28/03/2025

The Rise Of The National Conservative Right Under Giorgia Meloni

 

 


 

Italy ​ is often thought of as a political laboratory, anticipating events in other countries: fascism in the 1920s; the showman-businessman turned politician in the 1990s; populism in the 2010s. Great significance has been attributed to the government of Giorgia Meloni, who became prime minister in 2022. For some, it signals the return of fascism in a novel form; for the majority of pundits and, increasingly, politicians, it suggests that the far right can become more moderate when in power. Both views are misleading. While Meloni has proved to be shrewd on the national and the international stage, she is also operating in a country where the normalisation of the far right has been advancing for decades.

Italy after the Second World War had a unique political landscape. It was home to both the most powerful communist party in Western Europe and the most successful right-wing parties that openly identified with a fascist forebear. Communists were always excluded from power at national level, but the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), formed in 1946, was also outside the arco costituzionale. (In fact, a capacious reading of the 1948 constitution, which prohibited the refounding of the Fascist Party, could have resulted in the MSI being banned.) It brought together Italians nostalgic for fascism – whether for the early days of fighting or the paternalist modernisation drives of the 1930s – as well as those mourning the abolition of the monarchy following a referendum in 1946. The party’s flame symbol was widely understood as referring to the eternal fiamma above Mussolini’s sarcophagus in his home town of Predappio. The letters MSI could be read as M for Mussolini followed by ‘sì!’, as an abbreviation of his name, or as an allusion to the puppet regime set up by the Nazis after 1943 and nominally led by him: the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, better known as the Republic of Salò. The MSI’s founder, Giorgio Almirante, was a veteran of Salò and editorial secretary of Difesa della Razza during the ventennio, the twenty dark years of fascism.

In the 1950s MSI leaders, pursuing the strategy of inserimento, tried to present the movement as a legitimate partner for other parties. The Christian Democrats, who were in government continuously from 1948 until the early 1990s, relied on its support only once, in 1960, prompting widespread protests that forced the resignation of the prime minister, Fernando Tambroni. The postwar anti-fascist consensus seemed to hold across the major political divides, but the Tangentopoli corruption scandals of the early 1990s led to the collapse of what is now called the First Republic. The only parties left untainted were those that had been excluded from government: the MSI and the successors to the Communist Party, which had been dissolved in 1991. By that time, a dapper young man, Gianfranco Fini, had replaced Almirante as leader of the MSI. Fini promised to rejuvenate ‘fascism for the year 2000’, which didn’t stop Berlusconi from endorsing him when he ran for mayor of Rome in 1993. This was the first and, in retrospect, decisive stage in the normalisation of the Italian far right. Berlusconi soon decided to form his own party, Forza Italia, conceived by his companies’ marketing departments and modelled on a football supporters’ club – a move motivated, above all, by his desire to use public office to keep himself out of prison.

An unlikely alliance brought Berlusconi to power in 1994. In the north he partnered with the secessionist Lega Nord, whose founder, Umberto Bossi, said that it was ‘the party of those seeking to continue the partisans’ struggle of liberation against the partitocracy. Never with the fascists!’ In the south he partnered with the MSI, the fascists Bossi condemned. Berlusconi’s government lasted just eight months, but the missini had been brought into the system for good. In 1995 they renamed themselves the Alleanza Nazionale. The AN’s strategy was to distance itself from the ventennio while simultaneously trying to discredit the postwar anti-fascist consensus (as so often, the right portrayed itself as a victim – in this instance of self-righteous communists, or what Meloni today calls the ‘anti-Italian left’). Fini was still prone to making occasional statements such as ‘Berlusconi will have to work hard to prove that he can make history like Mussolini.’ But he stopped addressing people as camerata and announced that his party was not neofascist, but post-fascist – like all Italians, he said, since fascism constituted their collective heritage.

Fini’s gestures towards moderation culminated in a 2003 visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial centre in Jerusalem, where, wearing a kippa, he declared that fascism had been an ‘absolute evil’. That same year he floated the idea of giving voting rights to immigrants. For hardliners this was too much; Alessandra Mussolini claimed that Fini was betraying her grandfather’s legacy and left the party. In another sign of his new-found respectability, Fini became president of the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, in 2008. The next year the AN was absorbed into the Popolo della Libertà (PdL), co-founded by Fini and Berlusconi. Soon after the merger, Fini accused Berlusconi of having moved too far to the right and founded a new party, Futuro e Libertà per l’Italia (FLI), which failed miserably at the polls. Berlusconi used the power of his media empire to hound Fini out of politics. Fini had hoped that the PdL’s most talented young politician would follow him into FLI. But Giorgia Meloni stuck with Berlusconi.

Meloni was born in a bourgeois neighbourhood in Rome in 1977. Her mother was on the right; her father had left-wing sympathies. He abandoned the family when Meloni was one, an experience she credits with making her tough. A few years later, according to a much repeated story, she and her sister accidentally set fire to the family apartment, forcing her mother to sell up and move to the working-class neighbourhood of Garbatella. Meloni has made much of the hardships of her youth. (Her autobiography, Io sono Giorgia, sold 150,000 copies in its first year, an unusually large number for an Italian politician.) As a teenager she was bullied for being overweight. While her mother made a living by churning out more than a hundred romanzi rosa under the pseudonym ‘Josie Bell’, Meloni took on jobs from babysitting to working behind the bar at the Rome nightclub Piper. She studied languages at a tourism school, setting her up for her assured appearances on the international stage: perfect, impassioned Spanish when giving a speech against LGBTQ rights in Marbella; perfect, nuanced English when paying tribute to the political philosophy of self-declared Burkean ‘national conservatives’.

At fifteen, Meloni joined the Fronte della Gioventù, the MSI’s youth organisation. She became leader of the AN’s student wing four years later. These youth organisations were more radical than the mother parties, more open in their worship of Mussolini, and didn’t shy away from violence – they were also themselves subject to violence from the left, which created martyrs still celebrated today. A French TV report on the 1996 election shows Meloni organising a group of young activists, almost all men, in Garbatella. Wearing a black leather jacket, she tells the reporter in passable French that Mussolini had been a good politician because everything he did had been for Italy. Later in the clip, she appears under a poster declaring Mussolini ‘uomo del popolo’. Two years later she was elected as a councillor in Rome; that same year she founded the Atreju Festival, named after one of the heroes in Michael Ende’s fantasy novel The Neverending Story, an enduring influence alongside Tolkien (MSI activists had set up a Camp Hobbit in 1977). The festival continues to be held, featuring international stars of the far right from Steve Bannon to Viktor Orbán and inevitably – or so it feels nowadays – Elon Musk.

By 2004 Meloni had been elected president of the AN’s youth wing, the first woman to lead any such political organisation in Italy. She entered parliament two years later and was soon appointed vice president of the Chamber of Deputies; she also joined Berlusconi’s cabinet as minister for youth, making her the youngest minister in Italian history. When a clearly fading Berlusconi cancelled the PdL primaries and declared himself prime ministerial candidate in the 2013 election, Meloni quit the party alongside Ignazio La Russa, an MSI veteran. They founded Fratelli d’Italia (FdI), taking its name from the beginning of the Italian national anthem. The party won 2 per cent of votes in the election, ending up with nine deputies.

The following year Meloni took over the leadership of the party from La Russa (today he is president of the Senate and occasionally boasts about the Mussolini busts in his living room). She was re-elected in 2017 by delegates to the party congress, without a vote from FdI members. As the political scientists Salvatore Vassallo and Rinaldo Vignati stress in their illuminating book, which was called Fratelli di Giorgia in the Italian edition, the FdI is extraordinarily centralised, and its rules about internal democracy – fairly weak in any case, given the absence of a proper law on political parties in Italy – are mostly ignored. Key positions are held by figures who joined the MSI in the early 1990s; there are no real factions or infighting.

