When Not to Tear Down a Persian Palace:
Preservation, pt. 1

April 28, 2006

The following is a passage from the 10th century Arabic historian Masudi. It appears in the course of recounting the history of the Persian Sassanian Empire (3rd-7th century AD).

It is related that Harûn al-Rashîd, after the arrest of the Barmakids, sent to Yahya ibn Khâlid ibn Barmak, who was under arrest, seeking counsel about the destruction of the great hall [of the ancient Persians]. Yahya sent back to him: "Don't do it!" Rashîd said to those present: "In his soul he is Zoroastrian, and he has sympathy for that religion. His prohibition stems from [his concern about] the tearing down of its remains." So Rashîd began to tear down the great hall. Then he saw that great wealth—how much not precisely known—would be required of him in tearing it down. So he ceased from tearing it down and wrote to Yahya letting him know his decision. Yahya answered him that he should spend whatever wealth was required to tear it down, and that he was desirous of that. Rashîd was astonished at the inconsistency between his talk on these two occasions, and he sent to him asking about that. Yahya said: "Yes, as for what I counseled at the beginning, I had a mind for the permanence of report for the nation of Islam and the distance of its fame, and that anyone who wandered to times past and came across other nations in time might see the likes of this great building and say: 'The nation that conquered the nation that built this, that stripped away its remnants, and that took over its kingship, certainly that nation is great and powerful and impervious.' But as for my second answer, you had reported that you had begun tearing it down, and then had lacked strength. So I had a mind to preclude lack of strength from the nation of Islam. So that the one I described who wandered to times past might not say: 'This nation is unable to tear down what the Persians built.'" When that response reached Rashîd, he said: "God damn it! So I have heard nothing that he has said except that it has proved correct." And Rashîd gave up trying to tear down the great hall. [My own translation from Arabic]

Preservation of the past.. especially of someone else's past.. is a distinctly modern concern. You can go a long way in ancient literature without running into concern about preservation. On its face it is a strange phenomenon, something like you taking care to preserve the family photo album of your neighbor two doors down that you hardly know. It starts making more sense once a broad humanistic narrative of the past is in place, giving value to every outcropping of human accomplishment. The crown of this humanistic concern is the UNESCO World Heritage Site program.

One of my concerns is to identify some ancient examples of preservation.. which I occasionally run into in my reading. The above quotation is such an example.

There are two interesting things about this passage. First of all the assumption on the part of Rashîd that any effort to preserve a great building from the last empire (the Persians) must stem from an inner identification with that empire and its state religion (Zoroastrianism). The surprise of the story comes when a further reason for preservation is proffered: the preservation of ruins which point to one's own greatness. Yahya at first reasons that anything which preserves the greatness of the past empire necessarily points up the exceeding greatness of the conquering empire. So let those ruins stand! And they become badges of honor.

I need hardly point out that there is no reference to preserving a great human accomplishment.. or art of surpassing beauty. There is no talk of a museum for the fragments of Persian art. When preservation takes place in the ancient world, it is on grounds that we hardly expect..