Every text this week has been trying to answer some version of the same question: what, exactly, does a ruined building (or district, or city) owe the people still standing near it, and what do we owe to the ruin itself out of respect for people who aren’t here anymore? What work it’s actually doing, or refusing to do, for whoever has to live with it? The possible answers this week has given were not compatible with each other. Reconstruction or preservation? Preservation or narration? Erasing the memory or healing the scars?
I’ve stopped trying to resolve them into one position, because the disagreement between them is closer to the truth than any single one of them alone.
Herbert’s position is the most absolute, and the one I find myself agreeing with hardest, on instinct, before I’ve even finished thinking it through: “if we lose the ruins nothing will be left.” A besieged city with no reliable calendar left, no working government, no living memory it can still trust, has exactly one thing left to prove it existed at all, and that’s the broken stone. I said earlier this week that this is the position I hold about Milan, about the pieces they tore down, about the medieval streets that used to sit beside the Duomo, about the bombed patches near my grandmother’s old streets that are being cleared right now for new construction while I write this. I still hold it. A ruin, on these terms, isn’t a managed inheritance you conserve when convenient. It’s the last document, and losing it is not a cost added to a project. It’s the whole stakes of the project.
Cavafy complicated this before Herbert’s ink was even dry, by describing a ruin that requires no fallen stone whatsoever. “Waiting for the Barbarians” gives us a city whose buildings stay perfectly intact while the entire reason for them evaporates in a single evening: the external threat never existed after all, and then the vertigo of the line that follows. “Those people were some kind of solution.” Remove the threat, and nothing physically collapses but the city becomes, instantly and invisibly, a ruin in perfect repair.
I don’t think this contradicts Herbert so much as names a second, sneakier category he wasn’t describing: a ruin can be made of absence just as easily as rubble, a wall built to keep something out that turns out to have needed that exact wall to exist in the first place.
Michaels gives the week its sharpest conceptual tool, and also the one I trust least, which is probably why I included it in the first place: her split between History, the amoral Totenbuch kept by whoever’s running the camp, and Memory, the Memorbücher renewed by an act of communal will, is genuinely useful for calling out the difference between a heritage listing and an actual, living remembrance but it sadly clashes against my distrust against religious communities. I said when I wrote about her that I don’t fully agree with the distinction, and I still don’t; it’s too willing to let “history” off the hook as merely administrative, when the keeping of records has never been as neutral as that word implies, and a religious community, of all things, it’s the one that’s more likely to perform a corruption of memory for their own bigot gains. Still, the diagnostics she hands us is sound even if the theory underneath it wobbles: a plaque is not the same act as somebody returning, every year, to read the names on it. Architecture produces a great many extremely thorough plaques and calls it remembrance. In this light, this reflection is closer to the one we did on roads, right?
Yourcenar takes the same territory and turns the camera around, onto the person still standing inside the ruin while it happens to him: Hadrian, builder of half the monuments this week has implicitly been arguing about, describes his own ageing in exactly the vocabulary he’d use for a building: “dismantled rooms of a palace too vast for an impoverished owner to occupy in its entirety.” This is a man who spent his reign reassembling stone across an empire, watching his own faculties go the same way. None of this week’s other writers offer that vantage. Herbert, Cavafy, and Michaels are all describing ruins from outside, as evidence, argument, or record. Hadrian is the ruin, reporting from within it, with what Yourcenar lets him keep even here: conscience and clarity.
Sebald’s Austerlitz answers a completely different question, and it’s the only text this week willing to say that architecture itself can be the trauma, not just its container or its evidence. Austerlitz spends a career as an architectural historian, fluent down to the last construction detail on the fortresses, railway stations, and asylums of “the compulsive sense of order,” and cannot remember his own mother’s face. The expertise isn’t failing to remember: it’s succeeding, with total professional rigour, at a narrow, technical kind of remembering precisely so a much larger, much more dangerous kind never has to start. And there’s a second, harder point buried in the same book, about form and function: a prison built like a prison carries what happened inside it in its own bones, whether or not anyone ever writes it down.
Szymborska is the one who brings us home. “The End and the Beginning” doesn’t dispute Herbert’s claim that losing the ruins means losing everything; it just points out, with total flatness, that somebody has to sweep up, and that knowledge fades generation by generation whether or not anyone romanticises the process. Her closing image — someone lying in grass grown back over “causes and effects,” oblivious, chewing on a blade of grass — reads, against Herbert, like exactly the failure he warned about. Szymborska won’t let it sit that way. Some erasure is what healing actually requires, not a betrayal of it. Which leaves the only honest question the week produces, the one I don’t have an answer to: who gets to authorise the erasing, so that the healing can actually happen?
I don’t have a tidy way to close this, but I think it’s worth coming back to the concepts of identity that we touched upon when we talked about the road. Who decides whether a section of the city should be erased or preserved? The city, I think. Which is not a very popular opinion with architects. Szymborska says some of the city has to be allowed to grow over its ruins, on purpose, for anyone to go on living there. And Sebald says the building was never a neutral witness to begin with: it was built to do something to the people inside it, and it never really stopped. Think about that the next time you’re handed a heritage constraint and treat it as a line item to be worked around, or a plaque to be installed and considered finished.
Someone, somewhere, is going to have to decide which of this week’s six positions is true for that specific ground. I don’t think it’s the same answer twice.
No Comments