow state imminent. Odds of sustained focus: seventy-eight percent. Invisible wagers ride on whether you exceed your word count or spiral into distraction.

Every act is annotated. You reach for a sugary snack: sixty-four percent chance of a crash—consider protein instead. You open a philosophical novel: eighty-three percent likelihood of existential resonance. You start a new series: ninety-one percent chance of binge. You meet someone new: oxytocin spike detected, mutual attraction seventy-six percent. Traders rush to price the second date.

Even sleep is speculated upon: cortisol elevated, odds of restorative rest twenty-nine percent. When you stare out the window, lost in thought, the voice returns: neural signature suggests existential drift—sixty-seven percent chance of journaling.

Life itself becomes a portfolio of wagers, each gesture accompanied by probabilities, every desire shadowed by an odds line. The wager is no longer a confession disguised as a gamble; it is the texture of consciousness.

But what does this do to freedom? Why risk a decision when the odds already warn against it? Why trust instinct when probability has been crowdsourced, calculated, and priced?

In a world where AI prediction markets orbit us like moons—visible, gravitational, inescapable—they exert a quiet pull on every choice. The odds become not just a reflection of possibility, but a gravitational field around the will. You don’t decide—you drift. You don’t choose—you comply. The future, once a mystery to be met with courage or curiosity, becomes a spreadsheet of probabilities, each cell whispering what you’re likely to do before you’ve done it.

And yet, occasionally, someone ignores the odds. They call the friend despite the risk, take the job despite the recession forecast, fall in love despite the warning. These moments—irrational, defiant—are not errors. They are reminders that freedom, however fragile, still flickers beneath the algorithm’s gaze. The human spirit resists being priced.

It is tempting to dismiss wagers on Swift and Kelce as frivolous. But triviality has always been the apprenticeship of speculation. Gladiators prepared Romans for imperial augurs; horse races accustomed Britons to betting before elections did. Once speculation becomes habitual, it migrates into weightier domains. Already corporations lean on it, intelligence agencies monitor it, and politicians quietly consult it. Soon, perhaps, individuals themselves will hear it as an inner voice, their days narrated in probabilities.

From the sheep’s liver to the Paris Bourse, from Thoreau’s wry observation to Swift’s engagement, the continuity is unmistakable: speculation is not a vice at the margins but a recurring strategy for confronting the terror of uncertainty. What has changed is its saturation. Never before have individuals been able to wager on every event in their lives, in real time, with odds updating every second. Never before has speculation so closely resembled prophecy.

And perhaps prophecy itself is only another wager. The augur’s birds, the flickering dashboards—neither more reliable than the other. Both are confessions disguised as foresight. We call them signs, markets, probabilities, but they are all variations on the same ancient act: trying to read tomorrow in the entrails of today.

So the true wager may not be on Swift’s wedding or the next presidential election. It may be on whether we can resist letting the market of prediction consume the mystery of the future altogether. Because once the odds exist—once they orbit our lives like moons, or whisper themselves directly into our thoughts—who among us can look away?

Who among us can still believe the future is ours to shape?

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Essays, Government, Law, Opinion, Politics, Reviews

SHADOW GOVERNANCE, ACCELERATED

Leave a comment

How an asynchronous presidency exploits the gap between platform time and constitutional time to bend institutions before the law can catch up.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 30, 2025

On a sweltering August afternoon in Washington, the line to the federal courthouse wraps around the block like a nervous necklace. Heat shimmers off the stone; gnats drift in lazy constellations above the security checkpoint. Inside, air-conditioning works harder than dignity, and the benches fill with reporters who’ve perfected the face that precedes calamity. A clerk calls the room to order. The judge adjusts her glasses. Counsel step to the lectern as if crossing a narrow bridge over fast water. Then the question—plain, improbable—arrives: can a president’s social-media post count as legal notice to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve?

What does it mean when the forum for that answer is a courtroom and the forum for the action was a feed? The gulf is not merely spatial. One realm runs on filings, exhibits, transcripts—the slow grammar of law. The other runs on velocity and spectacle, where a single post can crowd out a dozen briefings. The presidency has always tested its borders, but this one has learned a new technique: act first in public at speed; force the law to catch up in private at length. It is power practiced asynchronously—governance that unfolds on different clocks, with different rewards.

Call it latency as strategy. Declare a cause on a platform; label the declaration due process; make the firing a fact; usher the lawyers in after to domesticate what has already happened. The point is not to win doctrine immediately. The point is to harvest the days and weeks when a decision stands as reality while the courts begin their pilgrimage toward judgment. If constitutional time is meticulous, platform time is ruthless, and the space between them is policy.

In the hearing, the administration’s lawyer stands to argue that the Federal Reserve Act says “for cause” and leaves the rest to the president’s judgment. Why, he asks, should a court pour old meanings into new words? The statutory text is lean; executive discretion is broad. On the other side, counsel for Lisa Cook speaks a language almost quaint in the rapid glare of the moment: independence, notice, a chance to be heard—dignities that exist precisely to slow the hand that wields them. The judge nods, frowns, asks what independence means for an institution the law never designed to be dragged at the pace of a trending topic. Is the statute a rail to grip, or a ribbon to stretch?

When the hearing breaks, the stream outside is already three headlines ahead. Down the hill, near the White House, a combat veteran strikes a match to the hem of a flag. Fire crawls like handwriting. Two hours earlier, the president signed an executive order urging prosecutions for acts of flag “desecration” under “content-neutral” laws—no frontal attack on the First Amendment’s protection of symbolic speech, only an invitation to ticket for the flame, not the message. Is that a clever accommodation to precedent, or a dare?

The veteran knows the history; anyone who has watched the long argument over Texas v. Johnson does. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that burning the flag as protest, however detestable to many, is speech. Yet symbolic speech lives in real space, and real space has ordinances: no open flames without a permit, no fires on federal property, no damage to parks. The order makes a temporal bet: ticket now; litigate later. The government may lose the grand constitutional fight, but it may win smaller battles quick enough to chill an afternoon’s protest. In the gap between the moment and the merits, who blinks first?

Back at the courthouse, a reporter asks a pragmatic question: even if the president can’t fire a Fed governor for mere allegations, will any of this matter for interest rates? Not in September, the expert shrugs. The committee is larger than one vote, dissent is rare. But calendars have leverage. February—when reappointments can shift the composition of the body that sets the price of money—looms larger than any single meeting. If the decision remains in place long enough, the victory is secured by time rather than law. Isn’t that the whole design?

Administration lawyers never say it so plainly. They don’t have to. The structure does the talking. Announce “cause” in a forum that rewards proclamation; treat the announcement as notice; act; then invite the courts to reverse under emergency standards designed to be cautious. Even a win for independence later may arrive late enough to be moot. In the arithmetic of acceleration, delay is not neutral; it is bounty.

If this sounds like a single episode, it is not. The same rhythm animates the executive order on flag burning. On paper, it bows to precedent; in practice, it asks police and prosecutors to find neutral hooks fast enough to produce a headline, a citation, an arrest photo. Months later, the legal machine may say, as it must, that the burning was protected and the charge pretextual. But how many will light a match the next day, knowing the ticket will be instant and the vindication slow?

And it animates something quiet but immense: the cancellation of thousands of research grants at the National Institutes of Health because proposals with words like “diversity,” “equity,” or “gender” no longer fit the administration’s politics. A district judge calls the cuts discriminatory. On the way to appeal, the litigation splits like a river around a rock: one channel to test the legality of the policy guidance, another to ask for money in a tribunal known mostly to contractors and procurement lawyers. The Supreme Court steps in on an emergency basis and says, for now, the money shouldn’t flow. Why should taxpayers pay today for projects that might be unlawful tomorrow?

Because science does not pause on command. Because a lab is not a spreadsheet but a choreography of schedules and salaries and protocols that cannot be put on ice for a season. Because a freeze that looks tidy in a docket entry becomes layoffs and abandoned lines of research in ordinary rooms with humming incubators. The Court’s concern is neat—what if the government cannot claw back dollars later?—but the neatness ignores what time does to fragile ecosystems. What is a remedy worth when the experiment that needed it has already died?

It is tempting to divide all this along ideological lines, to tally winners and losers as if the story were primarily about whose agenda prevails. But ideology is not the tool that fits. Time is. One clock measures orders, posts, firings, cancellations—the moves that define a day’s narrative. Another measures notice, hearing, record, reason—the moves by which a republic persuades itself that force has been tamed by law. When the first clock is always fast and the second is always slow, acceleration becomes a kind of authority in itself. Isn’t that the simplest way to understand what’s happening—that speed is taking up residence where statute once did?

Consider again the hearing. The administration’s brief is lean, the statute is shorter still, and the claim is stark: “for cause” is what the president says it is. To demand more—to import the old triad of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” to insist on a pre-removal process—is, in this telling, to romanticize independence and hobble accountability. Yet independence is not romance. It is architecture—an effort to keep central banking from becoming another branch of daily politics. If “for cause” becomes a slogan that can be made true after the fact by the simple act of saying it early and everywhere, what remains of the cordon the law tried to draw?

The judge knows this, and also knows the constraints of her role. Emergency relief is meant to preserve the status quo, not rewrite the world. But what is the status quo when the action has already been taken? How do you freeze a river that has been diverted upstream? The presidency practices motion, and then asks the judiciary for patience. Can a court restore a person to an office as easily as a timeline restored a post? Can an injunction rewind a vote composition that turned while the case wound its way forward?

Meanwhile, in the park across from the White House, the veteran’s fire has gone out. The citations are not for speech, officials insist, but for the flame and the scarring of public property. Somewhere between these statements and the executive order that prompted them sits the puzzle of pretext. If a president announces that he seeks to stop a type of speech and urges prosecutors to deploy neutral laws to do so, isn’t the neutrality already contaminated? The doctrine can handle the distinction. But the doctrine’s victory will arrive, at best, months later, and the message lands now: the state is watching, and the nearest hook will serve.

