THE CRESCENT.
(Vol. viii., p. 196.)
Your correspondent W. Robson, in asking to have pointed out "the period at which the crescent became the standard of Mahometanism," appears to assume, what is more than doubtful, that it has been, and still is so. For although "modern poets and even historians have named it as the antagonistic standard to the cross," the crescent cannot be considered as "the standard" of Mahometanism—emphatically, much less exclusively—except in a poetical and figurative sense. That it is one among several standards, I admit; it is used by the Turks as an ornament, and probably as a symbol, of their dominion, or in connexion with their religion. This may have originated in the following fact:—Mahomet, at the introduction of his religion, said to his followers, who were ignorant of astronomy, "When you see the new moon, begin the fast; when you see the moon, celebrate the Bairam." And at this day, although the precise time of the lunar changes may be ascertained from their ephemerides, yet they never begin either the Ramazan, or the Bairam, till some have testified that they have seen the new moon. (Cantemir's History of the Othman Empire, pref. pp. iv, v.) But the ancient Israelites had precisely the same custom in commencing their "new moons and appointed feasts." (See Calmet, art. "Month.") That which may properly be called the standard of the Turks, is the Sanjak Cherif, or Standard of the Prophet. It is of green silk[[5]], preserved in the treasury with the utmost care, and never brought out of the seraglio but to be carried to the army. This banner is supposed by the Turks to ensure victory, and is the sacred signal to which they rally. (De Tott's Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 2, 3.)
The military ensigns which the grand seignior bestows on the governors of provinces and other great men, include the following: 1. The sanjak, or standard, only distinguished from that of Mahomet by the colour, one being red and the other green. 2. The tug, or standard consisting of one, two, or three horse-tails, according to the dignity of the office borne by him who receives it. Pachas of the highest rank are distinguished by three tails, and the title beglerbeg, or prince of princes. Those next in rank are the pachas of two tails, and the beys are honoured but with one. These tails are not worn by the pachas, but fastened at the end of a lance, having a gilt handle, and carried before the pacha, or fixed at the side of his tent. 3. The alem is a large broad standard, which instead of a spear-head has a silver plate in the middle, bored in the shape of a crescent or half-moon. (Cantemir, Hist. Oth. Emp., p. 10.)
The sultan's barge, with canopy of purple silk, supported throne-like by four gilt pillars, is adorned with three gilt candlesticks; and only the capudan pacha, when going to sea, is allowed to have similar ornaments, as he is then considered as deriyá padishahi, emperor of the sea. Even the vizier is only permitted to display a canopy of green silk on ivory pillars, but without candlesticks. (Ib., p. 424.)
Thus it appears that the crescent holds but a subordinate position among the ensigns at present in use among the Turks. As to its history, I have found no trace of it in connexion with that of the Crusades. Tasso, in La Gerusalemme Liberata, mentions "the spread standards" of the soldan's army "waving to the wind" ("Sparse al vento ondeggiando ir le bandiere," canto xx. st. 28.), but he makes no allusion to the crescent. I have not access to Michaud's Histoire des Croisades, and shall be glad if your correspondent will quote the passage to which he has referred. Does Michaud speak of it as existing at that time? This does not clearly appear from the reference. There were several sultans named Mahomet who reigned in or near the age of the Crusades, two of the Seljak dynasty; the first the conqueror of Bagdad, the second cotemporary with Baldwin III., king of Jerusalem. In the Carizmian dynasty, Mahomet I. was cotemporary with Godfrey, Baldwin I., and Baldwin II.; and Mahomet II. commenced his reign about A.D. 1206. But the conqueror of Constantinople, Mahomet II., was of the Othman dynasty, and lived some centuries later, the fall of that city having taken place A.D. 1453. To which of these eras does Michaud ascribe the use of the crescent for the first time?
After all, perhaps, the Turkish crescent, like the modern crown of Western Europe, may be but a variation of the horn, the ancient symbol of authority, so often alluded to in the Old Testament. The two cusps or horns of the crescent, and the circle of diverging rays in the diadem, suggest that the variation is simply one of number; and the derivation is strongly corroborated by etymology. The Hebrew word קרן (keren) is connected with, and possibly the original source of, our two words horn and crown. Its dual (karnaim) signifies horns or rays, as in Habak. iii. 4.
A fact mentioned by D'Herbelot may have some connexion with the Turkish crescent. When the celebrated warrior, Tamugin, whose conquests preceded those of the Othman dynasty, assumed in a general assembly of the Moguls and Tartars the title of Ghenghis Khan, or king of kings, "Il y ordonna qu'une cornette blanche seroit dorénavant l'étendart général de ses troupes" (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 379.). Thus did the Mogul conqueror (to use the words of the Psalmist) "lift up the horn on high." (Psalm lxxv. 5.) About half a century after the death of Ghengis Khan, Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, conferred on Othman, who afterwards founded the Turkish empire, the tabl alem—the drum, standards, and other ornaments of a general. (Cantemir, Hist. Oth. Emp., p. 10.) The explanation of the alem by the historian in his annotations, I have already quoted. This is the only allusion to the crescent as an ensign that I have met with in Cantemir.
The painters of Christendom (no high authorities in this matter) often represent the crescent as a part of Turkish costume, worn in front of the turban. But in the portraits of the Turkish emperors, "taken from originals in the grand seignior's palace," there appears no such ornament. (See the plates in Cantemir's History.) Many of them are represented as wearing the sorgus, a crest of feathers adorned with precious stones. Like the horn, it is an emblem of authority. Many of them have two fastened to the turban.
Your correspondent states that "the crescent is common upon the reverses of coins of the Eastern empire long before the Turkish conquest." I think this highly probable, but would be glad to see the authorities for the fact. I cannot admit, however, that the crescent was in any degree "peculiar to Sclave nations" for, first, the Sclave nations reached no farther south than Moravia, Bohemia, and their vicinity, they did not occupy the seat of the Eastern empire, which was partly Greek and partly Roman. Secondly, though I have no work on numismatics to consult, I have casually met with instances in which the heavenly bodies are represented on Persian, Phœnician, and Roman coins. As instances, in Calmet's Dictionary, art. "Moloch," is represented a Persian coin with the figures of a star and crescent; in the Pictorial Bible, 2 Chron. xv. 16., a Phœnician coin bearing a crescent; and in Matt. xx. 1., on a Roman coin of Augustus, there is the figure of a star. The Turks, however, stamp nothing on their coins but the emperor's name and the date of coinage.
Again, in European heraldry, Frank, German, Gothic, and not Sclave, the crescent appears; in "common charges," for example, as one of the emblems of power, glory, &c. and among "differences," to distinguish a second son.
Should the above facts tend to throw any light on the subject of your correspondent's inquiry, I shall be gratified; and if any of my views can be shown to be erroneous, it will afford me equal pleasure to correct them.
J. W. Thomas.
Dewsbury.
Footnote 5:[(return)]
So says De Tott; Cantemir says it is red. But this discrepancy in the authorities is easily accounted for, since the Sanjak Cherif is so sacred that it must be looked upon by none but the Muslimans, the true believers. If seen by the eyes of giaours (unbelievers), it would be profaned. (De Tott, Memoirs, p. 3.)