The guest of honour at the 2014 party congress where Meloni became leader was Almirante’s widow, Assunta. Meloni herself insisted at the congress that she would ‘never presume to be on the same level as Giorgio Almirante’. Soon afterwards the FdI obtained the rights to use the MSI’s flame, which had appeared in the AN’s logo but not the PdL’s. ‘The flame remains to recall our genesis,’ Meloni declared, ‘but with an eye on the future.’ Yet, as Vassallo and Vignati write, at first the party’s programme didn’t diverge greatly from Berlusconi’s (it even included elements of Catholic social thought, the legacy of the once dominant Christian Democrats having been scattered across the political landscape). It wasn’t long, however, before Meloni made a decisive turn to far-right populism, with its predictable features: nativism, Euroscepticism and an identitarian view of Christianity (as she writes in Io sono Giorgia, ‘the Christian identity can be secular rather than religious’). In other respects, the ideological mix was less conventional. At the party’s 2013 gathering in Rome, images of John Paul II, Thatcher, Gandhi and Mother Teresa were projected beside those of bona fide fathers of fascism such as D’Annunzio and Marinetti. The 2022 congress displayed cardboard cut-outs of Hannah Arendt, the Fellini collaborator Ennio Flaiano and Pasolini, whom the FdI has claimed as a conservative. The official line became that the party wasn’t post-fascist, but afascist – another not so subtle distancing from the anti-fascism of the First Republic.

The FdI doubled its vote share in the 2018 election but was overshadowed by the triumph of Matteo Salvini’s Lega (which had dropped the ‘Nord’) as well as the strong showing of the Five Star Movement (M5S). Salvini had abandoned Bossi’s secessionist agenda and even apologised for the Lega’s comments about southerners. He was appointed interior minister of an incongruous coalition between what were often described as right-wing populists and left-wing populists, headed by an independent, Giuseppe Conte. Salvini’s draconian measures against migrants ended up dominating the headlines. In the summer of 2019, with the Lega leading the polls, he overplayed his hand by leaving the coalition. He had intended to trigger an election; instead, President Sergio Mattarella brokered a coalition between the M5S and the centre-left, followed in 2021 by a coalition of almost all the parties, headed by Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank.

Vassallo and Vignati argue that conventional accounts of FdI’s success in the 2022 election need to be treated with caution. It was in 2019, they point out, that the Fratelli began rising in the polls. Still, some of the commonly cited factors were surely relevant. Meloni followed the path beaten by Berlusconi when her fiery speech at a rally for ‘Italian pride’ in 2019 – ‘I am a woman, a mother, an Italian and a Christian ... you won’t take it away from me!’ – was turned into a techno song. What had been intended as an attack on her became a wildly popular meme. Far more important, the Fratelli was the only party that didn’t join Draghi’s coalition in 2021 (Meloni said that ‘North Korean conditions’ had to be resisted). As the only source of opposition, she was well placed to capitalise on discontent with anti-Covid measures, which were especially tough in Italy after the traumatic experiences of places such as Bergamo.

Also significant was Meloni’s decision to tone down her anti-EU rhetoric in the run-up to the 2022 election. In 2017 the FdI had called for a ‘controlled abandonment of the Eurozone’ and for Southern Europe to be compensated for its suffering during the Eurocrisis. But following the agreement in 2021 of a €191 billion package for Italy as part of Brussels’s post-pandemic Recovery and Resilience Facility, it was clear that maintaining a hostile stance towards the EU would be political suicide. Meloni, in other words, profited from what is now often called ‘anti-incumbency’ sentiment and then, once in power, from access to the money her predecessors had negotiated (never mind that Italy might not have the administrative capacity to spend it all).

When the Fratelli first entered the European Parliament, they joined the European Conservatives and Reformists (in part because the Lega was already in another far-right grouping). The ECR had been the creature of the Tories since David Cameron turned his back on the mainstream conservative European Peoples Party (EPP), historically the driving force of European integration. But Brexit meant that the Conservatives didn’t contest the 2019 European election. This was another stroke of luck for Meloni: a savvy member of the FdI positioned her as the new leader of the group, which helped her appear to be centre-right – even if far-right parties such as Poland’s Law and Justice, Spain’s Vox and the Sweden Democrats are ECR members. She has often said that were she British, she’d be a Tory.

 


 

Her victory in 2022 led to warnings about a ‘rebirth of fascism’, but Meloni didn’t have to do much to prove the pundits and left-wing politicians wrong. In contrast to Salvini, who has a long history of pro-Putin statements, she supported Ukraine. She also made overtures to Ursula von der Leyen about working together on migration, a strategy that has resulted in the EU’s paying €255 million to Tunisia’s authoritarian, openly racist president, Kais Saied. While the number of people entering Italy actually increased during Meloni’s first year in office, it fell by more than half in 2024. Tweaks to the law have made it more difficult for NGOs to operate in the Mediterranean: they can carry out only one rescue operation before they must return to port, and are only allowed to use ports in the north. Italian judges blocked Meloni’s plan, backed by von der Leyen, to ship asylum seekers to Albania, where Italy has built detention centres that can hold up to three thousand; she responded by removing the case from the jurisdiction of the judges, and in January an Italian navy vessel transported 49 migrants to the centres.

The story of the FdI tends to be subsumed by the conventional wisdom that a ‘wave of populism’ is washing over Europe. But the strategy of doubling down on far-right rhetoric originated with Berlusconi. By 2022, the EPP leader, Manfred Weber, was appealing to Berlusconi as a reliable centre-right leader who would rein in the post-fascist upstarts; few seemed to recall that in the late 1990s the EPP had refused to admit Forza Italia because it was clearly a right-wing populist party. Berlusconi was also the first prime minister to include in his cabinet a veteran of Salò, Mirko Tremaglia, euphemistically referred to as ‘l’ultimo ragazzo di Salò’. What looks like a dramatic win for the post-fascists has in fact been a result of major movement within the right-wing bloc: the right as a whole won a greater share of votes in the 2008 general election than in 2022. The simple fact is that the Italian right, unlike the left, has always managed to come together for elections, with the exception of 1996. At the same time, competition between parties has provided an incentive to push ever further right within the bloc: when a reporter suggested to Meloni that Salvini was more right-wing than she was, she responded that ‘no one is further right than me.’

Vassallo​  and Vignati concede that the FdI is characterised by nativism and populism, and recognise that it is now the ‘third party of the flame’ (after the MSI and the AN). Yet they reject the ‘fascist’ label. In their view, the FdI is Italy’s first genuinely ‘national conservative’ party. It’s true that the kind of culture war Meloni has been waging is no longer alien to the centre-right. She vilifies the ‘LGBTQ lobby’ and has passed a law making it illegal to have a child through surrogacy outside the country (it has never been legal inside Italy). She also keeps insinuating that the ‘armed left’ is in cahoots with the multinationals and the grande finanza whose agenda is to destroy all local identities. According to one of Meloni’s ministers – who happens to be the former partner of her sister, Arianna, the party secretary – the aim is nothing less than the ‘ethnic substitution’ of real Italians. (This is where Atreju comes in: the hero of The Neverending Story fought against the forces of the Nothing, shorthand for the eradication of identity.) Meloni says she opposes abortion because her mother came close to having one when pregnant with her; she has claimed that the multinational forces of the ‘indistinct’ have as their ‘real, unstated, goal ... the disappearance of women as mothers’. This rhetoric is all the more charged because the leader of the opposition, the Democratic Party’s Elly Schlein, has a female partner. (‘I am a woman,’ Schlein shot back, ‘I love another woman, and I am not a mother. But that does not make me any less of a woman.’)