The research world hears its own version of that message. Grants are not gifts; they are contracts, explicit commitments that enable work across years. When a government cancels them mid-stream for political reasons and the courts respond by asking litigants to queue in separate lines—legality here, money there—the signal is not subtle. A promise from the state is provisional. A project can become a pawn. If the administration can accelerate the cut, and the law can only accelerate the analysis, who chooses a life’s work inside such volatility?

There are names for this pattern that sound technocratic—“latency arbitrage,” “platform time versus constitutional time”—and they are accurate without being sufficient. The deeper truth is simpler: a republic’s most reliable tools to restrain power are exactly the tools an accelerated executive least wants to use. Notice means warning; hearing means friction; record means reasons; reason means vulnerability. If you can do without them today and answer for their absence tomorrow, why wouldn’t you?

Well, because the institutions you bend today may be the ones you need intact when the wind shifts. A central bank nudged toward loyalty ceases to be ballast in a storm and becomes a sail. A public square patrolled by pretext breeds fewer peaceful protests and more brittle ones. A research ecosystem that learns that politics can zero out the future will deliver fewer cures and more exits. Isn’t it a curious form of victory that leaves you poorer in the very capacities that make governing possible?

Which brings the story back, inevitably, to process. Process is dull in the way bridges are dull—unnoticed until they fail. The seduction of speed lies in its drama: the crispness of the order, the sting of the arrest, the satisfying finality of a cancellation spreadsheet. Process is the opposite of drama. It is the insistence that power is obliged to explain itself before it acts, to create a record that can be tested, to bear, on the front end, the time it would rather push to the back. Why does that matter now? Because the tactic on display is not merely to defeat process, but to displace it—to make its protections arrive as afterthoughts, paper bandages for facts on the ground.

There are ways to close the gap. The law can require that insulated offices come with front-loaded protections: written notice of cause, an opportunity to respond, an on-the-record hearing before removal becomes effective, and automatic temporary relief if the dispute proceeds to court. The Department of Justice can be made to certify, in writing and in real time, that any arrest touching expressive conduct was green-lighted without regard to viewpoint, and courts can be given an expedited path to vacate citations when pretext is shown—not in a season, but in a week. Mid-cycle grant cancellations can trigger bridge funding and a short status-quo injunction as the default, with the government bearing the burden to prove genuine exigency. Even the Supreme Court can add small guardrails to its emergencies: reasoned, public minutes; sunset dates that force merits briefing on an actual clock rather than letting temporary orders congeal into policy by inertia. Would any of this slow governance? Yes. That is the point.

These are technical moves to answer a political technique, temporal fixes for a temporal hack. They do not hobble the presidency; they resynchronize it with the law. More than doctrine, they aim to withdraw the dividend that acceleration now pays: the days and weeks when action rules unchallenged simply because it happened first.

The images persist. A clerk emerges from chambers carrying two cardboard boxes heavy enough to bow in the middle: motions, exhibits, transcripts—the record, dense and unglamorous, the way reality usually is. The clerk descends the marble steps carefully because there is no other way to do it without spilling the case on the stairs. Across town, another draft order blinks on a screen in a bright room. One world moves on arms and gravity; the other moves on keystrokes and publish buttons. Which will shape the country more?

It is easy to say the law can win on the merits—often, it can. It is harder to say the law can win on time. If we let the presidency define the day with a cascade of acts and then consign the republic’s answer to months of briefs and polite argument, we will continue to confuse the absence of immediate correction with consent. The choice is not between nimbleness and stodginess; it is between a politics that cashes the check before anyone can read it and a politics that pauses long enough to ask what the money is for.

And so, one more question, the kind that lingers after the cameras have left: in a government becoming fluent in acceleration, can we persuade ourselves that synchronization is not obstruction but care? The future of independence, of speech, of public knowledge may turn less on who writes the next order than on whether we are willing to match speed with proportionate process—so that when power moves fast, law is not a distant echo but a present tense. Outside the courthouse, the air is still hot. The boxes are still heavy. The steps are still steep. There is a way to carry them, and there is a way to drop them, and the difference, just now, is the measure of our self-government.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Criticism, Essays, History, Literature

THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE MODERN THRILLER

Leave a comment

Before Hitchcock or Highsmith, there was Pietro Aretino—Renaissance Venice’s scandalous satirist who turned gossip into cliffhangers and obscenity into art. The man who terrified popes may also have invented the modern thriller.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 29, 2025

Venice, 1537

The candle gutters in its brass dish, casting a crooked halo on the damp walls of a salon off the Grand Canal. Pietro Aretino leans back in his chair, one boot propped on a velvet footstool, his voice curling through the smoke like a blade. He does not write—he dictates. A scribe, young and ink-stained, hunches over parchment, trying to keep pace. The letter—addressed, perhaps, to a cardinal, perhaps to a painter—will contain more than pleasantries. It will contain a threat, veiled as an observation, wrapped in a joke.

“Princes fear me more than the plague,” Aretino murmurs, eyes half-lidded. “For I do not kill bodies—I murder reputations.”

The scribe pauses, startled. Aretino waves him on. “Write it. Let them tremble.”

Tomorrow, this page will cross the lagoon, board a courier’s horse, and ignite tremors in Rome or Paris. It may be copied, whispered, condemned. It may be burned. But it will be read.

It was Aretino’s genius to recognize that scandal was not merely gossip—it was architecture. A scaffolding of insinuation and revelation designed to leave its victim dangling. In his six volumes of Lettere (1537–1557), he sharpened that architecture to a fine point. Written to popes, kings, artists, and courtesans, the letters are part autobiography, part political commentary, and wholly performance. “I speak to the powerful as I would to a neighbor,” he crowed, “for truth makes no bow.” What terrified his recipients was not what he said but what he withheld. His words worked like cliffhangers: each letter a suspense novel in miniature.

Aretino liked to imagine himself not born in Arezzo, as the records claimed, but in his own tongue. The myth suited him: a man conjured out of ink and scandal rather than flesh and baptismal water. By the 1520s, he was notorious as the flagello dei principi—the scourge of princes. The title was not a label pinned on him by enemies; it was one he cultivated, polished, and wore like armor. “I carry more lives in my inkpot than the hangman in his noose,” he declared, and few doubted it.

His life was a play in which he cast himself as both author and protagonist. When Pope Clement VII hesitated to pay him, Aretino wrote slyly, “Your Holiness, whose charity is beyond compare, surely requires no reminder of the poverty that afflicts your devoted servant.” In another letter, he praised the Pope’s mercy while threatening to reveal “those excesses which Rome whispers but dares not record.” He lived by double edge: each compliment a prelude, each benediction a warning.

The tactic was not confined to popes. To Michelangelo he sent fulsome admiration: “Your brush moves like lightning, striking down the pride of the ancients.” To Titian he became impresario, writing to Francis I of France that no royal gallery could be complete without Titian’s brush. But the same pen could turn against friend or patron in an instant. A single phrase from Aretino could undo a reputation; a withheld rumor could ruin a night’s sleep.

His enemies often answered with violence. In Rome, in 1525, mercenaries burst into his lodgings after he lampooned the papal indulgence sellers in his Frottole. They dragged him into the street and beat him nearly to death. Neighbors recalled him crawling, bloodied, back to his rooms. Later, when asked why he returned to writing almost immediately, he grinned through broken teeth: “Even death cannot silence a tongue as sharp as mine.” The scars became his punctuation. “My scars,” he wrote in the Lettere, “are the punctuation marks of my story.”

Aretino’s letters functioned like serialized thrillers. Each installment built tension, each cliffhanger left its audience half-terrified, half-delighted. He understood that suggestion could be more devastating than revelation, that anticipation was more dangerous than disclosure. He used ambiguity as a weapon, seeding his pages with conditional phrases: “It is said,” “One hears,” “Were I less discreet…” They were not evasions. They were traps.

One courtier compared the experience to “sitting at supper and finding the meat still bleeding.” The reader was implicated, made complicit in the scandal’s unfolding. Aretino’s genius lay in turning the audience into co-conspirators.

And Venice—city of masks, labyrinths, and whispered betrayals—was practically designed as the birthplace of the thriller. Long before the genre had a name, its ingredients were already steeping in the canals: duplicity, desire, surveillance, and the ever-present threat of exposure. Aretino didn’t write thrillers in form, but he mastered their emotional architecture. His letters were suspenseful, his dialogues scandalous, his persona a walking cliffhanger. Venice gave him the perfect mise-en-scène: a place where truth wore a disguise and reputation was currency. The city itself functioned like a thriller plot—beautiful on the surface, treacherous underneath.

And consider the mechanics: the masked ball becomes the thriller’s false identity. The gondola ride at midnight becomes the covert rendezvous. The whispered rumor in a candlelit salon becomes the inciting incident. The Contarini garden becomes the secret meeting place where alliances shift and truths unravel. It is no accident that Henry James, Daphne du Maurier, Patricia Highsmith, and Donna Leon all returned to Venice when they wanted to explore psychological tension and moral ambiguity. The city doesn’t just host thrillers—it is one.

Imagine a summer evening in 1537. The garden is fragrant with jasmine and fig. Aretino reclines beneath a pergola, flanked by Titian and a Greek scholar from Crete. A courtesan named Nanna pours wine into silver cups.

“You paint gods,” Aretino says to Titian, “but I paint men. And men are far more dangerous.”

Titian chuckles. “Gods do not pay commissions.”

The scholar leans in. “And men do not forgive.”

Nanna smirks, leaning on the marble balustrade. “And yet men pay both of you—in gold for their portraits, in secrets for his letters.”

Aretino raises his cup. “Which is why I never ask forgiveness. Only attention.”

Venice itself became a character: beautiful, deceptive, morally ambiguous. Its canals mirrored the duplicity of its citizens. Its masks—literal and figurative—echoed Aretino’s own performative identity.

But letters were only one weapon. In 1527, Aretino detonated another: the Sonetti lussuriosi, written to accompany Giulio Romano’s engravings known as I Modi. The sonnets made no attempt at discretion. In one, a woman gasps mid-embrace, “Oh God, if this be sin, then let me sin forever!” In another, a lover interrupts her partner’s poetic boasting with the sharp command: “Speak less and thrust more.” The verses shocked even worldly Rome. Pope Clement VII banned the work, copies were burned, and Aretino’s name became synonymous with obscenity. Yet suppression only heightened its allure. “My verses are daggers,” he later said, “that caress before they strike.”

He followed with the Ragionamenti (1534–1536), dialogues between prostitutes and matrons that turned confession into carnival. In the Dialogo della Nanna e della Antonia, one woman scoffs, “The cardinals pray with their lips while their hands wander beneath the skirts.” In the Dialogo nel quale la Nanna insegna a la Pippa, the older courtesan instructs a young girl in survival: “A woman must learn to wield her body as men wield their swords.” These were not just bawdy jokes but philosophical inversions. They exposed hypocrisy with laughter and turned vice into discourse.

His comedies struck with equal force. In La Cortigiana (1534), a satire of Roman society, a friar assures his audience: “Do as I say, not as I do—for my sins are a privilege of office.” In Il Marescalco, a groom forced into marriage laments, “Better to wed a sword than a wife, for steel at least does not betray.” In La Talanta, he boasted with characteristic swagger: “My tongue is the scourge of princes and the trumpet of truth.” These plays were not staged fantasies but mirrors held to the world. Rome and Venice recognized themselves, and recoiled.

Even his occasional pieces carried teeth. During the sack of Rome, he penned the Frottole (1527), short verses filled with bitter humor: “The Germans loot the altars, the Spaniards strip the nuns, and Christ hides his face behind the clouds.” Earlier still, in Il Testamento dell’Elefante Hanno (1516), he composed a mock will for Pope Leo X’s pet elephant. The beast bequeathed its tusks to the cardinals and its dung to the faithful: “For the people, my eternal gift, what Rome already feeds them daily.” Juvenile, grotesque, and brilliant, it set the tone for a lifetime of satiric violence.

Was Aretino a moralist or a manipulator? The question haunts his legacy. Like Machiavelli, he understood power. Like Montaigne, he understood performance. His satire was not disinterested—it was strategic. He exposed corruption, yes, but he also profited from it. His critics accused him of blackmail, of cruelty, of vulgarity. But Aretino saw himself as a mirror. “I do not invent,” he wrote, “I reflect.” The discomfort lay not in his words, but in their accuracy.

The dilemma still feels modern. When does exposure serve truth, and when does it become spectacle? Is scandal a form of justice—or just another form of entertainment? To read Aretino is to feel that question sharpen into relevance. He knew the intoxicating pleasure of watching a hypocrite stripped bare, but he also knew the profit of keeping the knife just shy of the skin.

For centuries, Aretino was dismissed as a pornographer and blackmailer, an obscene footnote beside Petrarch and Ariosto. But scandal has a way of surviving. Nineteenth-century Romantics rediscovered him as a prophet of modernity. Today, critics trace his fingerprints across satire, reportage, and fiction. Balzac’s Parisian intrigues, Wilde’s aesthetic scandals, Patricia Highsmith’s Venetian thrillers—all echo Aretino’s mix of desire and dread.

And then there are the heirs who claimed him outright. The Marquis de Sade, that relentless anatomist of transgression, drew directly from Aretino’s playbook. Sade’s philosophical obscenities echo the structures of the Ragionamenti and the Sonetti lussuriosi: dialogues in which sexuality becomes both performance and interrogation, the bed a courtroom, the embrace a cross-examination. Like Aretino, Sade deployed eroticism not only to shock but to dismantle. Both men wielded obscenity as an intellectual weapon, stripping religion and politics of their sanctity by exposing their hypocrisies in the stark light of desire. When Sade has his libertines sneer at clerics who preach chastity while gorging on pleasure, he repeats Aretino’s barbed observation from a century earlier: “The cardinals pray with their lips while their hands wander beneath the skirts.”

Sade shared Aretino’s radical anti-clericalism, his love of dialogue as a tool of exposure, and his cultivation of notoriety as a literary strategy. The “Divine Marquis” may have been locked in the Bastille, but he carried in his cell Aretino’s scandalous legacy: the belief that obscenity could be philosophy, that provocation itself could be a mode of truth-telling.

Three centuries later, Guillaume Apollinaire would rediscover Aretino with a different eye. In the early twentieth century, Apollinaire praised him as a master who combined “the obscene with the sublime.” In works like Les Onze Mille Verges (The Eleven Thousand Rods), Apollinaire blurred the line between pornography and poetry, scandal and art, just as Aretino had done in his Venetian salons. He admired Aretino’s ability to turn audacity into literature, to make provocation itself a kind of aesthetic. “There is,” Apollinaire wrote of Aretino, “a grandeur in obscenity when it reveals the soul of an age.”

Apollinaire saw in Aretino a precedent for his own experiments: erotic audacity, satirical edge, literary innovation, and a fascination with scandal as aesthetic principle. Where Aretino staged dialogues between courtesans and matrons, Apollinaire crafted delirious erotic parables; where Aretino mocked clerics in his comedies, Apollinaire mocked bourgeois morality with surreal extravagance. Both men made literature dangerous again—texts that could be banned, burned, whispered, yet still survive.

In this long genealogy, Aretino is less a Renaissance curiosity than the origin point of a scandalous tradition that threads through Sade’s prisons, Apollinaire’s Paris, and our own scandal-hungry media. Each recognized that literature need not be safe, that scandal could be structure, that provocation could outlast sermons.

Most uncanny is how current Aretino feels. “What is whispered,” he mused in the Ragionamenti, “weighs more than what is spoken.” That line could be Twitter’s motto, or the tagline of an exposé-driven news cycle. Aretino would have thrived online: the cryptic tweet, the artful insinuation, the screenshot without context. He would have understood the logic of cancel culture, the way scandal circulates as performance, the way innuendo becomes currency.

Imagine him at the end, older now, dictating one last letter. The room is quieter, the scars deeper, the city outside still murmuring with intrigue. He knows his enemies wait for him to fall silent, but he also knows the page will outlive him. The candlelight no longer dances—it trembles. His scribe, older now too, no longer rushes. They have learned the rhythm of Aretino’s menace: slow, deliberate, inevitable.

He pauses mid-sentence, gazing out toward the lagoon. The bells of San Zanipolo toll the hour. A gondola glides past, its oars whispering against the water. Somewhere in the Palazzo Contarini dal Zaffo garden, jasmine blooms in the dark.

“Write this,” he says finally. “To be feared is to be remembered. To be remembered is to be read.”

The scribe hesitates. “And to be read?”

Aretino smiles. “Is to survive.”

He signs his name with a flourish—Pietro Aretino—and sets the quill down. The letter will travel, as they always have, faster than truth and deeper than rumor. It will be copied, misquoted, condemned, and preserved. It will be read by those who hate him and those who become him.

Centuries later, in a world of digital whispers and algorithmic outrage, his voice still echoes. In every scandal that unfolds like a story, in every tweet that wounds like a dagger, in every exposé that trembles with withheld revelation—Aretino is there. Not as ghost, but as architect. He understood what we are still learning: that scandal is not the opposite of art. It is one of its oldest forms. And in the hands of a master, it becomes not just spectacle, but structure. Not just provocation, but prophecy.

The trumpet still sounds. The question is not whether we hear it. The question is whether we recognize the tune.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Augmented Reality, Criticism, Essays, Literature, Philosophy, Travel

Möbius Dreams: A Journey Of Identity Without End

Leave a comment

From Nietzsche’s wanderings to Brodsky’s winters in Venice, identity loops like a Möbius strip—and augmented reality may carry those returns to us all.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 25, 2025

It begins, as so many pilgrimages of mind and imagination do, in Italy. To step into one of its cities—Florence with its domes, Rome with its ruins, Venice with its waters—is to experience time folding over itself. Stones are worn by centuries of feet; bells still toll hours as they did five hundred years ago; water mirrors façades that have witnessed empires rise and fall. Italy resists linearity. It does not advance from one stage to another; it loops, bends, recurs. For those who enter it, identity itself begins to feel less like a straight line than like a Möbius strip—a single surface twisting back on itself, where past and present, memory and desire, fold into one another.

Friedrich Nietzsche felt that pull most keenly. His journeys through Italy in the 1870s and 1880s were more than therapeutic sojourns for his fragile health; they were laboratories for thought. He spent time in Sorrento, where the Mediterranean air and lemon groves framed his writing of Human, All Too Human. In Genoa, he walked the cliffs above the port, watching the sun rise and fall in a rhythm that struck him as recurrence itself. In Turin, under its grand porticoes, he composed letters and aphorisms before his final collapse in 1889. And in Venice, he found a strange equilibrium between the city’s music, its tides, and his own restlessness. To his confidant Peter Gast, he wrote: “When I seek another word for ‘music,’ I never find any other word than ‘Venice.’” The gondoliers’ calls, the bells of San Marco, the lapping water—all repeated endlessly, yet never the same, embodying the thought that came to define him: the eternal return.

For Nietzsche, Italy was not a backdrop but a surface on which recurrence became tangible. Each city was a half-twist in the strip of his identity: Sorrento’s clarity, Genoa’s intensity, Turin’s collapse, Venice’s rhythm. He sensed that to live authentically meant to live as though each moment must be lived again and again. Italy, with its cycles of light, water, and bells, made that philosophy palpable.