 


 

Italy is 87th in the global rankings for gender equality. The few women in Meloni’s cabinet have posts traditionally associated with women, such as the renamed ministra per la famiglia, la natalità e le pari opportunità. Meloni has also made a point of being addressed with the male article as ‘il presidente del consiglio’. She dismisses feminism as ‘a left-wing ideology harmful to women because it advocates for gender quotas in candidate selection and the introduction of gender ideology into schools’. Her government has increased support for working mothers and, in the vein of other natalists like Orbán, tax relief for large families. Yet despite the incessant invocations of ‘Dio-Patria-Famiglia’, the birth rate has fallen to a historic low.

Meanwhile, pro-market rhetoric and calls for lower taxes – so far, all talk and no action – have been combined with unashamed clientelism. The balneari, who hold ludicrously cheap concessions to operate twelve thousand lidos along the eight thousand kilometres of Italy’s coastline, have been sheltered from EU attempts to create more competition. The signature legislation of the M5S, the reddito di cittadinanza, has been repealed. Sometimes mischaracterised as basic income, it was essentially a modest social benefit of €750 per month for the worst-off – four million people in total, two-thirds of them in the south. Meloni claimed it had mostly gone to migrants or was ‘pocket money’ that kept healthy 25-year-olds from getting a job.

When economic miracles don’t happen, the right resorts to culture war. Previous governments tried to place partisans in cultural institutions; it was the former Democratic Party prime minister Matteo Renzi, a populist manqué, who gave the government the power to appoint the head of RAI, the public broadcaster. But changes at RAI have been so rapid and thorough that it’s now derided as ‘TeleMeloni’; RAI journalists went on strike last year over the government’s ‘suffocating control’. Even more ominous, Meloni sued Roberto Saviano, the author of Gomorrah, for libel after he called her and Salvini ‘bastards’ following the sinking of a boat of migrants. He was found guilty in 2023 and ordered to pay a fine. Meloni and her lieutenants have also tried to claim large chunks of traditional Italian culture: her former culture minister, Gennaro Sangiuliano, hailed Dante as the father of right-wing thought.

 


 

Since coming to power Meloni has made aggressive use of decrees and votes of confidence to keep members of her coalition in line. But she has also promoted a long-standing goal of the MSI and the AN: the introduction of a presidential system. (At present the president is a nominally neutral figurehead appointed by parliament.) She isn’t the first person to point out that it’s dysfunctional to have two legislative chambers with equal power. But her solution is for the prime minister to be elected by a direct vote. Such a system has only been tried once before, in Israel from 1996 to 2001. No one considers that experiment a success.

Under Meloni’s proposals, which were approved by the Senate last June, the coalition that backed the winning candidate would also automatically obtain 55 per cent of seats in parliament. It’s unclear whether these changes will happen. If the bill fails to get a two-thirds majority in both chambers, as seems likely, the reform will have to be put to a referendum; such votes often become occasions to voice discontent with the sitting government. It’s equally unclear how far Meloni will go in resisting EU regulations in Italy. She is promising to follow the model of the Polish far right by having the judiciary determine whether regulations are compatible with ‘principles of sovereignty and democracy’. Such national checks would be the end of the EU as a supranational enterprise.

For a while, Meloni looked like she might become a de facto leader of that enterprise: close to Trump and especially Elon Musk (to whose Starlink system she has been trying to commit Italy), the only European head of government at the inauguration, she promised to be the bridge between Europe and the second Trump administration. Speaking at the American far right’s major annual gathering, CPAC, in February, she implored her audience not to consider Europe ‘lost’ and to defend the ‘West’ from the ‘globalist’ left that hates freedom and distrusts its own people – echoing J.D. Vance’s incendiary rhetoric at the Munich Security Conference. But she also sent a message to Trump, stressing the need for a ‘just and lasting peace for Ukraine’ and warning of ‘trade clashes’ that would play into the hands of non-Western powers.

Trump’s apparent realignment with Putin has made her transatlantic balancing act much more precarious. Salvini, seeing an opening to reassert himself, has come out blazing for MAGA geopolitics; meanwhile, Meloni has stuck with her support for Ukraine, but also made it clear that there will be no Italian troops on the ground there (Italy’s military spending is far below the 2 per cent of GDP to which Nato members are officially committed). Her calls to keep the West together now sound desperate; she has had to cede the European stage to Starmer and Macron.

In retrospect, the 2022 election may have marked the end of a period of exceptional electoral volatility, during which a tripolar political system seemed to be emerging. It was Salvini who brought voters with populist inclinations back from the M5S to the right, while the M5S itself has moved to the left (while refusing that label), restoring a bipolar system. Interestingly, there is no longer any real north-south divide within the FdI electorate – a significant difference with the MSI, which was always much more popular below the Gothic Line.

Does that mean Vassallo and Vignati are right to see the Fratelli d’Italia as a genuinely national and more or less normal conservative party? It depends on whether one finds it normal that the leader of the party tweets about Soros being a ‘usurer’, that the party’s youth wing enthusiastically read the works of the interwar fascist philosopher Julius Evola, and that, every so often, someone in the party brings up the spectre of ‘ethnic substitution’. But for many on the centre-right in Western Europe today, such things are no longer abnormal.


No One Is Further Right Than Me. By Jan-Werner Müller.  London Review of Books, March 20, 2025.


 

 

 

 

 

24/03/2025

The Nature Of Angels And the Foundations Of Modern Physics

 


 

What do the angelic forces of the Heavenly Host have to do with orgasms? The answer, according to the 12th-century philosopher and theologian Maimonides, was simple. Some invisible forces that caused movement could be explained by God working through angels. Quoting a famous rabbi who talked about ‘the angel put in charge of lust’, Maimonides commented that ‘he means to say: the force of orgasm … Thus this force too is called … an angel.’

Before the discovery of gravity, energy or magnetism, it was unclear why the cosmos behaved in the way it did, and angels were one way of accounting for the movement of physical entities. Maimonides argued that the planets, for example, are angelic intelligences because they move in their celestial orbits.

 While most physicists would now baulk at angelic forces as an explanation of any natural phenomena, without the medieval belief in angels, physics today might look very different. Even when belief in angels later dissipated, modern physicists continued to posit incorporeal intelligences to help explain the inexplicable. Malevolent angelic forces (ie, demons) have appeared in compelling thought experiments across the history of physics. These well-known ‘demons of physics’ served as useful placeholders, helping physicists find scientific explanations for only vaguely imagined solutions. You can still find them in textbooks today.

But that’s not the most important legacy of medieval angelology. Angels also catalysed ferociously precise debates about the nature of place, bodies and motion, which would inspire something like a modern conceptual toolbox for physicists, honing concepts such as space and dimension. Angels, in short, underpin our understanding of the cosmos.

 Angels have been around at least since Biblical times, and are described in various, and sometimes odd, ways. In the Book of Ezekiel, for example, the Cherubim have intersecting wheels sparkling like topaz that move them in all four directions without turning, and their ‘entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels’. However, aside from these googly-eyed angels, angels were also, as we can see from Maimonides, a way of explaining movement in the world. They were spiritual substances that could take on the appearance of corporeal beings, but also acted as invisible, intelligent, immaterial forces.