Henry James —an American expatriate author with a different temperament—also found Italy less a destination than a structure. His Italian Hours (1909) reveals both rapture and unease. “The mere use of one’s eyes in Italy is happiness enough,” he confessed, yet he described Venice as “half fairy tale, half trap.” The city delighted and unsettled him in equal measure. He wandered Rome’s ruins, Florence’s galleries, Venice’s piazzas, and found that they all embodied a peculiar temporal layering—what he called “a museum of itself.” Italy was not history frozen; it was history repeating, haunting, resurfacing.

James’s fiction reflects that same looping structure. In The Aspern Papers, an obsessive narrator circles endlessly around an old woman’s letters, desperate to claim them, caught in a cycle of desire and denial. In The Portrait of a Lady, Isabel Archer discovers that the freedom she once thought she had secured returns as entrapment; her choices loop back on her with tragic inevitability. Even James’s prose mirrors the Möbius curve: sentences curl and return, digress and double back, before pushing forward. Reading James can feel like walking Venetian alleys—you arrive, but only by detour.

Joseph Brodsky, awarded the 1987 Nobel Prize in Literature after being exiled from the Soviet Union in 1972, found in Venice a winter refuge that became ritual. Each January he returned, until his death in 1996, and from those returns came Watermark (1992), a prose meditation that circles like the canals it describes. “Every January I went to Venice, the city of water, the city of mirrors, perhaps the city of illusions,” he wrote. Fog was his companion, “the city’s most faithful ghost.” Brodsky’s Venice was not Nietzsche’s radiant summer or James’s bustling salons. It was a city of silence, damp, reflection—a mirror to exile itself.

He repeated his returns like liturgy: sitting in the Caffè Florian, notebook in hand, crossing the Piazza San Marco through fog so dense the basilica dissolved, watching the lagoon become indistinguishable from the sky. Each January was the same, and yet not. Exile ensured that Russia was always present in absence, and Venice, indifferent to his grief yet faithful in its recurrence, became his Möbius surface. Each year he looped back as both the same man and someone altered.

What unites these three figures—Nietzsche, James, Brodsky—is not their similarity of thought but their recognition of Italy as a mirror for recurrence. Lives are often narrated as linear: childhood, youth, adulthood, decline. But Italy teaches another geometry. Like a Möbius strip, it twists perspective so that to move forward is also to circle back. An old anxiety resurfaces in midlife, but it arrives altered by experience. A desire once abandoned returns, refracted into new form. Nietzsche’s eternal return, James’s recursive characters, Brodsky’s annual exiles—all reveal that identity is not a line but a fold.

Italy amplifies this lesson. Its cities are not progressions but palimpsests. In Rome, one stands before ruins layered upon ruins: the Colosseum shadowed by medieval houses, Renaissance palaces built into ancient stones. In Florence, Brunelleschi’s dome rises above medieval streets, Renaissance paintings glow under electric light. In Venice, Byzantine mosaics shimmer beside Baroque marble while tourists queue for modern ferries. Each city is a surface where centuries loop, never erased, only folded over.

Philosophers and writers have groped toward metaphors for this looping. Nietzsche’s eternal return insists that each moment recurs infinitely. Derrida’s différance plays on the way meaning is always deferred, never fixed, endlessly circling. Borges imagined labyrinths where every turn leads back to the start. Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands describes identity as hybrid, cyclical, recursive. Italy stages all of these. To walk its piazzas is to feel history as Möbius surface: no beginning, no end, only continuous return.

But the Möbius journey of return is not without strain. Increasing overcrowding in Venice has made Piazza San Marco feel at times like a funnel for cruise-ship day trippers, raising questions of whether the city can survive its admirers. Rising costs of travel —inflated flights, pricier accommodations, surcharges for access—place the dream of pilgrimage out of reach for many. The very recurrence that writers once pursued with abandon now risks becoming the privilege of the few. And so the question arises: if one cannot return physically, can another kind of return suffice?

The answer is already being tested. Consider the Notre-Dame de Paris augmented exhibition, created by the French startup Histovery. Visitors carry a HistoPad, a touchscreen tablet, and navigate 850 years of the cathedral’s history. Faux stone tiles line the floor, stained-glass projections illuminate the walls, recordings of tolling bells echo overhead. With a swipe, one moves from the cathedral’s medieval construction to Napoleon’s coronation, then to the smoke and flames of the 2019 fire, then to the scaffolds of its restoration. It is a Möbius strip of architecture, looping centuries in minutes. The exhibition has toured globally, making Notre-Dame accessible to millions who may never step foot in Paris.

Italy, with its fragile architecture and layered history, is poised for the same transformation. Imagine a virtual walk through Venice’s alleys, dry and pristine, free of floods. A reconstructed Pompeii, where one can interact with residents moments before the eruption. Florence restored to its quattrocento brilliance, free of scaffolding and tourist throngs. For those unable to travel, AR offers an uncanny loop: recurrence of experience without presence.

Yet the question lingers: if one can walk through Notre-Dame without smelling the stone, without hearing the echo of one’s own footsteps, have they truly arrived? Recurrence, after all, has always been embodied. Nietzsche needed the Venetian fog to sting his lungs. James needed to feel the cold stones of a Florentine palazzo. Brodsky needed the damp silence of January to write his Watermark. The Möbius loop of identity was sensory, mortal, physical. Can pixels alone replicate that?

Perhaps this is too stark a contrast. Italy itself has always been both ruin and renewal, both stone and scaffolding, both presence and representation. Rome is simultaneously crumbling and rebuilt. Florence is both painted canvas and postcard reproduction. Venice is both sinking and endlessly photographed. Italy has survived by layering contradictions. Augmented reality may become one more layer.

Indeed, there is hope in this possibility. Technology can democratize what travel once restricted. The Notre-Dame exhibition allows a child in Kansas to toggle between centuries in an afternoon. It lets an elder who cannot fly feel the weight of medieval Paris. Applied to Italy, AR could make the experience of recurrence more widely available. Brodsky’s fog, Nietzsche’s bells, James’s labyrinthine sentences—these could be accessed not only by the privileged traveler but by anyone with a headset. The Möbius strip of identity, always looping, would expand to include more voices, more bodies, more experiences.

And yet AR is not a replacement so much as an extension. Those who can still travel will always seek stone, water, and bells. They will walk the Rialto and feel the wood beneath their feet; they will stand in Florence and smell the paint and dust; they will sit in Rome’s piazzas and feel the warmth of stone in the evening. These are not illusions but recurrences embodied. Technology will not end this; it will supplement it, add folds to the Möbius strip rather than cutting it.

In this sense, the Möbius book of identity continues to unfold. Nietzsche’s Italian sojourns, James’s expatriate wanderings, Brodsky’s winter rituals—all are chapters inscribed on the same continuous surface. Augmented reality will not erase those chapters; it will add marginalia, footnotes, annotations accessible to millions more. The loop expands rather than contracts.

So perhaps the hopeful answer is that recurrence itself becomes more democratic. Italy will always be there for those who return, in stone and water. But AR may ensure that those who cannot return physically may still enter the loop. A student in her dormitory may don a headset and hear the same Venetian bells that Nietzsche once called music. A retiree may walk through Florence’s restored galleries without leaving her home. A child may toggle centuries in Notre-Dame and begin to understand what it means to live inside a Möbius strip of time.

Identity, like travel, has never been a straight line. It is a fold, a twist, a surface without end. Italy teaches this lesson in stone and water. Technology may now teach it in pixels and projections. The Möbius book has no last page. It folds on—Nietzsche in Turin, James in Rome, Brodsky in Venice, and now, perhaps, millions more entering the same loop through new, augmented doors.

The self is not a line but a surface, infinite and recursive. And with AR, more of us may learn to trace its folds.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Essays, Government, History, Opinion, Politics, Society

The Envelope of Democracy

Leave a comment

How a practice born on Civil War battlefields became the latest front in America’s fight over trust, law, and the vote.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 23, 2025

On a raw November morning in 1864, somewhere in a Union encampment in Virginia, soldiers bent over makeshift tables to mark their ballots. The war was not yet won; Grant’s men were still grinding through the trenches around Petersburg. Yet Abraham Lincoln insisted that these men, scattered across muddy fields and far from home, should not be denied the right to vote. Their ballots were gathered, sealed, and carried by courier and rail to their home states, where clerks would tally them beside those cast in person. For the first time in American history, large numbers of citizens voted from a distance—an innovation spread across 19 Union states by hasty wartime statutes and improvised procedures (National Park Service; Smithsonian).

Lincoln understood the stakes. After the votes were counted, he marveled that “a people’s government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war” (Library of Congress). To deny soldiers their ballots was to deny the Union the very legitimacy for which it fought. Then, as now, critics fretted about fraud and undue influence: Democrats accused Republicans of manufacturing ballots in the field; rumors spread of generals pressuring soldiers to vote for Lincoln. Newspapers thundered warnings about the dilution of the franchise. But the republic held. Soldiers voted, the ballots were counted, and Lincoln was re-elected.

A century and a half later, the envelope has become a battlefield again. Donald Trump has promised to “end mail-in ballots” and scrap voting machines, declaring them corrupt, even while bipartisan experts explain that nearly all U.S. ballots are already paper, with machines used only for tabulation and auditing (AP; Bipartisan Policy Center). The paradox is striking: modern tabulators are faster and more accurate than human tallies, while hand counts are prone to fatigue and error (Time).

But how did a practice with Civil War pedigree come to be portrayed as a threat to democracy itself? What, at root, do Americans fear when they fear the mailed ballot?

In a Phoenix suburb not long ago, a first-time voter—call her Teresa—dropped her ballot at a post office with pride. She liked the ritual: filling it out at her kitchen table, checking the boxes twice, signing carefully. Weeks later, she learned her ballot had been rejected for a signature mismatch with an old ID on file. She had, without knowing it, missed the deadline to “cure” her ballot. “It felt like I didn’t exist,” one young Arizonan told NPR, voicing the frustration of many. Across the country, younger and minority voters are disproportionately likely to have their mail ballots rejected for administrative reasons such as missing signatures or late arrival. If fraud by mail is vanishingly rare, disenfranchisement by process is not.

Meanwhile, on the factory floor of American vote-by-mail, the ordinary hum of democratic labor continues. Oregon has conducted its elections almost entirely by mail for a quarter century, with consistently high participation and confidence (Oregon Secretary of State). Colorado followed with its own all-mail model, paired with automatic registration, ballot tracking, and risk-limiting audits (Colorado Secretary of State). Washington and Utah have joined in similar fashion. Election officials talk about the efficiency of central counting centers, the ease of auditing paper ballots, the increased access for rural and working-class voters. One clerk described her office during election week as “a warehouse of democracy,” envelopes stacked in trays, staff bent over machines that scan and sort. In one corner, a team compares signatures with the care of art historians verifying provenance. The scene is not sinister but oddly moving: democracy reduced to thousands of small acts of faith, each envelope a declaration that one voice counts.

And yet suspicion lingers. Part of it is ritual. The image of democracy for generations has been the polling place: chalkboard schedules, folding booths, poll books fat with names. The mailed ballot decentralizes the ceremony. It moves civic action into kitchens and break rooms, onto couches and barracks bunks. For some, invisibility breeds mistrust; for others, it is the genius of the thing—citizenship woven into home life, not just performed in public.

Part of the anxiety is legal. The Constitution’s Elections Clause gives the states authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections but empowers Congress to “make or alter such Regulations” (Constitution Annotated). Presidents have no such power. The White House cannot ban absentee ballots by decree. Congress could attempt to standardize or limit the use of mail ballots in federal elections—though any sweeping restriction would run headlong into litigation from voters who cannot be present on Election Day, from soldiers on deployment to homebound citizens.

And we have seen how precarious counting can be when law and logistics collide. In 2000, Florida’s election—and the presidency—turned not on fraud but on ballots: “hanging chads,” the ambiguous punch-card remnants that confounded machines and humans alike. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore halted a chaotic recount and left many Americans convinced that the true count would forever be unknowable (Oyez). The lesson was not that ballots are fraudulent, mailed or otherwise, but that the process of counting and verifying them is fragile, and that the legitimacy of outcomes depends on rules agreed to before the tally begins.

It is tempting, in moments of panic, to look abroad for calibration. In the United Kingdom, postal ballots are an ordinary convenience governed by clear rules (UK Electoral Commission). Canadians deploy a “special ballot” system that lets voters cast by post from the Yukon to Kandahar (Elections Canada). The Swiss have made postal voting a workaday part of civic life (Swiss Confederation). Fraud exists everywhere—but serious cases are exceptional, detected, and punished.

Back home, the research is blunt. The Brennan Center for Justice finds that fraud in mail balloting is “virtually nonexistent.” A Stanford–MIT study found that universal vote-by-mail programs in California, Utah, and Washington had no partisan effect—undercutting claims that the method “rigs” outcomes rather than simply broadening access. And those claims that machines slow results? Election administrators, backed by Wisconsin Watch, explain that hand counts tend to be slower and less accurate, while scanners paired with paper ballots and audits deliver both speed and verifiability.

Still, mistrust metastasizes, not from facts but from fear. A rumor in Georgia about “suitcases of ballots,” long debunked, lingers as a meme. A Michigan voter insists he saw a neighbor mail five envelopes, unaware they were for a household of five registered voters. Conspiracy thrives in the gap between visibility and imagination.

Yet even as the mailed ballot feels embattled, the next frontier is already under debate. In recent years, pilot projects have tested whether citizens might someday cast votes on their phones or laptops, secured not by envelopes but by cryptographic ledgers. The mobile voting platform Voatz, used experimentally in West Virginia and a few municipal elections, drew headlines for its promise of accessibility but also for its flaws: researchers at MIT found vulnerabilities tied to third-party cloud storage and weak authentication, prompting urgent warnings (MIT Technology Review). GoatBytes’ 2023 review noted that blockchain frameworks like Hyperledger Sawtooth and Fabric might one day offer stronger, verifiable digital ballots, and even the U.S. Postal Service has patented a blockchain-based mobile voting system (USPTO Patent). Capitol Technology University traced this shift as the latest stage in the long evolution from paper to punch cards to optical scanners, with AI now assisting ballot tabulation (Capitol Tech University). For proponents, mobile systems are less about novelty than necessity: the disabled veteran, the soldier abroad, the homebound elder—all could vote with a tap.

But here, too, the fault lines are visible. The American Bar Association recently cautioned that while blockchain and smartphone voting might expand access, they raise thorny questions about privacy, coercion, and verification—how to ensure a vote cast on a personal device is both secret and authentic. TIME Magazine spotlighted the allure of digital voting for those long underserved by the system, even as groups like Verified Voting warned that premature adoption could expose elections to risks far graver than those posed by paper mail ballots (TIME). In this telling, technology is Janus-faced: a path to broaden democracy’s reach, and a Pandora’s box of new vulnerabilities. If the mailed envelope embodies trust carried by hand, the mobile ballot would ask citizens to entrust their franchise to lines of code. Whether Americans are ready to make that leap remains an open question.

If there is a flaw to worry about, it is not the specter of rampant fraud, but the small, fixable frictions that disenfranchise well-meaning voters: needlessly strict signature-match policies, short cure windows, postal delays for ballots requested late, confusing instructions, and uneven funding for local election offices. The remedy comes not from abolishing the envelope, but from investing in the infrastructure around it: clear statewide standards for verification and cure; robust voter education about deadlines; modernized voter registration databases; secure drop boxes; and the budget lines that let county clerks hire and train staff.

In the end, the mailed ballot is less a departure from American tradition than a continuation of it. The ritual has changed—less courthouse, more kitchen table—but the bargain is the same. When a soldier in 1864 dropped his folded ballot into a wooden box, he entrusted strangers to carry it home. When a modern voter seals an envelope in Denver or Tacoma, she entrusts a chain of clerks, scanners, and auditors. Trust, not spectacle, is the beating heart of the system.

And perhaps that is why the envelope matters so much now. To defend it is not merely to defend convenience; it is to defend a vision of democracy capacious enough to reach the absent, the disabled, the far-flung, the over-scheduled—our fellow citizens whose lives do not always bend to a Tuesday line at a nearby gym. To reject it is to narrow the franchise to those who can appear on command.

Imagine Lincoln again, weary at the White House in the fall of 1864, reading dispatches about alleged fraud in soldier ballots and still insisting the votes be counted. Imagine a first-time voter in Phoenix who lost her chance over a mismatched squiggle, and the next one who won’t because the state clarified its cure rules. Imagine the county clerk who will never trend on social media, but who builds public confidence day by day with plain procedures and paper trails.

At the end of the day, American democracy may still come down to envelopes—white, yellow, blue—carried in postal bins, stacked in counting rooms, marked by the smudges of human hands. They are fragile, yes, but they are resilient too. The Civil War ballots survived trains and rivers; today’s ballots survive disinformation and delay. The act is the same: a citizen marks a choice, seals it, and sends it forth with faith that it will be received. If democracy is government of, by, and for the people, then every envelope is its emissary.

What would we lose if we tore that emissary up? Not only the votes of those who cannot stand in line, but the habit of trust that keeps the republic breathing. Better, then, to do what we have done at our best moments—to keep counting, keep auditing, keep improving, keep faith. The mailed ballot is not a relic of pandemic panic; it is a tested tool of a sprawling republic that has always asked its citizens to speak from wherever they are.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Criticism, Essays, Literature, Philosophy

THE REPUBLIC OF VOICES

Leave a comment

At the height of its power in 1364, Venice was a republic where eloquence was currency and every piazza a stage.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 24, 2025

The bells began before sunrise. Their iron tongues tolled across the lagoon, vibrating against the damp November air, carrying from the Campanile of San Marco to the Arsenal’s yards and into the canals of Cannaregio. This was Venice in 1364—at the height of its power, its fleets unrivaled in the Mediterranean, its markets setting the prices of silk and spice across Europe. The city sat at the hinge of East and West, commanding trade routes between Byzantium, the Mamluk Sultanate, and Western Christendom. Venetian galleys, sleek and maneuverable, patrolled waters thick with pirates, their timbers assembled in the Arsenale di Venezia, a proto-industrial marvel capable of producing a galley in a single day. Venice was wood, stone, and gold, but above all, it was sound. “The city is never silent,” one German pilgrim marveled, “every tongue of Christendom and beyond seems to shout at once.”

Venice’s supremacy was not abstract. Its colonies in Crete and Cyprus served as staging posts; its consulates dotted the Dalmatian coast. In Constantinople and Alexandria, Venetians lived in fortified fondaci—walled compounds where merchants traded under their own laws. The wealth of Murano’s glassmakers, Rialto’s bankers, and San Polo’s textile dyers depended on this vast maritime lattice. Even the Doge—Venice’s elected head of state, chosen for life from among the patrician class, part monarch, part magistrate but hemmed in by councils—was more merchant than monarch. Venetian nobility was not feudal but commercial: a patrician might chair the Senate one year and finance a convoy to the Levant the next. Bills of exchange, maritime insurance, joint-stock ventures—all pioneered here—reduced risk and turned uncertainty into empire.

Yet the republic was also built on voices. Speech was its second currency, flowing through churches, palaces, markets, and courts. Treaties were sealed with words before they were inked; rumors shifted markets as much as cargoes; sermons inflamed consciences long before decrees reached the streets.