This view of angels as immaterial ‘intelligences’ became pretty standard in medieval philosophy and theology. But the scholastic period saw an increasing desire to systematise, systematise, systematise. The precise nature or essence of angels became a serious cause for debate, and these debates were not mere thought experiments. Rather, because of the real belief in the existence of angels, theologians and philosophers could think through angels as a way of understanding the nature of the physical world and things like place, bodies and motion. This was motivated by significant theological concerns. One concern was that, if angels are immaterial intelligences, then what makes them different to God? For us, our bodies are what make us limited, able to exercise force only directly, such as when I throw a ball. Does this mean angels, having no body, could exist everywhere or act at a distance? This was dangerous territory for theologians, potentially challenging God’s omnipresence and omnipotence.

The view was that angels had to be located (ie, limited) but without a body. Angelic location was discussed by prominent theologians such as Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Peter John Olivi, Giles of Rome, Alexander of Hales, John Duns Scotus, St Bonaventure and many more. It was not a fringe topic, saved for pedants and scholars, but of serious importance in the debates that determined the limits and relations of physics, philosophy and theology. Angelology and its synthesis with the physics of its day would prime later thinkers to reflect on the nature of bodies, place and movement, but also, importantly, how they might relate to each other.

The key to understanding the angelic debates of the scholastic period is to understand what conceptual tools the physics of the day provided. For all intents and purposes, this physics was Aristotle. How the Greek philosopher conceived of place, motion and bodies profoundly shaped the medieval worldview. And some of the most prominent theologians of the day, such as Aquinas, used Aristotle to think about the nature of angelic location.

For Aristotle, physics was simply about things that move and, on his account, bodies don’t move because of gravity or kinetic energy or the warping of spacetime but because of their natures. The nature of fire, for example, is to move up, the nature of earth is to move down. That’s why fire licks the air and a rock falls.

 Similarly, there was no concept of absolute space, but rather a concept of ‘place’, which, unlike Newtonian absolute space or Albert Einstein’s spacetime, does not exist entirely independent of the bodies that inhabit it. As the philosopher Tiziana Suárez-Nani points out in Angels, Space and Place (2008), ‘space … as an undifferentiated and homogenous receptacle, was alien to the medieval mind.’ For Aristotle, bodies could not exist without place, which served as a kind of container. Likewise, there had to be bodies for there to be place. In other words, a vacuum is not possible in Aristotle’s view.

In turn, this Aristotelian notion of bodies and place influenced how medieval scholars understood movement. The view was that bodies have a nature that makes them move. This nature makes them move in a certain direction, so place too must be inherently directional. We now understand that direction within space is relative only to a starting reference point; the Universe as we know it has no absolute ‘up’ or ‘down’. But in the Aristotelian worldview, the outermost rim of the celestial spheres provided the absolute reference for ‘up’, with Earth as a stable point at the centre. So, the notion of place had the concepts of either ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘left’ or ‘right’ inbuilt to it. Place was not neutral, but directionally laden, exerting power on bodies because bodies respond to the call of place according to their natures. Fire can travel to an ‘up’ place but not a ‘down’ place etc.

 In sum, Aristotle’s physics linked bodies, place and movement, and each depended upon the other.

 So, what has that got to do with angels? If you recall, theological concerns at the time required angels to have a specific location – to be limited and bodiless – in order to avoid angels with limitless power, rendering them omnipotent as well as omnipresent. Since Aristotle’s physics was the reigning physics of the day, medieval scholars worked to explain these location problems within his framework.

Normally, the material body of something locates it, so how can immaterial angels be located? Aquinas and others solved this problem creatively, locating angels not by their physical dimensionality but by their operations. Aquinas proposed that an angel has a different type of location than a bodily being. An angel is in a place by virtue of applying its power to the physical objects in a given place. This limited both an angel’s operations and their location, locating them by their operations, rather than by a body.

But Aristotle’s physics caused quite a few concerns for some 13th-century church leaders. If a body cannot exist without place, this limits God’s power. If God wanted, some claimed, God could create a rock that did not exist in a place, but Aristotle’s view of place and bodies meant that this was not possible. So when the nature of angels became a kind of playground for thinking about the nature of the world, it was an especially fraught subject.

The question of angels came to a surprisingly acute head when the bishop of Paris Stephen Tempier published his Condemnations of 1277, a list of 219 theses that Catholics were prohibited to hold or teach in the university. This was part of a broader rejection of Aristotle and other ‘pagan’ philosophers. These theses covered various philosophical and theological positions, but an impressive 28 of the 219 had to do with angels also known as ‘separate substances’ or ‘intelligences’. Some of these had to do with the nature of angel location and operation. Importantly, the Condemnations of 1277 forbade believing that angels are located by their operations rather than by their substance, so Aquinas’ solution for angelic location was now off the table. If an angel exists in a place solely by its operations, as Aquinas claimed, then what happens when it’s not operating? Angels had to be rethought. What was their nature and essence such that they could be both immaterial and located? This constraint would require even more creative manoeuvring from scholars.

 The most notable manoeuvring would come from Duns Scotus. His angelology would redefine the concept of place that was so central to Aristotelian and medieval physics and, as Helen Lang notes in Aristotle’s Physics and its Medieval Varieties (1992), this would shift the contours of physics forever.

 


 

As we have seen, angels needed to be ‘located’ and operate in a limited capacity, otherwise they would be omnipresent and omnipotent like God. But the Condemnations of 1277 explicitly forbade Aquinas’ explanation: that angels are in a place according to their operations. The challenge for medieval thinkers was to find a way of locating an angel by its essence, without it being a bodily substance, and to locate their operations, but without those operations being the sole factor ‘locating’ the angels.

One innovation that Scotus brought to escape this double constraint is that he redefined ‘place’. He did this to solve the theological problem of God being able to create a rock outside of place, something theologians claimed God could do, but his solution applied equally to angelic location. In doing so, his creative rethinking of physics would lead to new concepts and reconceptualise old ones, shaping modern physics in a quite radical way.

Here’s what Scotus did: he made ‘place’ more mathematical, less tied to location and more similar to our notion of dimension. When thought about in terms of dimension, the ‘place’ occupied by an object stays the same as the object moves through locations. In this sense, its ‘place’, redefined as dimension, is the same, even though it changes location. In other words, Scotus, as aptly stated by Lang, ‘neutralises’ place radically. On the Aristotelian account, direction or location were part of the definition of ‘place’. When redefined more mathematically as a kind of dimension, direction is no longer a necessary feature of this new kind of ‘place’. You can have an idea much more like that of ‘space’, something that doesn’t inherently contain ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘left’ or ‘right’ in its definition.

 Technically, this meant that God could create a rock in no ‘place’, if place referred to Aristotle’s definition of place, which was a location within the outermost rim of the heavenly spheres. Whereas Aristotle had defined place as a necessary defining feature of physical bodies, Scotus did not. Instead, he created a hybrid account in which something can exist inside the outermost rim of the celestial sphere (occupying place in the Aristotelian sense), but it doesn’t have to; it could equally just occupy space by having dimension outside of that sphere.

 So here you have the creation of new concepts, a kind of precursor to dimension and space, and the rejigging of old ones, separating ‘place’ from a necessary relation to bodies. For Scotus, Aristotle’s place could exist, but it didn’t define bodies. If something did exist in Aristotelian ‘place’, it was by God’s will, and because of what Scotus calls a passive power, which simply means that it is able to exist in a place without it going against the object’s nature.

This new physics left the door open for angels. Scotus argues that angels too possess the passive power to exist in a place by God’s will, because in this new physics, place and body are no longer mutually defining. But unlike physical bodies, which must exist in a determined way in a determined place, angels, because they have no dimensions, can exist only in a determined place in an undetermined way. The image Lang uses, citing Scotus, is of a surface that must have colour, but whose colour can be anything. Angels can occupy a place however small or large, just not infinitely so, and they must operate in a place, though they themselves exist in the place indeterminately.