In San Marco, the Basilica of mosaics and incense, the preacher’s voice dominated. On feast days friars addressed audiences that blurred patrician and plebeian, women and sailors, artisans and merchants. A Franciscan, recalling the Black Death, likened Venetian greed to “a contagion that spreads from house to house.” Andrea Dandolo, the Doge who also wrote a chronicle of his age, noted the murmurs of unease that followed. A parable about false shepherds might by nightfall become tavern gossip, retooled as an attack on patrician governors.

In 1364, Venice granted Petrarch a palazzo on the Riva degli Schiavoni in exchange for his library, a collection that would become the foundation of the Biblioteca Marciana. Known as the father of Humanism and now often called the father of the Italian Renaissance, he was among Europe’s most influential figures—poet of the Canzoniere, rediscoverer of Cicero’s letters, and advocate for the revival of classical eloquence. From his Venetian residence, he praised the city as “a republic not only of ships and laws, but of eloquence itself, where voices, raised in harmony or dissent, bind the state together.” For him, Venice was not only a naval empire but also a theater of speech.

Across the piazza in the Doge’s Palace, words carried a different weight. The cavernous Sala del Maggior Consiglio could hold a thousand patricians, their decisions shaping treaties and wars. The Doge spoke little, his ritual response to petitions—“Si vedrà”, “It will be seen”—an eloquence of restraint. More dramatic were the relazioni, oral reports of ambassadors returning from Constantinople or Cairo. Though later transcribed, in the fourteenth century they were performances. An envoy describing the Byzantine emperor’s throne gestured so vividly that senators felt transported to the imperial court.

Yet it was in the Rialto that Venice’s speech was most raw, where chatter became commerce and gossip became power. By day, the wooden bridge creaked under merchants and beggars, its planks worn smooth by boots from every corner of Europe. Below, spices from Alexandria, silk from Cathay, and pepper from India changed hands, but so too did stories. “The Rialto is a world itself,” wrote the chronicler Marino Sanudo, “where the news of all Christendom and beyond is traded swifter than spices.” Rumors of Ottoman fleets could shift the price of cinnamon. Satirical verses, recited sotto voce, mocked the deafness of patricians: “A house of nodding heads, deaf to its people.”

And when night fell, the Rialto became something else entirely. Carnival transformed it into a stage where anonymity and satire thrived. Masked singers, some of them patrician youths disguised as artisans, improvised verses lampooning senators and guild leaders. One chronicler described young nobles in Greek disguise singing ballads about the Senate’s obsession with ceremony. The laughter echoed across the Grand Canal, tolerated because, as Venetians said, “the republic breathes satire as easily as air.”

The Grand Canal itself was Venice’s liquid stage. By day it was an artery of commerce, alive with the slap of oars, the curses of gondoliers, the hammering of crates. By dusk the atmosphere shifted. Lanterns swayed from boats, their reflections shimmering across the black water. Gondoliers sang what would one day evolve into the barcarolle. Noble families staged boat processions with lutes and trumpets, music drifting across the canal in competing layers of sound. Commerce by day, serenade by night—the same canal a bazaar and a ballroom.

And then there was the Piazza San Marco, the great stage of the republic. On feast days, choirs filled the basilica, their plainsong swelling into polyphony that ricocheted off Byzantine domes. Trumpeters announced the Doge, banners unfurled, and processions wound through the square until, as Dandolo wrote, “the piazza shone with gold and sounded with voices and trumpets.” During Carnival, the sacred gave way to the profane: jugglers, acrobats, and improvisatori recited comic verses in dialect. A fire-breather might draw crowds near the bronze horses while a masked singer mocked senators. It was noisy, unruly, profoundly Venetian—a place where art, politics, and voice collided.

Artisans, too, had their stages. The scuole, confraternities of tradesmen, were gatherings where chants gave way to orations. Statutes might be inscribed, but obligations were enforced aloud. A shoemakers’ statute from 1360 commanded that “each master shall stand and speak before his fellows, giving account not only of his work but of his conduct.” Eloquence was honor; to falter was to risk shame.

The courts offered a harsher stage. Justice, too, was spoken. The Statuta Veneta emphasized testimony over parchment: “testimony is judged not by parchment but by voice.” In 1362, a fisherman accused of theft protested, “Non rubai, ma trovai.”—“I did not steal, I found.” His trembling voice, the notary observed, betrayed him. Eloquence could acquit; faltering speech could condemn.

And words could also damn. After the plague, prophets thundered in piazzas, sailors cursed saints in taverns, women repeated visions too vividly. One inquisitorial record recalls a woman accused of declaring, “the plague is God’s punishment for the pride of merchants.” Whether prophecy or lament, her words were evidence of heresy.

To live in Venice was to live in a polyphony of languages. From Dalmatia to Crete, Cyprus to Trebizond, the city’s empire infused it with voices. The pilgrim Ludolf of Sudheim marveled that in one square he heard “Latin, Greek, Saracen, and Hebrew, all arguing.” Translators ferried not only goods but ideas—fragments of Averroes, Byzantine theology, Jewish philosophy. Did a spice-seller at the Rialto know he was transmitting the seeds of the Renaissance?

In patrician libraries and monastic scriptoria, another kind of voice was taking shape: Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, arriving in Latin translation, read aloud in candlelit chambers. By 1364, copies of Aristotle’s Politics and Nicomachean Ethics were circulating among patricians. What did it mean to live a life of virtue? Could the common good outweigh private interest? Such debates mattered in a republic balancing mercantile ambition with civic restraint.

Thomas Aquinas, too, was debated in Dominican houses. His Summa Theologica offered a scaffolding that united reason and faith. Did divine law supersede human law, or did the latter participate in the former? A friar might thunder against usury on Sunday while echoing Aquinas’s careful distinctions on just exchange.

What is striking is that these scholastic voices did not remain confined to cloisters. They mingled with guild disputations, senatorial deliberations, carnival satire. And just beyond the horizon, Humanism was stirring. Petrarch, uneasy yet pivotal, urged Venetians to recover eloquence from Cicero and Livy. The republic was poised between worlds: the scholastic synthesis of Aquinas and the humanist insistence that civic life could be ennobled by rhetoric and classical virtue. Venice in 1364 was thus not only a theater of speech but also a laboratory of ideas.

At dusk, the bells tolled once more. Gondoliers sang across the black canal, masked youths mocked senators in the Rialto, choirs rehearsed in San Marco. Senators lingered in debate, artisans rehearsed speeches, children recited prayers before sleep. Venice in 1364 was not only a republic of ships, coins, and statutes. It was a republic of voices. Andrea Dandolo wrote that “our city is a harmony of voices, discordant yet united, a choir upon the waters.”

Perhaps that is the truest way to understand the city at its zenith. Its power lay not only in fleets or treaties, but in the ceaseless interplay of sound and sense: the preacher stirring unease, the envoy swaying senators, the gondolier echoing Aristotle, the satirist mocking the elite. The same city that hammered out galleys in the Arsenale was also hammering out philosophies in its libraries, rhythms in its shipyards, and laughter in its carnivals. To live in Venice in 1364 was to inhabit a world where speech, spectacle, and speculation were indivisible, where every bridge or piazza might become a stage. The republic endured not because it silenced discord but because it orchestrated it—turning sermon, satire, and song into the polyphony of civic life. Venice was, and remains, a choir upon the waters.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Criticism, Essays, Literature, Philosophy

Cervantes in the Cave — The Art of Illusion

Leave a comment

From Lepanto to Algiers to Seville, he recast Plato’s cave: instead of fleeing, he trimmed the wick—using comedy and narrative to make honest light out of shadow.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 22, 2025

In a cave in Argamasilla de Alba, Spain, a man sits hunched over a manuscript. The air is damp; the light keeps deciding what to keep. He writes not with the flourish of a court poet but with the urgency of someone who has known confinement—who has lived among shadows and learned to speak their language. The man is Miguel de Cervantes. The cave, according to local legend, is where he began Don Quixote. Whether the story is true hardly matters. The image endures: Cervantes, imprisoned, wounded, obscure, writing the book that would fracture the very idea of literary realism.

He breaks the silence first, as if talking to the walls. “Engendrado en una cárcel, donde toda incomodidad tiene su asiento,” he says—begotten in a prison, where every discomfort keeps its chair. He smiles at his own choice of verb. Begotten. It gives hardship hands.

A foot scuffs the threshold. Mateo steps into the half-light, a fellow freed captive from a life the two men still carry like a watermark. He takes the cave in at a glance—the whitewash, the barred slit of window, the stone bench that knows the shape of a tired back.

“You write in the dark, Miguel,” Mateo says. “Still chasing shadows?”

“Not chasing,” Cervantes replies, without looking up. “Refracting. These shadows are more honest than the sunlit lies of court and empire.”

Plato’s prisoners mistook flicker for fact. Cervantes has no such innocence; he knows exactly what light can do and what it cannot. In Algiers he learned the cost of sunlight and the uses of a candle. “We invented stories to survive,” he says. “We imagined rescue. We became authors of unreality. And in doing so, we learned how unreality works.”

He had boarded a homeward ship in 1575 and sailed straight into a profession he did not apply for. Corsairs took the vessel. Letters of recommendation—ironically the very proof of his merit—made him valuable. Algiers swallowed him for five years. Four escape attempts, each with its choreography of bribes, whispers, and night boats, failed in turn; punishments followed with bureaucratic punctuality. In the baños he organized fellow captives, staged plays that felt like oxygen rations, and discovered a kind of command that requires neither rank nor drumrolls. The lesson was not transcendence. It was texture. Captivity did not reveal some pure, sunlit truth; it revealed illusion’s machinery: how shadows are cast, how they persuade, how they can be turned from weapon into instrument.

“So you believe captivity reveals truth?” Mateo asks.

“No,” Cervantes says. “It reveals illusion. But if you know you’re in a cave, illusion can be honest about itself.”

He speaks like a man who has balanced too many ledgers and decided to keep one for the soul. In his prologue to the Exemplary Novels he would boast with a craftsman’s pride: mías propias, no imitadas ni hurtadas—my own pieces, not imitated or stolen. After a life in which other people held the keys, authorship felt like a kind of lawful possession. He is not naïve about it; theft will come in a thousand copies. Still, he plants his flag in sentences.

Mateo lowers himself onto the bench. The cave keeps its cool.

“Begin earlier,” Mateo says softly. “Begin with the wound.”

Cervantes nods, as if paging back. “Lepanto,” he says. “Two shots to the chest, one to the hand. El mayor bien que me vino. The greatest favor that came to me.”

Mateo laughs—a short, incredulous bark. “Favor?”

“A hand is a tool,” Cervantes says, flexing his right, letting the left sleeve fall into its gentle emptiness. “So is a story. One broke and taught the other its work. I learned that honor is not trumpets; it is the bruise that stays after the sound goes.”

“What did it smell like—the battle?” Mateo asks, because some questions insist.

“Oak and salt and a fire that wandered,” Cervantes says. “The sea keeps bad accounts—always debits, never balance. We threw our bodies at its ledger and called it glory. I got a bill I could live with.”

The cave changes its mind about brightness by a single shade. Light climbs a little higher on the wall, as if memory has a temperature.

“After Algiers,” Mateo says, “you came home to paper.”

“To paper and suspicion,” Cervantes answers. “Spain wanted receipts more than epics.” He became a purchasing agent, then a tax collector—the sort of work that presses humility into a man’s pockets and takes the lint besides. A banker fell in Seville and the ground gave way beneath him. Jail happened the way weather happens. Bureaucracy, he discovered, is a prison with nicer pens.

He thumps the palm of his right hand on the bench, a quiet imitation of a ledger closing. “Always the same sum,” he says. “Loyalty plus wounds equals suspicion.”

“That arithmetic,” Mateo says, “taught you comedy.”

“It taught me instruments,” Cervantes corrects gently. “Comedy is a surgeon’s knife you can carry in public.”

He had tried other rooms. La Galatea (1585), a pastoral romance, sighs under painted trees and speaks expertly in a fashionable voice—too expertly for a man who had learned to breathe in iron. “A ceiling too low for the lungs,” he says. Failure did not embarrass him; it emancipated him. “I loved what books promised. I wrote the promise’s correction.”

“And then you choose another cave,” Mateo says, looking around.

“This time I brought the candle.” Cervantes nods at the stub trembling in its dish. “The cave is not a prison if you know you’re inside it. Fiction is not delusion if you wield it knowingly.”

“Is that freedom?” Mateo asks. “To live in fiction?”

Cervantes answers with a line he will later put in a knight’s mouth because knights carry sentences farther than taxmen do. “La libertad, Sancho, es uno de los más preciosos dones…” Freedom, Sancho, is one of the most precious gifts. He lets the clause hang and then adds the counterweight: captivity is the greatest evil. “But there is a third thing,” he says. “The discipline of the wick. Not everyone reaches the sun. Many of us live by hearth-light. So make the hearth honest.”

He laughs, not kindly but not unkindly, at the memory of a barber’s basin mistaken for a helmet. “A basin can be a helmet,” he says, “if the story is honest about the trick.” The joke is not cruelty; it’s consent. Illusions that confess their wages are allowed to work.

“You sound like Plato’s least obedient pupil,” Mateo says. “He wants the prisoner out of the cave. You stay.”

“Plato had less practice with caves,” Cervantes says. “I stay and trim the wick.”

The man who stays in the cave can tell you about the cost of zeal. He knows what happens when mercy runs faster than attention: chaos dresses up as freedom. He has written a scene in which a knight frees a chain gang of galley slaves with a fine speech and a flash of temper, and the liberated—unbriefed on narrative responsibility—repay the favor with stones. “Pity without comprehension,” he says, “is a door swinging in a storm. Freedom without narrative becomes a mess that lets tyrants say, ‘You see? Chains keep order.’”

Mateo’s eyes drift toward a wooden head in the corner, painted eyes arrested mid-glance. “Master Pedro,” Cervantes says, amused at the prop the cave has supplied. He tells the story of a puppet theater, a knight who cannot bear strings, a sword that corrects an illusion into splinters. Even illusions keep accounts, he reminds Mateo. Someone pays for the pleasure. “In that scene,” he says, “I taxed zeal. I sent the bill to laughter.”

“So your book is a theater?” Mateo asks.

“A theater that shows its ropes,” Cervantes says. “A historian with a wink in his ink. A narrator who argues with me, and I with him. A false sequel enters the room, and I absorb him into the play. If illusion is a crime, let the evidence be visible. If it is a craft, let the strings show and the audience decide.”

He keeps his quotes short and to the point, letting them behave like tools rather than trophies. “Yo sé quién soy,” he says, not to boast but to set a boundary—I know who I am. “And I know what I am not. I am not the sun. I am a candle with a good memory.”

Memory is a troublesome servant. “¡Oh memoria, enemiga mortal de mi descanso!,” he mutters with theatrical exasperation—Oh memory, mortal enemy of my rest—knowing full well he cannot do without her. In the deepest fold of the book he is writing, he lowers his knight into the Cave of Montesinos and gives him a private vision no one can verify. Minutes pass in the world; days unfold in the cave. Readers will fight about that descent for centuries: lie or parable? He shrugs. The rope held. The telling is what matters.

“What about truth?” Mateo asks. “You dodge it like a matador.”

“Truth is errant,” Cervantes says. “Like my knight. It wanders, stumbles, reinvents itself. La verdad adelgaza y no quiebra—truth thins but does not break. It lives in the flicker between shadow and flame.” He aims for a truth you can sit with, not a blaze you must worship. Even now, when the cave dims or brightens by a breath, he adjusts nothing in his voice. He trusts the room to keep up.

The room has heard other versions of this life. Soldier, captive, clerk, failed author—the catalogue is accurate and useless until you give it breath. He has learned that a life of refusals and humiliations can be rearranged into a lamp. “El que lee mucho y anda mucho, ve mucho y sabe mucho,” he says with a grin—he who reads much and travels much sees much and knows much—and Mateos’s chuckle bounces off the whitewash and returns as agreement.

If the cave is a theater, it is also a workshop. He places three objects on the bench as if laying out tools: a frayed rope (failed escape; lesson kept), a ledger (bureaucracy’s Bible, now a prop for comedy), and the puppet head (illusion, demystified and retained). He sets the rope across the ledger like a sash and props the puppet against both like a child asleep between two patient adults.

“You’re staging your own life,” Mateo says.

“Everything I own appears in my books,” Cervantes answers. “Better to put them to work than let them gather dust.”

He will put even injury to work. He has already done it. “There is no book so bad that it does not have something good,” he says—No hay libro tan malo que no tenga algo bueno—and he means, among other things, his own early efforts. He tried the fashion and failed; he learned to write beyond it. The failure cleared the room.

“And the counterfeit?” Mateo asks. “The other Quixote?”

“I made room,” Cervantes says, not quite happily. He doesn’t bother to call the rival by name. “I let the counterfeit into Part II and gave him the dignity of being wrong on the page. It is the politest way to win.”

Outside, late afternoon arranges itself. Inside, the candle practices its small weather. The conversation acquires the unhurried gravity of men who have been forced to wait before and know that waiting can be made useful. They speak of the Información de Argel—the sworn testimonies that stitched a biography out of scars and courage; of the petition to the Council of the Indies that asked for four possible offices across the ocean and delivered no; of Seville’s auditoriums of suspicion where a man could do arithmetic all day and still owe.

“You turned all that into a style,” Mateo says.

“I turned it into a temperament,” Cervantes corrects. Style is the residue. The temperament is the choice: to stay in the cave and make the light adjustable; to refuse the panic of transcendence in favor of the patience of attention; to let laughter be a form of moral accounting. “I wanted a book in which the strings show,” he says. “So when someone pulls, we know who is moving what.”

He reaches for the candle with wetted fingers and trims the wick. The flame tightens, steadies, sharpens the edges of the room with a surgeon’s manners. The gesture is mundane and feels like a thesis.

“Why not flee?” Mateo asks one last time, because some questions return until answered in the body.

“Because someone must tend the flame,” Cervantes says. “Because most people live by hearth-light. Because the cave tells the truth about limits, and I prefer honest rooms to lying palaces.”

He stands, and the bench acknowledges the change with a creak that has learned both complaint and loyalty. He touches the stone with the backs of his fingers, as one does a sleeping child. The puppet keeps its round attention. The rope adopts its length. The ledger decides to be heavy again.

“Begin,” Mateo says, suddenly shy of making a ceremony of it.

“I did,” Cervantes answers, and returns to his page.

He writes the opening lines of Don Quixote as the candle throws a peninsula of light bordered by ink. A poor gentleman with a head full of books starts out into a world that will bruise him into philosophy. A squire with a sack of proverbs learns to spend them one by one, after listening. Windmills declare their innocence; a basin negotiates a new title. Dukes turn out to be children who have learned cruelty by playing. Priests explain themselves into farce. Puppets are freed to their ruin, then repaired by a writer who has learned to apologize with laughter.

Cervantes does not flee illusion; he illuminates it. He does not reject reality; he reframes it. He does not promise truth; he escorts it, errant and sturdy, through rooms with honest walls. He turns shadows into stories and stories into a way of seeing that does not blind. He has stayed where Plato urged ascension and found, by staying, a different kind of ascent: the climb of attention, the charity of proportion, the courage to let strings show and still believe in the show.