This radical rethinking of Aristotelian physics, catalysed by medieval debates in angelology, allowed a new understanding of the relationship between bodies, place and motion that helped reformulate our understanding of the very fabric of the cosmos. For Aristotle, motion was just inherent to bodies because bodies had natures that made them seek their natural place. To posit angels as immaterial external forces was indeed oddly closer to a classical physics that sees an invisible force like gravity working on bodies externally. In fact, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz accused Newton of having introduced occult forces with his theory of gravity, because gravity seemed to be a supernatural force acting on bodies at a distance.
 
 Thought experiments using angels and demons did not disappear in the modern period, but they did shape-shift. Occult beings, often referred to now as ‘demons’, continued to play a significant role in the development of physics. (Theologically, there is very little difference between demons and angels in terms of their metaphysical make-up. Demons are a subset of angels; they are fallen angels.)

In the 1800s, Pierre-Simon Laplace’s demon (which he himself calls merely an intelligence, a word often used to describe angelic substances in the medieval period) was a being endowed with supernatural abilities to know all of the forces in the Universe and the placement of every atom. This being, in addition, has infinite computational power, which it can apply to calculate the trajectory of each atom. Laplace believed this would yield infinite predictive power, and this superintelligence could therefore know the entire history of the world and the ultimate future of the Universe. Such determinism would later be called into question by quantum mechanics.

In a thought experiment to test the second law of thermodynamics in 1867, the Victorian physicist James Clerk Maxwell imagined a hypothetical being (an ‘agent’) with the supernatural ability to detect the location of the molecules. His contemporary William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) would label it a demon, and the name stuck. ‘Maxwell’s demon’, still called so today, revealed deep connections between information and entropy, evolving our empirical understanding of the world.

Finally, at the turn of the 19th century, the Filon-Pearson demon – proposed by Louis Filon and Karl Pearson – became a so-called ‘colleague of Maxwell’s demon’. It could travel at impossible speeds, teleport, and act at a distance.

 Reactions against such uses of supernatural explanation in physics, even as thought experiments, also helped physics evolve. Einstein, for example, will have read Pearson, and his antipathy towards using supernatural explanations meant that he defined his work in a negative relationship to occult forces. The astronomer Arthur Eddington claimed that Einstein banished the demon of gravitation. And Einstein himself claims to have banished the ‘ghosts’ of absolute time and space with his theory of relativity.
   
But could Einstein have achieved what he did without the precursory belief in angels? Theology certainly motivated a search for alternative accounts relating place, movement and bodies. But although the nature of angels as a topic of focus was the catalyst for discussions about the physics of place, enquiring individuals also thought through angels to understand the nature of the physical world and its relationship to the broader cosmos. And this yielded more complex notions of space, location and dimension, giving them new meaning. The role angels played in such thought experiments was unique: angels transcended the purely physical world but were still ‘creatures’ that abided by the rules and the logic governing the Universe.
 
 In fact, this mediatory role was part of the logic of positing angels in the first place. Angels do feature in the Bible, but Aquinas believed that a priori arguments could be made for angels precisely because the great chain of being couldn’t miss any links. Any gaps mean that human beings could not possibly make the jump to understanding God. We need some intermediary knowledge that would bridge knowledge of God and knowledge of the world. This is why angels, as early as Pseudo-Dionysius in the 5-6th century CE, were equated with language. Speech also mediates between the realm of ideas and the physical world. Otherwise, all the work of angels could simply be explained by God. However, angels, precisely because of their intermediary status, allowed human beings to think about dimensions of created reality that yet transcended our direct human perceptions. 



While it is easy enough to ridicule the suggestion that movement is the result of occult forces such as angels, we cannot, having ascended the ladder of knowledge, so easily kick that ladder out from under ourselves. Studies in embodied cognition are showing that our knowledge is built upon our experience of the world. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (1980) shows how our bodily experiences come together to create complex metaphors, grounding abstract concepts. We equate ‘up’ with ‘more’ when we say ‘the stock market rises’ because when we see, for example, rocks piled up, we learn to equate higher with more. We say we ‘grasp’ an idea because we have experienced reaching for a piece of fruit on a tree. In addition, we have a very hard time imagining a nonphysical thing. What we imagine, when we imagine a soul or an angel or a demon, is some kind of insubstantial, but still ghostly, object.

Although occult forces such as angels and demons may be ridiculed in modern culture as ‘hand-wavey’ explanations of quite logical, down-to-earth scientific phenomena, I would suggest the inverse. That what is most down-to-earth might in fact be to think about the invisible forces of nature as angels, agents, immaterial intelligences with certain properties familiar to us, but amplified. Properties like agency and intention. It is only in thinking through, and with, these more familiar concepts that we can then discover a less intuitive set of concepts, like spacetime, which require grounding in concepts like dimension, body, place and movement. These necessary grounding concepts were sharpened, historically, by thinking through the relationship between the material and immaterial world, and angelology played a significant role in their honing.

The use of supernatural intelligences such as angels and demons to think through physics stuck around long after the actual belief in the existence of these beings had dissipated. It seems that this imaginative framework resounds in the actual structure of how our thought operates. By virtue of this, angelology lay the groundwork for thinking through the nature of place, time and motion in quite complex ways. Did angels and demons carve a conceptual space for the invisible forces that physics would later come to discover? Though it may seem that the scientific and the demonic are at polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the natural world, angels and demons have actually shaped modern scientific explanation as we know it today.

Legacy of the Angels. By Rebekah Wallace. Aeon, March 18, 2025.






07/03/2025

The Lost Novels of Elaine Kraf

 





As Elaine Kraf's The Princess of 72nd Street is added to the Penguin Modern Classics roster, Kat Lister re-examines the author's legacy and talks to Kraf's daughter about putting together the pieces of the life of one of the most neglected and most radical novelists of the 1970s

Around thirty pages into Elaine Kraf’s 1979 novella, The Princess of 72nd Street, we encounter our narrator, Ellen, riding up and down in her apartment elevator, embracing anyone who enters it: “sweet people, the mean ones, old, young, the pushers, heroin addicts, cocaine snorters, drunks, married men.” In Ellen’s eyes, this ordinary lift has been transformed into a magical box “with blue lights gleaming from its roof and walls of flaming orange.” It is, on this particular evening, a conduit to another world, another way of being. Until, that is, she wakes up the next morning with bruises and memory gaps and a cue card pinned to her fridge that reads: DON’T LET STRANGE MEN INTO YOUR APARTMENT. “I wonder, “ she ponders her handwriting, “what I really meant.”

And so begins Kraf’s prismatic take on female agency and mental health – now declared to be “a lost classic for fans of Renata Adler and Elizabeth Hardwick”. As the American author Melissa Broder asks in her introduction to Penguin Classics’ latest edition of The Princess of 72nd Street: “Who is entitled to hold power over the inner world of another? What defines sanity?” While we’re posing these kinds of questions: what defines liberation? For Ellen, a mentally unstable artist living alone (and possibly with bipolar disorder – although it’s never disclosed) in New York, the answers are never clear-cut as she battles to live life on her own terms in a world that seeks to diminish it.

 


 

At the centre of this tug-of-war are her “radiances”: kaleidoscopic bursts of manic energy that transform her neighbourhood on the Upper West Side into a joyful kingdom she resides over as Princess Esmeralda. During one of these synesthetic highs, she sees drifts of blue circles and large orange flowers; during another, hissing waves that run over her toes, the floor turning to white sand. In the midst of all this colour and glow, Ellen gleefully topless dances to the beat of her own drum. And her subjects on 72nd street, “the people who elected me,” are all nonconformists, too: “men standing on corners half asleep with drugs, the proprietors of small grocery stores, the Argentinian pianist who sells records.” For Esmeralda at the centre of all this, her radiances – at least, at the time she is experiencing them – are her strength. But for those around her – mostly a revolving cast of deranged and inadequate men who tumble in and out of her bed – they are her shame, something to repress and control.

That this feminist classic was written with such visionary abandon, and that its author should then disappear from view, never to publish again, only adds to the cult mystique surrounding Kraf 45 years later. How did the author of four novels – I Am Clarence (1969), The House of Madelaine (1971), Find Him! (1977) and The Princess of 72nd Street (1979) – end up with only a 250-word Wikipedia page, and three of these novels now out of print?

“Even as her daughter, I’m still putting together the pieces of the puzzle,” Kraf’s only child, Milena Kraf Altman, admits on a video call from her home in New York. “For the longest time I just thought of her as ‘mom’ and I never got to fully understand her as a writer.” But when Kraf died in 2013, at the age of 77, Altman discovered a storage unit crammed full of her poems, diaries and stories. She has since been reading them, little by little, to understand her mother’s life in the 1970s better, using those words to fill in the gaps she left behind.

Kraf, Altman tells me, was born in the Bronx, in 1936, the daughter of a New York senator. An academically bright child, by the age of sixteen she had already graduated from high school, and, against her parents wishes, chose to go to art college. The willfulness she displayed in her teenage years would soon find its way onto the writing page with her simultaneous fragile-yet-strong-willed female characters. In other words: women on the periphery of what is considered ‘normal’. What does it mean to be deemed mentally unstable in a world that too-often appears mentally unstable itself? It’s a theme she would return to again and again, beginning with her first novel, I Am Clarence, a story that, like The Princess of 72nd Street, would deconstruct the relationship between a mentally ill woman and the patriarchal forces that meddle and interfere with her. In the case of her debut, a deteriorating mother struggles to love and care for her disabled child against a backdrop of cruel jibes, crass doctors, and self-seeking lovers. “When a novelist tells a good story well, it becomes a good novel,” a New York Times reviewer wrote upon the publication of I Am Clarence in 1969. “When a novelist uses words as if they were a sacred love, what he writes becomes poetry.”

Or should we now amend: what she wrote became poetry. And yet despite a decade of bold and beautiful writing: “she had a lot of issues getting noticed,” Altman says. When she was, she could sometimes be misunderstood. “Elaine Kraf’s Find Him! had me confused at times as to the significance of its collage-like bits and pieces, but left no doubt as to her gifts as a stylist,” one reviewer wrote of her third novel in 1977. The mixed feedback frustrated her, Altman tells me. As did her struggles to get published. In a letter she has since found in her mother’s storage unit, Kraf writes that things would have been easier if she’d been a man. “A lot of women back then were being encouraged to put their names as men in order to get published,” Altman expands. Although her first two novels were put out by the corporate might of Doubleday, her last two would be supported by the smaller indies Fiction Collective and New Directions. But when Kraf’s agent passed away shortly after The Princess of 72nd Street was published, things became harder to navigate as an avant-garde writer, and despite her keenness to keep writing, she wouldn’t be published again.

“There was a pile of unpublished novels”, Altman recalls of her childhood home in the 90s. “Next to that, a pile of rejection letters.” What’s more: “The rejection letters were very harsh – and usually written by men.” Hearing about Kraf’s determination to live a creatively autonomous life within the confines of a rigidly patriarchal framework, I am reminded of the fictional women she so vividly brought to life, full of desire and self-awareness and will. “Who are they to pass judgement anyhow?” a doubtful Ellen asks as her seventh radiance wilts and dissipates in The Princess of 72nd Street. “Aren’t these my streets?” On the one hand we have Ellen: a narrator that Kraf once described as “very critical and conservative.” On the other hand, Esmeralda: “who is free and doesn’t care what anyone thinks about her.” And yet: “They are both a part of the same person, often at odds with each other.” It’s a Janus-like creation, the one woman nestled inside the other like Russian dolls – and an innovative one. Now Kraf is being republished, it’s almost like we’re finally catching up with her pioneering mind, a few steps behind.

“She was so driven,” Altman pays tribute to that mind. “Not just in her writing, but in everything she did.” Her painting, for instance, which led her out into the city where “she would find drawers on the street and that would be her canvas.” Then in the 1980s, she became a principal of a special-education school, and so began another chapter in her life. “She instilled this notion in me that you reinvent yourself every few years. You don’t have to be set in one thing that you do.” Although she would always be a painter to Altman: “The evolution of who she was was never set.” Which is what makes her reappraisal in 2025 all the more apt. This summer, Penguin Modern Classics will republish I Am Clarence for the next generation of readers. But perhaps the most thrilling news is that there are potentially more stories yet to come. Altman’s favourite of her mother’s novels is yet to be published, she tells me. “There’s a lot more powerful work that I would love for the world to see.”


As for the ones that are already out there, the feeling, for Altman, is a joyful one. “I’m ecstatic by it, to see other people digest her work in whatever way they interpret it, it’s the conversation she [Kraf] always hoped for.” What’s more, as the world lurches further to the far-right, Kraf’s third eye on female liberation makes her writing as vital as ever. The one woman nestled inside the other – with her eyes looking up at the sun. For as Ellen puts it, the sun is the only entity that understands her. “It roars its comprehension of everything I am.”

 

Blue Lights Gleaming & Walls of Flaming Orange: The Lost Novels of Elaine Kraf. By Kat Lister. The Quietus, January 18, 2025.

All images of Kraf's work courtesy Milena Kraf Altman 
 
 
 
 
 


According to my feed, the book of the summer is a tie between Miranda July’s sexy midlife-crisis drama, All Fours; the new Sally Rooney galley; and a slim experimental novel published in 1979. Elaine Kraf’s The Princess of 72nd Street lyrically details the seventh “radiance” experienced by a young figure painter named Ellen who, during fits of seeming psychosis, believes herself to be the sovereign ruler of West 72nd between Broadway and Central Park. Ellen/Princess Esmerelda makes witty observations about creativity, femininity, and public life with a voice that feels startlingly modern: Of Eastside men flirting with her kingdom’s subjects, she says, “We don’t like to be bullied by slick strangers in Gucci jeans.”

Kraf died in 2013, but her fourth and final book lives on — recommended on Twitter by critic Lauren Oyler, snapped on Stories by Substack darling Rayne Fisher-Quann. 45 years since it was first published and two years since writer Hannah Williams dubbed it "a true underappreciated classic" in the New Yorker, The Princess of 72nd Strret gets a reissue from Random House, out August 6. It includes an introduction by Melissa Broder, author of Death Valley, Milk Fed, and the iconic millennial-malaise essay collection So Sad Today, born of her Twitter account that catalogs such bangers as “am i an independent woman or just scared of everyone and isolated.” A veritable expert on writing from the perspective of the afflicted woman, Broder tells NYLON why The Princess of 72nd Street should be in the pantheon of mental-illness fiction.

When did you first read The Princess of 72nd Street?

I get asked about blurbing things four or five times a week and probably only blurb four to six books a year. I have this reflexive electric fence up because I need to do my own reading. If I blurb something, I have to love it, and I have to read the whole book. Less often am I asked to write an introduction. As soon as I started [The Princess of 72nd Street], I was like, “Yes, this is a text I want to grapple with.”

What details hooked you? I could not stop thinking about the woman who only wants to paint still-lifes of plums and her husband who has banished plums from their life.

I had never read a manic episode described so beautifully. The book is asking very interesting questions about personal freedom and self-governance, and the line between mental health and spirituality. But as a work of literature on an imagistic level, she’s describing these orange flowers growing from her body and joy cracking out of her every pore, or petal, or cell. There’s self-awareness, but at the same time, you can get lost in the beatific imagery of the experience. I also love the humor and the innate competition that’s going on between men and women, and the particular competition that can come within an artist’s relationship – which is what the plum thing is about.

It’s a story about artists not making art.

Romantic obsession is the same creative energy that we can channel into art. I think that love is an act of creation, too. But it’s very easy, if you have an active imagination, to treat other human beings as a blank canvas and project whatever we want to see onto them. Or to turn that inwards.

Do you experience obsession as a creative block?

When an artist isn’t obsessing about their work, we have a tendency to obsess about ourselves. This book came to me when I had just come out of a period of triple grief. My father had died, I lost an ex to suicide, and then a friend to suicide. I wasn’t really writing that much. I had canceled my Death Valley book tour. I was really obsessing about my own mental health and a lot of my creative energy was going toward trying to fix it. One thing that I identified with in the Princess is, while she is not trying to control her manic visions — she loves her manic visions and her internal experience — she is trying to establish a protocol for how she can live in this state without ending up in the hospital again. She has all kinds of rules for herself and those rules become progressively more elaborate. One might say that some of that obsessing over rules could be put towards her art.

“This woman is shapeshifting. She doesn’t have a stable concept of self – which, like, who does?”

The word “mania” doesn’t actually appear in the book. Do you think of the Princess as “bipolar” or diagnose her with some other modern medical term?

Let's put it this way: She does have manic episodes. And when they end, or if she’s given Thorazine, she does fall into a depression. So we can call that what we may. She describes mania as “full of radiance and flooded with a feeling of small bells ringing and showers of light.” Depression she describes as a pit. There’s a comedown, and the comedown is extremely painful. That is very true to life.

Why does it feel so rare and remarkable among our wellspring of contemporary writing on mental illness to feel like the Princess is a trustworthy narrator?

There are some readers who might say, “How can we trust her?” She’s having visions. She's describing herself as a ballerina, a saint, a mother, a mystic, an ethereal spirit, an Earth goddess. This woman is shapeshifting. She doesn’t have a stable concept of self – which, like, who does? Let’s be real about that fact. What is reliable is that the Princess is committed to telling the truth as she sees it. She’s not hiding anything. We are with her. We are on her side. We are in her head. Even if her view might not be “consensual reality,” her honesty is to be trusted as to her own experience.

Her honesty is what all her boyfriends find so jarring about her within the text. What do you think about the way that Kraf wrote men?

The men don’t come out very well. We’ve got Auriel, the illusionist who she’s madly in love with who then fakes his suicide. We’ve got Peter, the painter who has an emotional allergy to plums because he fears his girlfriend’s success. We’ve got her ex-husband, Adolphe, who is also an egomaniacal artist who has numerous breakdowns when his work involving traffic lights is declared unoriginal. She’s under the thumb of her ex-boyfriend George, who, when she was with him, prohibited laughter and singing and sent her to quite possibly the worst man of all in the book: the psychiatrist, Dr. Clufftrain, who’s totally batshit. He sees patients 21 hours a day and has no boundaries. He’s constantly shaking. He prescribes her weird medicines that make her sick. It’s the blind leading the blind when it comes to the medical profession in this book.

Then there’s the last man…

I wouldn’t say the end is flawed, and I wouldn’t declare it as problematic, because I don't know if there is such a thing as an objective view of art from a subjective place. But I wasn’t keen on the end. Subjectively, I was disappointed. But she has to come back down to Earth. There are sacrifices.

“Romantic obsession is the same creative energy that we can channel into art. Love is an act of creation, too.”

While trying to sell two more novels after The Princess of 72nd Street, unsuccessfully, Kraf wrote to an editor that she “never particularly liked The Princess of 72nd Street as literature.” She described the book as a “farewell to a part of my life composed of dreams and fantasies.” Can you relate to the renouncing of one’s past work?

Many writers — and not just writers, but songwriters and visual artists — look back at their work and have doubts about it. I think it’s a very natural part of the process, especially if you’re in a different place in your life than you were when you wrote it. Once the work is in the world, it can feel like it has taken on a life of its own. Sometimes I’ll read things that I’ve written and I’m like, “I don’t even know who wrote this.” I have no recollection. I guess it’s just the shedding of selves. Artists are the lucky ones who have a record of the layers of self.

What in the book do you think will be particularly resonant for the 23-year-olds reading it this summer?

Self-awareness, reflecting on one’s own interiority in a public way, seems to be something that women are more able to exercise now. With the internet, we’re always reflecting on our interiority in a public way. The romantic obsession in the book, too, that’s eternal, but the Princess has a freedom to take on many lovers that I think is contemporary. I wouldn't say she's polyamorous, but she’s not monogamous. People are interested in non-monogamy.

People are also interested in portrayals of a bygone New York.

I haven’t lived in New York in ten years. The first time I lived in New York was for a summer in 1998, then I was there from 2003 to 2013. But whenever I’m back, one of the areas that feels a little less Chase Bank-ified are parts of the Upper West Side. I mean, it’s all Chase Bank-ified, but around 110th to 116th, Broadway and Riverside, still feels like it has that resonance. There are still diners!

Is it fair to call The Princess of 72nd Street a “cult classic”?

“Cult classic” is a high compliment. Who needs to appeal to everybody? To have written a cult classic, that’s pretty f*cking cool.

Melissa Broder On The Oddball 1979 Novel Having A Summer Renaissance. By Greta Rainbow.  Nylon, August 6, 2024.



  



When Elaine Kraf died, in 2013, no major publication—or any minor ones, as far as I can tell—ran an obituary. This is perhaps unsurprising; although she had worked as a painter and as the principal of a special-education school, she was probably most notable as a novelist, and she hadn’t published a book in more than thirty years. The Times had called her first novel  "I Am Clarence",  an “extraordinary achievement,” but it was long since out of print, as were two books that had followed it. But her fourth and final book "The Princess of 72nd Street" remains in print; it was reissued by the Dalkey Archive Press in 2000, and has enough of a following to make it seem at least slightly strange that an online search for Kraf returns little more than a six-line Wikipedia page, a couple short bios on publisher Web sites, and a handful of listings for the remaining copies of her works.

I first went looking for information about Kraf after asking, on Twitter, for recommendations for a very specific sort of book. I wanted to read formally experimental novels that were written by women in the nineteen-seventies and eighties and that had what I thought of as a certain New York sensibility. I was picturing un-ashed cigarettes on empty stoops, halogen reflections in scummy puddles, hot asphalt under rushing feet. The novelist and critic Lauren Oyler suggested “The Princess of 72nd Street”; it was the only suggestion that fit the bill. When I asked Oyler how she came to know of the book, I got a sense of the novel’s following: she’d heard about it from a critic, Kaitlin Phillips, who was put on to it by the novelist Joshua Cohen. Cohen had heard of Kraf not from a writer but from a performer, the late Joel Gold, who, Cohen explained, “paid his bills as a cameraman and fashion photographer, but dedicated his life to performing, not as a standup so much as an improvising monologist in the Professor Irwin Corey/Lord Buckley tradition.”

“The Princess of 72nd Street” tells the story of Ellen, a bipolar artist who lives in Manhattan and paints “tangerines, brown teapots, rolls and books.” Much of the novel concerns her “radiances,” or manic episodes, when she becomes Esmeralda, who dresses in clothing with “flowers, cascades of color, or abstract designs,” plus medallions: an Egyptian ankh and “crushed metal found in the garbage.” She is proud and mad and charming, a star in the firmament who is often taken for “a hooker, Sabra, American Indian, actress, ballerina, witch, holy saint, mother, girl, mystic, ethereal spirit, bitch, earth goddess.” The Upper West Side that Esmeralda rules is “not a country for Nordic blondes of impeccable taste” but for “film makers who talk film but never make one, some film makers who actually do, residents who do nothing or once did something, actors and actresses waiting on line, overly casual psychologists, and a few self-made mystics”—people who drink and sleep and smoke together in tiny apartments that line “sooty streets with outdoor tables put right down among the garbage bags,” where the sunlight glitters off the grime.

The book is a high and a comedown at once—a paroxysm of sex and booze and, above all, color. It’s that rare thing: a true underappreciated classic. So why did Kraf never publish another book?

Kraf was born in the Bronx, in 1936, to a pair of lifelong New Yorkers, Harry and Lena Kraf, née Rosenfeld. Her father was a member of the New York State Senate from 1956 to 1965, and of the State Assembly from ’67 to ’72. (He got an obituary in the Times.) Elaine was their only daughter. In her early forties, she married a credit-and-collections consultant and poet named Martin Altman, who told me that his ex-wife—they divorced in 2002—had rejected her parents’ hopes that she would settle down with a businessman or a congressman’s son. Instead, she went to art school. Her father, Altman said, “would not attend her art shows or publishing events. He saw no value in art or the life of the mind.” But, he added, Elaine “had a creative force in her that strove to break the bonds that held it back, whether in art, writing, fashion.”

Altman and Kraf adopted a daughter, Milena Kraf Altman, who told me that her mother “reinvented herself every couple of years.” Kraf worked in special-education schools and, in 1986, became a principal at Astoria Blue Feather. Throughout the seventies and eighties, she painted and wrote. Her visual art, like her writing, often had a fragmentary quality. She made mixed-media portraits with “different textures and fabrics,” Milena said. “She would be walking down the streets of New York, and she would see an old drawer, and she would pick it up and be, like, ‘O.K., this is gonna be my canvas.’ ”

Kraf’s novels vary in style but share a handful of themes. She was fascinated, in particular, by those who deviate from social norms (artists, lunatics, circus performers) and by the methods used to keep social norms in place (psychoanalysis, mental institutions, lobotomies). All of the books feature a beautiful, isolated female protagonist of delicate sanity who is surrounded by untrustworthy men. “I Am Clarence,” her début, employs a series of disparate viewpoints to explore the relationship between a mentally ill mother, her suitors, and her disabled son. Like the main character in “The Princess of 72nd Street,” the mother is disintegrating, unable to find respect or love, and perhaps unable to give it, too. Her son, Clarence, is mocked and pitied. She lets a group of doctors experiment with him and possibly give him a lobotomy and, in the end, he is taken away.

Her second novel, “ The House of Madelaine" is altogether stranger: to the extent that it has a plot at all, it is about a woman who shares her first name with the author and is unable to escape the inhabitants of a house which belongs to a friend. Eventually, she is accused of murdering her friend’s husband, and faces an absurd trial; the novel’s most obvious influence is “Alice in Wonderland.” It is profoundly disorienting, like a recurring dream, the details of which keep escaping you. Passages seem to connect before lurching out of reach, as if disappearing, with the book’s characters, down the house’s central hallway, lined with Formica tables.

Kraf’s first two books were published by Doubleday, but, unsurprisingly, after “The House of Madelaine,” she left corporate publishing for independent houses. The Fiction Collective, which was run by a group of experimental writer-editors—including Ronald Sukenick, Jonathan Baumbach, B. H. Friedman, and Peter Spielberg—put out her third book, “Find Him!” Its narrator is an unnamed, childlike woman, who one day awakes dressed as a schoolgirl, unable to eat, speak, or clean herself without aid. Her caregiver is a man named Oliver, who alternately presents as her father, lover, captor, abuser, and teacher. Oliver, we learn, had a wife, Edith, who has vanished; it is strongly suggested that Edith is our narrator before she had a lobotomy. The text weaves together dreams, fantasies, and nightmares, and is broken up by musical notations and drawings. An unsettling meditation on patriarchal violence and the construction of femininity, the novel feels indebted to both Tillie Olsen and  Anaïs Nin, two of Kraf’s favorite authors, and deserves to be rediscovered as a significant work of feminist literature.

But, if there is one author who seems to act as a forebear for Kraf, it is Jean Rhys, whose work Kraf considered in an essay that she published in 1985. Rhys’s women, Kraf argues, are essentially a single character, a deteriorating figure who is a “victim of her self-destructive nature and of her dependence, for survival, upon men.” Rhys’s men, Kraf writes, while distinct, are generally loathsome, feckless, and chauvinistic.

It’s Rhys who comes to mind when reading “The Princess of 72nd Street,” with its unspooling account of how it feels to come apart when you were never really whole. At the beginning of the book, Ellen/Esmeralda has at least a degree of control, or if nothing else the illusion of it: she “projects a special dignity” no one would want to “defile or tamper with,” she says. She’s wrong, of course—wrong, Kraf seems to suggest, because she is a woman, wrong because that means that somebody, somewhere, will always want to defile or tamper with her dignity. When Ellen enters a radiance, the prose becomes frenetic, whirligig; we do not merely observe Esmeralda but race alongside her, across a Manhattan filled with jazz clubs and street performers and bright yellow sunlight. After this centrifugal rush, the return to earth, during her depressive periods, is wrenching. By the end, we have seen her exploited and abused, and the ache and tear of the novel comes in our recognizing that this has happened before she does. Although the book is wryly funny—“Anyone who wears a brassiere on West 72nd Street is suspect,” Esmeralda says, in one of many memorable declarations—it is also devastating.

In order to interest New Directions in publishing “The Princess of 72nd Street,” Kraf sent “letter after letter” to New Directions, Altman told me—“sort of quirky letters,” he added. They worked. In the first few years after the book was released, she wrote two more novels, with the working titles “Joachim and the Angels” and “The Final Delusions of Cinderella Korn,” and she hoped that New Directions would publish them, too. She told Peter Glassgold, an editor there, in a letter, that she had “forced out” the first of these books “during a difficult period.” The publishing house passed on that one, and also on “Cinderella Korn,” though Altman recalls that New Directions asked Kraf to rewrite it “at least twice, which she tried to do.” He got the impression from Kraf that the publisher “wanted something more like ‘The Princess of 72nd Street.’ ” Milena remembers her mother being relatively sanguine about her rejections. “She understood, I guess, the reasoning why,” Milena said. “And she just kept at it. She had a bunch of novels that she would try to get out there, but no one was picking them up.”

In another letter to Glassgold, Kraf wrote that she “never particularly liked ‘The Princess of 72nd Street’ as literature. In that,” she went on, “I guess our tastes are very different.” She was in her mid-forties, and had recently had a miscarriage and an accompanying intestinal virus; she was still recuperating. She described “The Princess of 72nd Street” as a “farewell to a part of my life composed of dreams and fantasies,” adding, “I was young for a long long time and now I am not young any longer.” She received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, which gave her a year to work on “Cinderella Korn.” She later said that the book came from “the good, creative part” of her.

Milena said that her mother, near the end of her life, was working on a play about a woman who has, perhaps, seen her younger self in Central Park. She was “very determined to finish it,” Milena said. But, in 2011, Kraf was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s. She died two years later. Kraf’s unfinished manuscripts, alongside starts and scraps of unrealized novels, sit in a storage space in Manhattan, which is “filled with so much of her artwork and her writings,” Milena told me. She has not yet been able to properly go through it all. ♦

Elaine Kraf wrote a cult classic. Then she was forgotten. By Hannah Williams. The New Yorker, July 28, 2022.