Unlike Plato’s prisoner, Cervantes remains in the cave. He writes. He refracts. He talks to the walls and to the future, and both answer. His broken hand, his captive mind, his errant knight—everything he survived and everything he invented—gathers in the small weather of a candle and becomes, against all instruction, a form of daylight.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Children, Education, Essays, Reviews, Society

The One-Room Rebellion

Leave a comment

How Arizona’s microschool boom is reshaping the American classroom—and reviving old questions about freedom, equity, and the gaze of the state.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 21, 2025

Jeremy Bentham never saw his  panopticon built. The English philosopher imagined a circular prison with a central watchtower, where a single guard could observe every inmate without being seen. Bentham saw it as a triumph of efficiency: if prisoners could never know when they were being watched, they would behave as though they always were. A century later, Michel Foucault seized on the design as metaphor. In Discipline and Punish, he argued that the panopticon revealed the true mechanics of modern institutions—not brute force, but the internalization of surveillance. The gaze becomes ambient. The subject becomes self-regulating.

This, in many ways, is the story of the American public school. The common school movement of the mid-nineteenth century, led by Horace Mann, sought standardization: children from Boston to St. Louis would recite the same lessons, read the same primers, and adopt the same civic habits. As cities grew, schools scaled up. By the twentieth century, especially in the wake of A Nation at Risk, the classroom had become a site of discipline. Bells regulated time. Grades ranked performance. Administrators patrolled hallways like wardens. Testing regimes quantified ability. The metaphor was not lost on Foucault. Brown University notes that his vision of the panopticon extended beyond prisons to schools: a “system of surveillance where individuals internalize the feeling of being constantly watched, leading to self-regulation of behavior” (Brown University).

Every American child knows this regime. The bell rings. The roll is called. The test is bubbled and scanned. Hall passes are signed like parole slips. Cameras blink in cafeteria corners. Laptops carry software that tracks keystrokes. Even silence becomes an instrument of order.

Bentham saw efficiency. Foucault saw discipline. Students often see only the weight of the watchtower.

What happens when families walk out of the circle?

In the far suburbs of Phoenix, on the edge of the White Tank Mountains, a converted casita serves as the Refresh Learning Center. Founded in 2023 by a pastor and his wife, it doesn’t look like much—aluminum siding, recycled chairs, a wall chart that places the birth of the universe at 4004 B.C. Yet, as Chandler Fritz wrote in the September 2025 issue of Harper’s Magazine, the little school has become an emblem of a movement reshaping American education.

Its existence rests on a radical policy shift. In 2022, Arizona launched the nation’s most expansive Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. Unlike traditional vouchers, which could be redeemed only at approved institutions, ESA funds flow directly to parents—roughly $7,500 per student, sometimes more. Families can spend the money on almost anything that counts as “educational”: a cello, a VR headset, a trampoline, or, increasingly, a place in one of the microschools sprouting across the state.

The metaphor of the frontier clings naturally to Arizona. Here, in the desert’s glare, families are homesteading education in much the same spirit as settlers once claimed land. A garage becomes a classroom. A supply closet, a high school. A church basement, an academy. In his Harper’s piece, Fritz describes a child attending class in a room where chickens wandered the yard outside, and another high-school seminar meeting in a closet stacked with supply boxes. Parents pull their children not only for ideology but for intimacy, pace, or simple safety. “Without ESA, this school would not—could not—exist,” one founder told him.

For advocates, the program represents liberation from a failing system. For critics, it siphons resources from public schools already parched of funding. But for the families gathered in little schoolhouses like Refresh, the stakes feel simpler: children freed from the gaze of bureaucracy, from endless testing and administrative oversight, given room to learn like human beings again.

Microschools are not new. Before the rise of the common school, most American children learned in homes, barns, or one-room cabins where a single teacher instructed a dozen children of all ages. Reformers dismissed those spaces as unsystematic, unjust. The standardized school, they argued, would correct inequities and prepare citizens for democracy.

Today, the pendulum swings back. Inside Refresh’s aluminum-sided room, teenagers do crafts next to six-year-olds. Grade levels blur: a thirteen-year-old may still be in second grade; another, the same age, reads at a high school level. Students spend mornings mucking chicken coops and afternoons in shop class. A boy named Aaron, dyslexic and restless in traditional schools, thrives in the workshop, building desks and repairing tools. He dreams of becoming an Air Force mechanic. One teacher observed that he learned fractions by cutting lumber and measuring shelves—mathematics discovered in wood grain and sawdust.

Another student, Hailey, is quick with skepticism. She listens to indie rock from her AirPods between classes, balances her faith with her friendships, and rolls her eyes at biblical literalism. “Stop comparing everything to religion,” she wrote in a survey. “I know it’s a Christian school, but it’s annoying learning about history when it’s asking about the Bible.”

And then there is Canaan, a foster child, the oldest in the room. During a discussion of To Kill a Mockingbird, he startled his peers by pressing the point of segregation. “What if everyone were actually given the same resources?” he asked. The question, naïve and profound, echoed the legal logic of Brown v. Board of Education, though he had never heard of it. His teachers had worried about whether he was “ready” for a seminar text. Yet here he was, articulating the problem of equality with more clarity than many adults.

Their stories recall sepia-toned photographs of America’s one-room schoolhouses, where a teacher might balance a baby on one hip while drilling older students in long division. Nostalgia clings to such places, but for children like Aaron and Hailey and Canaan, the sense of being known—of not being lost in the machinery of standardization—is more than nostalgia. It is survival.

The ESA marketplace, though, has the volatility of a boomtown. Alongside earnest shop classes and backyard literature circles, Fritz encountered vendors offering tongue-posture therapy for ADHD, pirate-themed cooking classes tied to multilevel marketing schemes, even sword-making courses. In one Tucson suburb, a “Kids in the Kitchen” class doubled as an advertisement for a health supplement brand. Fraud has siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers (Arizona Central).

More troubling is fragmentation. Public schools, for all their flaws, force pluralism: children from different families, faiths, and incomes learning together under one roof. In microschools, communities splinter. Wealthier families claim ESA funds for private tuition; poorer families scrape together what they can. Evangelical churches convert Sunday schools into full-time academies. A Southern Baptist initiative now urges every church with a basement to consider opening a weekday school. For some, ESAs represent not escape from the panopticon, but an opportunity to build new watchtowers of ideological oversight.

And yet—the children remain. Their stories suggest that the most powerful escape is not from testing regimes or surveillance, but from anonymity. In a one-room schoolhouse, a teacher cannot forget you. Your hands matter. Your questions land. You are not a datapoint in a dashboard but a voice in a circle.

The paradox of the new homestead is that it is subsidized by the very state it seeks to escape. Every ESA contract is drawn from public funds, even as public schools wither under declining enrollment and teacher shortages. Arizona’s superintendent warned in 2024 that the state’s teacher shortage, already in the thousands, could “eventually lead to zero teachers” (Arizona Policy). Meanwhile, parents swipe ESA debit cards for pianos, VR headsets, or ski passes.

But the deeper paradox is philosophical. The panopticon teaches that institutions discipline by watching. Yet children, it turns out, discipline themselves when unseen, too. In one seminar, Canaan insisted that segregation was the true injustice, not just a false verdict. Without oversight, a conversation about reparations and justice unfolded around plastic tables in a desert conversation.

Could it be that the very fragmentation critics fear might also produce unexpected awakenings? That freedom from the gaze of the state could allow children to stumble, clumsily but genuinely, into civic consciousness?

The question is not whether microschools should exist—they already do, enrolling as many students as Catholic schools nationwide. The question is how to balance their intimacy with the democratic promise of education for all. Some states experiment with guardrails: Georgia ties funds to low-performing districts; Iowa requires accreditation and assessments. Arizona, the boldest frontier, remains laissez-faire. The experiment is still young, and the stakes enormous.

Bentham dreamed of efficiency. Foucault warned of discipline. But neither accounted for what happens when the watchtower is abandoned, when families strike out into the desert to build little schools of their own. The panopticon dissolves, and in its place rises the homestead, the one-room schoolhouse, the handmade desk, the boy who lights up in shop class.

Public education was once America’s grandest democratic experiment: the poor man could reach into the rich man’s pocket and demand an education, as Emerson put it, “not as you will, but as I will” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Education). That dream is endangered—not only by privatization, but by the creeping sense that children are means rather than ends, data points rather than persons.

The frontier metaphor cuts both ways. It can justify privatization, sectarianism, inequality. But it also gestures toward freedom, self-reliance, discovery. The challenge now is to reclaim the best of the homestead spirit—education as intimate, child-centered, alive—without abandoning the pluralistic commons that democracy requires.

Wallace Stegner once called life on the frontier a “homemade education.” He meant not only the Bible lessons of pioneer families but the curriculum of the land itself—children learning resilience from drought, ingenuity from scarcity, curiosity from the wide sky. The graduates of such an education—Lincoln, Twain, Cather, John Wesley Powell—proved that learning could be stitched together from books, rivers, and conversation. Powell, chastised in school for his parents’ abolitionist views, was pulled from the classroom and tutored privately. He learned geology by picking up stones, ornithology by watching birds, justice by watching neighbors turn cruel. The lessons carried him down the Colorado River, into history.

Perhaps the future lies not in the panopticon or the homestead alone, but in something more fluid: a system where every child is seen not from above, but up close. Where accountability measures ensure equity without strangling individuality. Where the workshop and the test, the prayer and the debate, the child who loves Jesus and the child who loves indie rock can share the same fragile, human classroom.

Education is not a prison, nor a frontier settlement. It is, at its best, a river: wide enough to carry all, winding enough to follow curiosity, strong enough to shape the land it touches. The question is whether we will keep damming it with watchtowers—or whether we will learn, finally, to let it flow.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI